Low-level visual attention and its relation to joint attention in autism spectrum disorder

Visual attention is integral to social interaction and is a critical building block for development in other domains (e.g., language). Furthermore, atypical attention (especially joint attention) is one of the earliest markers of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The current study assesses low-level visual attention and its relation to social attentional processing in youth with ASD and typically developing (TD) youth, aged 7 to 18 years. The findings indicate difficulty overriding incorrect attentional cues in ASD, particularly with non-social (arrow) cues relative to social (face) cues. The findings also show reduced competition in ASD from cues that remain on-screen. Furthermore, social attention, autism severity, and age were all predictors of competing cue processing. The results suggest that individuals with ASD may be biased towards speeded rather than accurate responding, and further, that reduced engagement with visual information may impede responses to visual attentional cues. Once attention is engaged, individuals with ASD appear to interpret directional cues as meaningful. These findings from a controlled, experimental paradigm were mirrored in results from an ecologically valid measure of social attention. Attentional difficulties may be exacerbated during the complex and dynamic experience of actual social interaction. Implications for intervention are discussed.     

MENTAL CAUSATION FROM THE TOP-DOWN

Dual-attribute theories are alleged to face a problem with mental causation which commits them to either epiphenomenalism or overdetermination – neither of which is attractive. The problem, however, is predicated on assumptions about psychophysical relations that dual-attribute theorists are not obliged to accept. I explore one way they can solve the problem by rejecting those assumptions.     

The logic of how-questions

Philosophers and scientists are concerned with the why and the how of things. Questions like the following are so much grist for the philosopher’s and scientist’s mill: How can we be free and yet live in a deterministic universe?, How do neural processes give rise to conscious experience?, Why does conscious experience accompany certain physiological events at all?, How is a three-dimensional perception of depth generated by a pair of two-dimensional retinal images?. Since Belnap and Steel’s pioneering work on the logic of questions, Van Fraassen has managed to apply their approach in constructing an account of the logic of why-questions. Comparatively little, by contrast, has been written on the logic of how-questions despite the apparent centrality of questions such as How is it possible for us to be both free and determined? to philosophical enterprise.¹ In what follows I develop a logic for how-questions of various sorts including how-questions of cognitive resolution, how-questions of manner, how-questions of method, of means, and of mechanism.     

Visuospatial processing in adolescents with critical congenital heart disease: Organization,integration, and implications for academic achievement

Among the most significant factors affecting quality of life in individuals with critical congenital heart disease (CCHD) are neurodevelopmental challenges, including deficits in visuospatial processing and academic achievement. Few studies have compared outcomes across CCHD subgroups, despite their significant differences in anatomy/physiology and medical/surgical courses. This study compared visuospatial processing abilities using the Developmental Scoring System for the Rey–Osterrieth Complex Figure (DSS-ROCF) across groups of adolescents with CCHD (d-transposition of the great arteries [TGA, n = 139], Tetralogy of Fallot [TOF, n = 68], single-ventricle cardiac anatomy requiring the Fontan operation [SVF, n = 145]) and a group of healthy controls (CTR, n = 111), and examined the validity of visuospatial processing in predicting concurrent academic outcomes. The CCHD subgroups were found to differ in Organization, ps < .001, Structural Accuracy, ps < .001, and Incidental Elements Accuracy scores, ps ≤ .008; the post hoc analyses show that the SVF group tended to underperform compared to the other CCHD groups. With respect to academic skills, all CCHD groups scored lower than the CTR group, ps ≤ .007; however, the CCHD groups were not different from each other, ps > .23. The regression results showed that the DSS-ROCF Style rating (reflecting integration) accounted for a small yet statistically significant portion of unique variance in “assembled” academic outcomes, over and above the variance already accounted for by DSS-ROCF Organization, p < .01. These findings support the need for comprehensive neuropsychological assessment and monitoring of children and adolescents with CCHD, as well as targeted intervention for organization and integration deficits that may increase their risk for academic underachievement.