Autism: Infant Neural Sensitivity to Dynamic Eye Gaze

[Firestormm]

Infant Neural Sensitivity to Dynamic Eye Gaze Is Associated with Later Emerging Autism

26 January 2012: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2811%2901469-2

    Highlights
    Family risk for autism confers subtle differences in brain function in infants
    Atypical ERPs in infants when viewing eye gaze data associates with later autism diagnosis
    Robust prediction of autism will require an understanding of risk and protective factors

Summary

Autism spectrum disorders (henceforth autism) are diagnosed in around 1% of the population [1]. Familial liability confers risk for a broad spectrum of difficulties including the broader autism phenotype (BAP) [2,3].

There are currently no reliable predictors of autism in infancy, but characteristic behaviors emerge during the second year, enabling diagnosis after this age [4,5]. Because indicators of brain functioning may be sensitive predictors, and atypical eye contact is characteristic of the syndrome [6,7,8,9] and the BAP [10,11], we examined whether neural sensitivity to eye gaze during infancy is associated with later autism outcomes [12,13].

We undertook a prospective longitudinal study of infants with and without familial risk for autism. At 6–10 months, we recorded infants' event-related potentials (ERPs) in response to viewing faces with eye gaze directed toward versus away from the infant [14].

Longitudinal analyses showed that characteristics of ERP components evoked in response to dynamic eye gaze shifts during infancy were associated with autism diagnosed at 36 months.

ERP responses to eye gaze may help characterize developmental processes that lead to later emerging autism. Findings also elucidate the mechanisms driving the development of the social brain in infancy.

Leftbrainrightbrain on the research: http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2012/01/infant-neural-sensitivity-to-dynamic-eye-gaze-is-associated-with-later-emerging-autism/

Leftbrainrightbrain on: Does MMR vaccine travel in time?: http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2012/01/does-mmr-vaccine-travel-in-time/

[Superjump]

There's plenty of condescending language in that article. The accusations of fraud against Wakefield have recently become tenuous and if they hold, I believe they stand to bring down 11 or 12 other highly respected researchers and not just him which is unlikely to happen.

Apparently it's a 'terminator skynet' conspiracy if MMR caused Autism. It's that kind of devotion to corporate propaganda that scares me the most. Human beings en masse are a currency in a financial war between powerful people and organisations. I'd love someone to convince me why the concept is so incredulous when such things have happened before - the only difference with MMR being that its reach is so vast that it would end a lot of powerful people and organizations permanently.

If the research is good, it does demand tighter arguments from those trying to prove the link, that age on its own is not compelling enough, I do wonder exactly how many resources those making the case for the link have? The resource of a researcher who is prepared to lose their job, tenure or whatever else comes with inconvenient Science is the most finite resource of all.

The day where we can simply produce a 'peer-reviewed' paper with paternal language to make arguments in a world of vested interests has long passed.

[Firestormm]

I don't know how accurate this is by way of predicting autism in children so young (I haven't got access to the full paper either), but it does sound very interesting for a first study.

If the results can be replicated then I would imagine this might prove useful in the absence of anything else. But yes it is new research and therefore rather early to be drawing any conclusions - though I don't think the article does.

In relation to the Wakefield/MMR article, yes I would say that using this new research as proof (even emerging) against MMR and/or other vaccines that children do not receive until later in life - is rather early too.

Still, Wakefield/MMR was a single piece of research and look what that led to - but I hope they'd learned that lesson. I have found this website pretty good in general - so I hope they don't 'crow' too much over what could be research that is never replicated: else pot and kettle?

[Superjump]

From: http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2012/01/does-mmr-vaccine-travel-in-time/

Although the evidence of fraud, failure to find epidemiological evidence to back-up Wakefield’s claims, and failure to find measles RNA that would have supported Wakefield’s work were enough to bury any scientific case for the MMR Vaccine-autism hypothesis, the fact that autism may now be diagnosed before the MMR vaccine lays a nice wreath on top.

Two 'failures to find' and an over-reaching conclusion. It's suggesting that if autism isn't the exclusive result of a vaccine, there cannot be a link.

I wonder if that zeal might better be applied to making sure children are safe instead of lauding a premature victory over Wakefield and his supporters.

If you ask me, that article is in poor taste.

It's entirely possible the Wakefield was just wrong from the very start, but the disproportionate ferocity of the attacks on him will no doubt have canonised him to his supporters in the same way that vaccinations have been canonised by those supporting them. I guess I just keep making the same point ultimately, that Science has not and cannot separate itself from politics.


edit: (I used veracity instead of ferocity)

[Firestormm]

BBC Article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16740758 and interview

[JustME]

I'm skeptical (as usual) and think this study really needs to be examined closely re design, bias, confounding variables... and the meaning of the data collected.  Then, it would need to be repeated a few times.  It would be great to be able to screen children at a very early age but this seems very preliminary to me.

[Firestormm]

Absolutely. I would like to see the full paper of course. But preliminary definitely - interesting/promising development though and one I would imagine (though I don't know under what circumstances) could be introduced into a clinical environment fairly easily.