Autistic Empathy Toward Autistic Others
Autistic Empathy Toward Autistic Others
We conducted a three-way ANOVA based on the number of 'Yes' responses with group (ASD or TD) as a between-subjects factor and character type (autistic or non-autistic) and judgments (self or other) as within-subject factors (Figure 2, Table 2). The behavioral results revealed a significant interaction between group and character (F = 23.58, P < 0.05, MSe (mean squared error) = 265.02, Prep = 0.99,
= 0.46). Post hoc analyses showed that the ASD group gave Yes responses for autistic characters more than the TD group did ( F(1, 28) = 14.60, P < 0.05, MS e = 185.40, Prep = 0.99,
= 0.34), whereas the TD group gave Yes responses for non-autistic characters more than the ASD participants did ( F(1, 28) = 29.76, P < 0.05, MS e = 120.05, Prep = 0.99,
= 0.52).
(Enlarge Image)
Figure 2.
Behavioral results for self- and other judgments. The number of Yes responses is shown in ASD and TD groups. Because 48 trials were conducted under each condition, scores ranged between 0 and 48. Dark orange bars denote self-judgments for autistic characters; light orange bars denote other judgments for autistic characters; dark blue bars denote self-judgments for non-autistic characters; and light blue bars denote other judgments for non-autistic characters. Error bars indicate standard errors. *P < 0.05.
The ASD group showed no significant difference in the frequency of Yes responses for autistic characters vs. non-autistic characters (F = 0.12, P > 0.05, MSe = 364.17, Prep = 0.60,
= 0.01), whereas the TD group gave Yes responses more frequently for non-autistic characters than for autistic characters ( F(1, 14) = 66.58, P < 0.05, MS e = 165.87, Prep = 0.99,
= 0.83).
We conducted a three-way ANOVA based on reaction times with group (ASD or TD) as a between-subjects factor and character type (autistic or non-autistic) and judgments (self or other) as within-subject factors (Table 2). The main effect of group was not significant (F(1, 28) = 1.67, P > 0.05, MSe = 1 498 512.22, Prep = 0.81,
= 0.06). The three-way interaction ( F = 0.76, P > 0.05, MS e = 17 738.61, Prep = 0.73,
= 0.03), the two-way interaction between group and character ( F(1, 28) = 1.44, P > 0.05, MS e = 19 355.85, Prep = 0.80,
= 0.05) and the two-way interaction between group and judgment ( F(1, 28) = 0.15, P > 0.05, MS e = 21 739.98, Prep = 0.61,
= 0.01) were not significant. However, the interaction between character and judgment was significant ( F(1, 28) = 5.16, P < 0.05, MS e = 17 738.61, Prep = 0.94,
= 0.16). Post hoc analyses showed that self-judgments for autistic characters were faster than self-judgments for non-autistic characters ( F(1, 28) = 11.19, P < 0.05, MS e = 12 650.43, Prep = 0.98,
= 0.29), and the other judgments for autistic characters were faster than other judgments for non-autistic characters ( F(1, 28) = 26.44, P < 0.05, MS e = 24 444.03, Prep = 0.99,
= 0.49). Post hoc analyses also showed that self-judgments were faster than other judgments for both autistic ( F(1, 28) = 26.88, P < 0.05, MS e = 20 373.67, Prep = 0.99,
= 0.49) and non-autistic ( F(1, 28) = 71.38, P < 0.05, MS e = 19 104.91, Prep = 0.99,
= 0.72) characters.
We investigated the brain activation associated with the interaction between group and character (Table 3). Results were thresholded at P < 0.001 (uncorrected) for a spatial extent of at least 10 voxels. The inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), postcentral gyrus, paracentral lobule, precuneus, cuneus, lingual gyrus, cerebellum, fusiform and superior frontal gyrus and vmPFC were activated in both groups when the ASD group judged characters with and the TD group judged characters without autistic traits (Figure 3A and B). Post hoc tests were performed on the parameter estimates.
(Enlarge Image)
Figure 3.
(A) Brain activation in self- and other judgments. P < 0.001, uncorrected at the voxel level for a spatial extent of at least 10 voxels. vmPFC (4, 48, −8) activation based on the interaction between group and character. (B) The mean for parameter estimates at the cluster denoting vmPFC activation based on the interaction between group and character (autistic characters for the ASD group and non-autistic characters for the TD group). Dark orange bars denote judgments for autistic characters; light blue bars denote judgments for non-autistic characters. Error bars indicate standard errors. *P < 0.05. (C) Plots of correlations (r = 0.43, P < 0.05) between AQ scores and vmPFC activation during judgments for autistic characters in the interaction between group and character. Black circles indicate individuals with ASD (n = 15); white circles indicate TD individuals (n = 15).
In individuals with ASD as well as TD individuals, the vmPFC and other areas were activated during self-processing. However, this leaves the question of whether there are differences between individuals with ASD and TD individuals in terms of network connectivity in these brain areas. To address this, group differences in functional connectivity were assessed (Table 4). Results were thresholded at P < 0.001 (uncorrected) for a spatial extent of at least 10 voxels. Compared with TD participants, those with ASD showed greater functional connectivity between the vmPFC and anterior cingulate, the vmPFC and thalamus and the vmPFC and middle cingulate during autistic character judgments.
In contrast, compared with ASD participants, TD participants showed greater functional connectivity between the vmPFC and IFG, the vmPFC and precentral gyrus, the vmPFC and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the vmPFC and superior temporal gyrus (STG), the vmPFC and dorsomedial prefrontal cortex and the vmPFC and middle frontal gyrus during non-autistic character judgments.
Results
Behavioral Results
We conducted a three-way ANOVA based on the number of 'Yes' responses with group (ASD or TD) as a between-subjects factor and character type (autistic or non-autistic) and judgments (self or other) as within-subject factors (Figure 2, Table 2). The behavioral results revealed a significant interaction between group and character (F = 23.58, P < 0.05, MSe (mean squared error) = 265.02, Prep = 0.99,
= 0.46). Post hoc analyses showed that the ASD group gave Yes responses for autistic characters more than the TD group did ( F(1, 28) = 14.60, P < 0.05, MS e = 185.40, Prep = 0.99,
= 0.34), whereas the TD group gave Yes responses for non-autistic characters more than the ASD participants did ( F(1, 28) = 29.76, P < 0.05, MS e = 120.05, Prep = 0.99,
= 0.52).
(Enlarge Image)
Figure 2.
Behavioral results for self- and other judgments. The number of Yes responses is shown in ASD and TD groups. Because 48 trials were conducted under each condition, scores ranged between 0 and 48. Dark orange bars denote self-judgments for autistic characters; light orange bars denote other judgments for autistic characters; dark blue bars denote self-judgments for non-autistic characters; and light blue bars denote other judgments for non-autistic characters. Error bars indicate standard errors. *P < 0.05.
The ASD group showed no significant difference in the frequency of Yes responses for autistic characters vs. non-autistic characters (F = 0.12, P > 0.05, MSe = 364.17, Prep = 0.60,
= 0.01), whereas the TD group gave Yes responses more frequently for non-autistic characters than for autistic characters ( F(1, 14) = 66.58, P < 0.05, MS e = 165.87, Prep = 0.99,
= 0.83).
We conducted a three-way ANOVA based on reaction times with group (ASD or TD) as a between-subjects factor and character type (autistic or non-autistic) and judgments (self or other) as within-subject factors (Table 2). The main effect of group was not significant (F(1, 28) = 1.67, P > 0.05, MSe = 1 498 512.22, Prep = 0.81,
= 0.06). The three-way interaction ( F = 0.76, P > 0.05, MS e = 17 738.61, Prep = 0.73,
= 0.03), the two-way interaction between group and character ( F(1, 28) = 1.44, P > 0.05, MS e = 19 355.85, Prep = 0.80,
= 0.05) and the two-way interaction between group and judgment ( F(1, 28) = 0.15, P > 0.05, MS e = 21 739.98, Prep = 0.61,
= 0.01) were not significant. However, the interaction between character and judgment was significant ( F(1, 28) = 5.16, P < 0.05, MS e = 17 738.61, Prep = 0.94,
= 0.16). Post hoc analyses showed that self-judgments for autistic characters were faster than self-judgments for non-autistic characters ( F(1, 28) = 11.19, P < 0.05, MS e = 12 650.43, Prep = 0.98,
= 0.29), and the other judgments for autistic characters were faster than other judgments for non-autistic characters ( F(1, 28) = 26.44, P < 0.05, MS e = 24 444.03, Prep = 0.99,
= 0.49). Post hoc analyses also showed that self-judgments were faster than other judgments for both autistic ( F(1, 28) = 26.88, P < 0.05, MS e = 20 373.67, Prep = 0.99,
= 0.49) and non-autistic ( F(1, 28) = 71.38, P < 0.05, MS e = 19 104.91, Prep = 0.99,
= 0.72) characters.
Brain Activation Results
We investigated the brain activation associated with the interaction between group and character (Table 3). Results were thresholded at P < 0.001 (uncorrected) for a spatial extent of at least 10 voxels. The inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), postcentral gyrus, paracentral lobule, precuneus, cuneus, lingual gyrus, cerebellum, fusiform and superior frontal gyrus and vmPFC were activated in both groups when the ASD group judged characters with and the TD group judged characters without autistic traits (Figure 3A and B). Post hoc tests were performed on the parameter estimates.
(Enlarge Image)
Figure 3.
(A) Brain activation in self- and other judgments. P < 0.001, uncorrected at the voxel level for a spatial extent of at least 10 voxels. vmPFC (4, 48, −8) activation based on the interaction between group and character. (B) The mean for parameter estimates at the cluster denoting vmPFC activation based on the interaction between group and character (autistic characters for the ASD group and non-autistic characters for the TD group). Dark orange bars denote judgments for autistic characters; light blue bars denote judgments for non-autistic characters. Error bars indicate standard errors. *P < 0.05. (C) Plots of correlations (r = 0.43, P < 0.05) between AQ scores and vmPFC activation during judgments for autistic characters in the interaction between group and character. Black circles indicate individuals with ASD (n = 15); white circles indicate TD individuals (n = 15).
Functional Connectivity Results
In individuals with ASD as well as TD individuals, the vmPFC and other areas were activated during self-processing. However, this leaves the question of whether there are differences between individuals with ASD and TD individuals in terms of network connectivity in these brain areas. To address this, group differences in functional connectivity were assessed (Table 4). Results were thresholded at P < 0.001 (uncorrected) for a spatial extent of at least 10 voxels. Compared with TD participants, those with ASD showed greater functional connectivity between the vmPFC and anterior cingulate, the vmPFC and thalamus and the vmPFC and middle cingulate during autistic character judgments.
In contrast, compared with ASD participants, TD participants showed greater functional connectivity between the vmPFC and IFG, the vmPFC and precentral gyrus, the vmPFC and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the vmPFC and superior temporal gyrus (STG), the vmPFC and dorsomedial prefrontal cortex and the vmPFC and middle frontal gyrus during non-autistic character judgments.
