That looks familiar: attention allocation to familiar and unfamiliar faces in children with autism spectrum disorder.

INTRODUCTION: Existing eye-tracking literature has shown that both adults and children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) show fewer and slower fixations on faces. Despite this reduced saliency and processing of other faces, recognition of their own face is reported to be more "typical" in nature. This study uses eye-tracking to explore the typicality of gaze patterns when children with ASD attend their own faces compared to other familiar and unfamiliar faces. METHODS: Eye-tracking methodology was used to explore fixation duration and time taken to fixate on the Eye and Mouth regions of familiar, unfamiliar and Self Faces. Twenty-one children with ASD (9-16 years) were compared to typically developing matched groups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between children with ASD and typically matched groups for fixation patterns to the Eye and Mouth areas of all face types (familiar, unfamiliar and self). Correlational analyses showed that attention to the Eye area of unfamiliar and Self Faces was related to socio-communicative ability in children with ASD. CONCLUSIONS: Levels of socio-communicative ability in children with ASD were related to gaze patterns on unfamiliar and Self Faces, but not familiar faces. This lack of relationship between ability and attention to familiar faces may indicate that children across the autism spectrum are able to fixate these faces in a similar way. The implications for these findings are discussed.

Gaze aversion as a cognitive load management strategy in autism spectrum disorder and Williams syndrome.

BACKGROUND: During face-to-face questioning, typically developing children and adults use gaze aversion (GA), away from their questioner, when thinking. GA increases with question difficulty and improves the accuracy of responses. This is the first study to investigate whether individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD; associated with reduced sociability and atypical face gaze) and Williams syndrome (WS; associated with hypersociability and atypical face gaze) use GA to manage cognitive load during face-to-face interactions. METHODS: Two studies were conducted exploring the typicality of GA during face-to-face questioning in (a) ASD and (b) WS. RESULTS: In Study 1, children with ASD increased their GA as question difficulty increased. In addition, they used most GA when thinking about their responses to questions, mirroring evidence from typically developing children. An important atypicality for participants with ASD was a significantly higher level of GA when listening to interlocutors. In Study 2, participants with WS showed typical patterns of GA in relation to question difficulty and across different points of the interaction. CONCLUSIONS: Two different neuro-developmental disorders, both characterized by significant problems with executive control of attention and atypicalities of social interactions, exhibited generally typical patterns of GA. All groups used most GA while thinking about questions, and increased their GA as questions got harder. In addition, children with ASD showed elevated levels of GA while listening to questions, but not while thinking about or making their responses, suggesting that they sometimes fail to see the relevance of attending to visual cues rather than actively avoiding them. Results have important implications for how professionals interpret GA in these populations and for social skills training.

Face-to-face interference in typical and atypical development.

Visual communication cues facilitate interpersonal communication. It is important that we look at faces to retrieve and subsequently process such cues. It is also important that we sometimes look away from faces as they increase cognitive load that may interfere with online processing. Indeed, when typically developing individuals hold face gaze it interferes with task completion. In this novel study we quantify face interference for the first time in Williams syndrome (WS) and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). These disorders of development impact on cognition and social attention, but how do faces interfere with cognitive processing? Individuals developing typically as well as those with ASD (n = 19) and WS (n = 16) were recorded during a question and answer session that involved mathematics questions. In phase 1 gaze behaviour was not manipulated, but in phase 2 participants were required to maintain eye contact with the experimenter at all times. Looking at faces decreased task accuracy for individuals who were developing typically. Critically, the same pattern was seen in WS and ASD, whereby task performance decreased when participants were required to hold face gaze. The results show that looking at faces interferes with task performance in all groups. This finding requires the caveat that individuals with WS and ASD found it harder than individuals who were developing typically to maintain eye contact throughout the interaction. Individuals with ASD struggled to hold eye contact at all points of the interaction while those with WS found it especially difficult when thinking.

Stuck on you: face-to-face arousal and gaze aversion in Williams syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: . During face-to-face questioning typically developing children and adults use gaze aversion (GA), away from their questioner, when thinking. GA increases with question difficulty and improves the accuracy of responses. We investigate whether individuals with Williams syndrome (WS), associated with hypersociability and atypical face gaze, use GA to manage cognitive load and whether physiological arousal is associated with looking at faces. METHODS: Two studies were conducted by: (1) recording changes in the participants' skin conductance levels whilst manipulating task difficulty and gaze direction and (2) calculating the amount of GA away from the experimenters' face whilst answering questions of varying difficulty. RESULTS: In Study 1, WS was associated with general hypoarousal, and face arousal effects were found for both Williams syndrome and typically developing participants. In Study 2, participants with WS showed prolonged face gaze under high task demands; however, question difficulty did increase GA. CONCLUSIONS: Looking at faces is demanding, even for individuals with WS. Decreased physiological arousal may allow individuals with WS to hold face gaze for prolonged periods of time, but looking at faces does increase baseline arousal level. The results are discussed in terms of social skills training and teaching methods appropriate for WS.

Effect of gazing at the camera during a video link on recall.

The impact of looking into the camera during a presentation over a video link (resulting in the perception of mutual gaze) on information recall was investigated. In a face-to-face context mutual gaze has been shown to facilitate the encoding and subsequent recall of information [Fry, R., Smith, G.F., 1975. The effects of feedback and eye contact on performance of a digit-coding task. J. Soc. Psychol. 96, 145-146; Otteson, J.D., Otteson, C.R., 1980. Effect of teacher's gaze on children's story recall. Percept. Motor Skill. 50, 35-42; Sherwood, J.V., 1988. Facilitative effects of gaze upon learning. Percept. Motor Skill. 64 (3 Part 2), 1275-1278]. One explanation for these findings is that gaze acts as an arousal stimulus, which increases attentional focus and therefore enhances memory [Kelley, D.H., Gorham, J., 1988. Effects of immediacy on recall of information. Commun. Edu. 37(3), 198-207]. Two studies were conducted in order to test whether gazing at the camera during video-mediated presentations resulted in similar benefits as mutual gaze in a face-to-face context. In study 1 a confederate presented information about two fictitious soap products. In one condition, the confederate gazed at the camera for 30% of the presentation, therefore giving the participants the impression that he was gazing in their direction. In the other condition the confederate did not gaze at the camera. Participants viewed the sales presentations from both conditions. In the condition where gaze was directed at the camera, participants recalled significantly more information about the sales presentation. Study 2 employed the same pre-recorded sales presentations used in study 1, however they were delivered to the participants under audio-only conditions (therefore, the image was switched off). Results from study 2 indicated no recall differences between the two conditions. Findings from these studies would seem to indicate that the perception of gaze aversion over a video link (a consequence of the salesman not looking into the camera) has a negative impact on information recall. This has practical implications for video-mediated presentations. In a distance learning environment lecturers could be advised to look into the camera in order to promote more efficient learning in students.

Gaze aversion during social style interactions in autism spectrum disorder and Williams syndrome.

During face-to-face interactions typically developing individuals use gaze aversion (GA), away from their questioner, when thinking. GA is also used when individuals with autism (ASD) and Williams syndrome (WS) are thinking during question-answer interactions. We investigated GA strategies during face-to-face social style interactions with familiar and unfamiliar interlocutors. Participants with WS and ASD used overall typical amounts/patterns of GA with all participants looking away most while thinking and remembering (in contrast to listening and speaking). However there were a couple of specific disorder related differences: participants with WS looked away less when thinking and interacting with unfamiliar interlocutors; in typical development and WS familiarity was associated with reduced gaze aversion, however no such difference was evident in ASD. Results inform typical/atypical social and cognitive phenotypes. We conclude that gaze aversion serves some common functions in typical and atypical development in terms of managing the cognitive and social load of interactions. There are some specific idiosyncracies associated with managing familiarity in ASD and WS with elevated sociability with unfamiliar others in WS and a lack of differentiation to interlocutor familiarity in ASD. Regardless of the familiarity of the interlocutor, GA is associated with thinking for typically developing as well as atypically developing groups. Social skills training must take this into account.

Physiological reactivity to faces via live and video-mediated communication in typical and atypical development.

The human face is a powerful elicitor of emotion, which induces autonomic nervous system responses. In this study, we explored physiological arousal and reactivity to affective facial displays shown in person and through video-mediated communication. We compared measures of physiological arousal and reactivity in typically developing individuals and those with the developmental disorders Williams syndrome (WS) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Participants attended to facial displays of happy, sad, and neutral expressions via live and video-mediated communication. Skin conductance level (SCL) indicated that live faces, but not video-mediated faces, increased arousal, especially for typically developing individuals and those with WS. There was less increase of SCL, and physiological reactivity was comparable for live and video-mediated faces in ASD. In typical development and WS, physiological reactivity was greater for live than for video-mediated communication. Individuals with WS showed lower SCL than typically developing individuals, suggesting possible hypoarousal in this group, even though they showed an increase in arousal for faces. The results are discussed in terms of the use of video-mediated communication with typically and atypically developing individuals and atypicalities of physiological arousal across neurodevelopmental disorder groups.

The eyes or the mouth? Feature salience and unfamiliar face processing in Williams syndrome and autism.

Using traditional face perception paradigms the current study explores unfamiliar face processing in two neurodevelopmental disorders. Previous research indicates that autism and Williams syndrome (WS) are both associated with atypical face processing strategies. The current research involves these groups in an exploration of feature salience for processing the eye and mouth regions of unfamiliar faces. The tasks specifically probe unfamiliar face matching by using (a) upper or lower face features, (b) the Thatcher illusion, and (c) featural and configural face modifications to the eye and mouth regions. Across tasks, individuals with WS mirror the typical pattern of performance, with greater accuracy for matching faces using the upper than using the lower features, susceptibility to the Thatcher illusion, and greater detection of eye than mouth modifications. Participants with autism show a generalized performance decrement alongside atypicalities, deficits for utilizing the eye region, and configural face cues to match unfamiliar faces. The results are discussed in terms of feature salience, structural encoding, and the phenotypes typically associated with these neurodevelopmental disorders.

Atypical unfamiliar face processing in Williams syndrome: what can it tell us about typical familiarity effects?

INTRODUCTION: Familiar and unfamiliar face perception is typically dissociated by the relative use of internal and external face features. The Williams syndrome (WS) social phenotype emphasises hypersociability, with an interest in interacting with people irrespective of familiarity. The aim is to explore whether unfamiliar face processing is characterised by the typical dissociation between internal and external features in WS, or whether the social stimulus drive towards strangers is linked to atypicalities of unfamiliar face processing. METHOD: The procedure replicates that previously used with typically developing children. Participants with WS (aged 10-18 years) and typically developing comparison participants determine whether two face parts are from the same person or different people, using the whole face, internal, and external features. RESULTS: Only participants with WS, and not typically developing participants, show greater accuracy matching unfamiliar faces from internal than external features. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of atypical unfamiliar face processing in WS may inform models of typical face perception, revealing the origins of the relative advantage for internal features typically associated with familiar but not unfamiliar faces. The results also have implications for understanding more clearly the social phenotype associated with WS.

Exploring face perception in disorders of development: evidence from Williams syndrome and autism.

Individuals with Williams syndrome (WS) and autism are characterized by different social phenotypes but have been said to show similar atypicalities of face-processing style. Although the structural encoding of faces may be similarly atypical in these two developmental disorders, there are clear differences in overall face skills. The inclusion of both populations in the same study can address how the profile of face skills varies across disorders. The current paper explored the processing of identity, eye-gaze, lipreading, and expressions of emotion using the same participants across face domains. The tasks had previously been used to make claims of a modular structure to face perception in typical development. Participants with WS (N=15) and autism (N=20) could be dissociated from each other, and from individuals with general developmental delay, in the domains of eye-gaze and expression processing. Individuals with WS were stronger at these skills than individuals with autism. Even if the structural encoding of faces appears similarly atypical in these groups, the overall profile of face skills, as well as the underlying architecture of face perception, varies greatly. The research provides insights into typical and atypical models of face perception in WS and autism.