1. THE COST OF SHIFTING ATTENTION TO SOCIAL STIMULI
Did you blink?
THE COST OF SHIFTING ATTENTION TO SOCIAL STIMULI
Schea N. Fissel, MA, CCC-SLP
Midwestern University
Jennifer M. Roche, PhD
Kent State University
November 19, 2016

2. Author Introduction and Disclosure(s)
Schea N. Fissel, M.A., CCC-SLP, has no relevant non-financial relationships to disclose.
Participant recruitment was funded by a 2015 OSLHA Research Grant
Jennifer M. Roche, Ph.D. (Cognitive Psychologist), has no relevant financial or nonfinancial relationships to disclose.

3. Background
Persons diagnosed with ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder) present with core impairments in social-communication and behavior (DSM-V, 2013)
Development of social-communication and behavioral regulation skills requires flexible deployment of different levels of cognitive resources
Atypical development of the cognitive system in ASD is established
Pelphrey (2002) demonstrated different gaze patterns in adults with ASD; we don’t know if these gaze patterns were due to broad-level information processing deficits, or if these gaze patterns were because of the social nature of the stimulus
We currently do not know at what level(s) these cognitive breakdowns might occur
ASD may be a disorder of complex information processing (Minshew et al., 1997)
Development of social-communication and behavioral regulation skills contingent upon attention (i.e., information processing mechanism) shifting ability (REF)
Maturational delays and impairments in attention modulation have been reported in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD)

4. Background
Different theoretical positions have sought to account for breakdowns in the cognitive system related to developmental impairments in social- communication and behavior.
Social information processing?
Theory of Mind
Top-down information processing mechanisms?
Theory of EF
Local versus inter-regional processing?
Central Coherence
Bottom-up information processing mechanisms?
Theory of Complex Information Processing
ASD may be a disorder of complex information processing (Minshew et al., 1997)
Development of social-communication and behavioral regulation skills contingent upon attention (i.e., information processing mechanism) shifting ability (REF)
Maturational delays and impairments in attention modulation have been reported in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD)

5. Impairments in Complex Information Processing
Note: summarized child data from Table 3 (Williams, Minshew, & Goldstein, 2013)
Persons with ASD demonstrate impairments in the ability to disengage attention from one stimulus and shift attention to another stimulus (Minshew & Goldstein, 1998)
Williams, Minshew, & Goldstein (2013) provide compelling evidence in a modality shift experiment
While Williams, MInshew and Goldstein have preliminary evidence suggesting broad maturational delays in the attentional system, these authors have not yet clarified if persons with ASD present with a particular difficulty attention to just complex information, or complex information that is social in nature
Broad maturational delays in bottom-up information processing system (ASD had higher switch cost)
Hi tone
Low tone
Cross-modal: switching between visual and auditory stimuli
Ipsi-modal: switching between visual or auditory stimuli

6. Are motor responses the best indices of attention?
Modality Shift Paradigm: requires a motoric response (key press) to a sound or a light,
Reduces decision making, because the button is not linked to the stimulus
However, a post-perceptual decision must still be made -- muddying the measure of attention
Attention measured via reaction time: motoric response results in post- perceptual decision making - - may not be the best measure to reflect attentional processing in children

7. Blinking: A Measure of Attention
Reflexive eye blinking behaviors has been linked to attentional processing and shifting (Schultz, Klin, & Jones, 2011)
More stimulus salience recruits more attentional (visual) resources
Reflexive eye blinking requires no post-perceptual decision making
More blinking is typically associated with fewer attentional resources being allocated
Frequency & Timing

8. Purpose
Less research has been conducted to evaluate what in the perceptual signal deters the attentional processing mechanism
Research Question 1: Do children diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder incur a higher attentional switch cost for social stimuli?
Research Question 2: If an attentional shift cost occurs, can this be predicted by symptomatology, general cognitive skills, and/or attention shifting?
transition to jenny

9. Eyeblink Task: Ipsi-modal Shift Task
Experiment 1: TD Adults (n = 12; mean age: 21.2 yrs)
Attention: Ipsi-modal Shift Task
Experiment 2: Child - TD (n = 3) & ASD Children (n = 3; ages 4-7yrs)
Social: Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale – Second Edition
Verbal: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – Fourth Edition
Cognitive Flexibility: Dimensional Change Card Sort Task (Zelazo, 2006) - similar to Wisconsin Card Sorting Task
Eyelink 1000 Plus - Remote
adaptation from Williams et al., (2013) - (Multi)modality Shift Paradigm

10. Eyeblink Task: Ipsi-modal Shift Paradigm
Condition
Stimulus Type
Stimulus
Simple
red
green
Complex
Social
face
Non-social
sun
Mixed
Non-Social
Visual objects presented on the screen and remained in place until a fixation was made to the object (then it disappeared)

11. Eyeblink Task: Mixed Condition

12. Eyeblink Task: Shift types
Blinks per stimulus: attentional effort (more blinks = less attentional effort)
Simple to Simple
No shift
Complex to Simple, Simple to Complex
Social to Nonsocial,
Nonsocial to Social

13. Experimen (Pilot) 1: TD Adults
b = -0.02, se = .009, t = , p < .05
Largest switch cost (fewer blinks), simple to complex (green; p < .05)
Linear Mixed Effects Model: Blink Count ~ Shift Type + (1 + Shift Type| Participant) + (1 | Trial)

14. Experiment 2: (Child- ASD & TD)
Largest switch cost (yellow: Social - Nonsocial/blue: Nonsocial - Social, p < .05)
Smallest switch cost Simple - Complex (green - more blinks, p < .05) TD
TD: Smallest switch cost (purple: Simple to Simple, p < .05)
All others relatively similar
Linear Mixed Effects Model: Blink Count ~ Diagnosis * Shift Type + (1 + Diagnosis * Shift Type| Participant) + (1 | Trial)

15. What may have influenced the child’s ability to shift attention?
Response latency (DV): length of time it took to fixate on target stimulus (similar to Williams et al., 2013)
Diagnosis (IV): Typically developing or Autism Spectrum Disorder
Attention (IV): Blink count
Language (IV): PPVT
Cognitive flexibility (IV): DCCS (Zelazo, 2006)
Social competence (IV): Vineland-Socialization Domain
DCCS
Vineland -
Socialization Domain

16. Child Data - ASD & TD Effect b se t 2 (partial) Dx -1033.15 60.51
-17.07***
.13 (medium)
Blink Count
325.58
39.64
8.214***
.05 (small)
DCCS
232.02
93.69
2.48*
.005 (small)
PPVT
250.05
79.05
3.16*
.008 (small)
Vineland-Soc
69.51
-2.39*
Response latency increases
(1) for ASD children
(2) with increased blinking
(3) with poorer cognitive flexibility (increased perseverative errors)
(4) when socialization scores are lower
R2 = .49, p < .001
lm(ResponseLatency ~ Dx *(blink.cs + DCCS.cs + Vineland_Socialization), d)

17. Conclusions
TD Adults & Children: as the stimulus increases in complexity, the attentional system resources take a hit -- i.e., switch cost
Children with ASD: blink more, overall -- indicative of lack of attentional resources being used
Incur a higher switch cost when switching between social and non-social stimuli (relative to TD children)
But incur less of a switch cost for simple to complex stimuli
Response cost is predicted by the diagnostic group, blinks, cognitive flexibility, language, and adaptive social functioning

18. Conclusions, Implications, & Future Directions
It is more than just general information processing or social communication impairments
General information processing: would have seen equitable shift costs across stimulus types
Social-communication Impairment: would have seen no switch cost between social/non-social shifts
The attention system is engaging the social processing system, but possibly in an impaired manner
Note: these are preliminary findings, and the current paradigm is being refined

19. Thanks! Questions? Acknowledgements
Blair Casarotto and Zoe Kriegel for their help developing the DCCS task, Lindsay Murnion for data entry, and the Kent State University MADI lab RAs that helped collect data.
Blair Casarotto
UW - Madison
Zoe Kriegel
BGSU