期刊名称：Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
印刷版ISSN：0027-8424
电子版ISSN：1091-6490
出版年度：2022
卷号：119
期号：5
DOI：10.1073/pnas.2114648119
语种：English
出版社：The National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
摘要：Significance
A major challenge in studying intention reading is high motor variability. Analyses conducted across trials provide insights into what happens on average; however, they may obscure how individual observers read intention information in individual movements. We combined motion tracking, psychophysics, and computational analyses to examine intention reading in autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) with single-trial resolution. Results revealed that a sizeable fraction of ASD observers can identify intention-informative variations in ASD (but not in typically developing) movement kinematics, but they are nonetheless unable to extract the encoded intention information. This approach not only enhances our basic understanding of mind reading in ASD but also provides potential avenues for the rational design of training procedures to improve the reading of others’ actions.
Observers with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) find it difficult to read intentions from movements. However, the computational bases of these difficulties are unknown. Do these difficulties reflect an intention readout deficit, or are they more likely rooted in kinematic (dis-)similarities between typical and ASD kinematics? We combined motion tracking, psychophysics, and computational analyses to uncover single-trial intention readout computations in typically developing (TD) children (
n = 35) and children with ASD (
n = 35) who observed actions performed by TD children and children with ASD. Average intention discrimination performance was above chance for TD observers but not for ASD observers. However, single-trial analysis showed that both TD and ASD observers read single-trial variations in movement kinematics. TD readers were better able to identify intention-informative kinematic features during observation of TD actions; conversely, ASD readers were better able to identify intention-informative features during observation of ASD actions. Crucially, while TD observers were generally able to extract the intention information encoded in movement kinematics, those with autism were unable to do so. These results extend existing conceptions of mind reading in ASD by suggesting that intention reading difficulties reflect both an interaction failure, rooted in kinematic dissimilarity between TD and ASD kinematics (at the level of feature identification), and an individual readout deficit (at the level of information extraction), accompanied by an overall reduced sensitivity of intention readout to single-trial variations in movement kinematics.
