Gwyneth Doherty-Sneddon

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.

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.

Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) Attend Typically to Faces and Objects Presented within Their Picture Communication Systems.

BACKGROUNDnChildren with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) may require interventions for communication difficulties. One type of intervention is picture communication symbols which are proposed to improve comprehension of linguistic input for children with ASD. However, atypical attention to faces and objects is widely reported across the autism spectrum for several types of stimuli.nnnMETHODnIn this study we used eye-tracking methodology to explore fixation duration and time taken to fixate on the object and face areas within picture communication symbols. Twenty-one children with ASD were compared with typically developing matched groups.nnnRESULTSnChildren with ASD were shown to have similar fixation patterns on face and object areas compared with typically developing matched groups.nnnCONCLUSIONSnIt is proposed that children with ASD attend to the images in a manner that does not differentiate them from typically developing individuals. Therefore children with and without autism have the same opportunity to encode the available information. We discuss what this may imply for interventions using picture symbols.

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.

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.

Practitioner perspectives on rapport building during child investigative interviews

The inclusion of a rapport phase with children in investigative interviews is considered best practice as research shows that this can improve the quality of information provided. However, the phenomenon of ‘psychological rapport’, as demonstrated in a persons behaviour, is less understood. Specifically, how do practitioners build rapport with children in the rapport phase? The aim of this paper is to provide information on the methods used by practitioners for building rapport with children, with an explanation of how they may influence communication. Nineteen Scottish practitioners (police officers and social workers) were interviewed about their experiences and approach to rapport building with children in investigative interviews. These interviews were qualitatively analysed using a grounded theory approach and produced a model for the relationship between psychological rapport and childrens communication. According to this group of practitioners, rapport building acts as a ‘communication tool’ and is approached using three main strategies. These strategies involve using rapport to assess the child, adjust interview approach based on the assessment, and produce a change in the childs psychological state that facilitates communication. These findings have established practitioner understanding of rapport building and highlighted a number of areas that require further research.

How HANDy Are Baby Signs? A Commentary on a Systematic Review of the Impact of Gestural Communication on Typically Developing, Hearing Infants under the Age of 36 Months.

The ethos behind provision of early intervention programmes to infants and young children with additional support needs has been established for some time (e.g. Right-from-the-Start), but targeting the development of typically developing infants has been a relatively recent phenomenon. Baby sign is one of the many intervention techniques available, alongside programmes focused on movement, music, massage, multisensory experience, as well as reading specifically to infants and toddlers. Some of these alternatives, like baby sign, make claims regarding cognitive and socio-emotional advancements. However, much of this can be based on anecdote and opinion. This has happened in the case of baby sign.