+ People or Trains? Visual Preference for Social versus Non-
Social Information in Genetic Syndromes and Neurodevelopmental
Disorders Hayley Crawford, Joanna Moss, Natasha Elliot, Giles
Anderson, Chris Oliver & Joseph McCleery Slide 2 + Social
Information Processing Social development is critically dependent
on attending to social stimuli (Dawson et al., 1998) Differences in
attending to social stimuli in people with different social
profiles (Riby and Hancock, 2008; 2009) Slide 3 + Social
Information Processing Eye-tracking How long someone looks at
stimuli: information processing First thing someone looks at:
attentional priority Study 1: ASD Study 2: Fragile X, Cornelia de
Lange, Rubinstein-Taybi syndromes Slide 4 + Social Information
Processing in ASD People with ASD spend less time than TD
individuals viewing people and faces in static pictures of social
interactions (Kirchner et al., 2010; Riby & Hancock, 2008 &
2009) Autism spectrum disorder Social communication & social
interaction Restricted, repetitive patterns of behaviour, interests
or activities Slide 5 + Social Information Processing in ASD Direct
side-by-side comparison: Toddlers with ASD do not allocate as much
attention to social stimuli as TD toddlers (Pierce et al., 2011)
(Klin et al., 2009) Some studies show typical looking times, but No
preference at first fixation (Fletcher-Watson et al., 2009)
Increased time taken to fixate (Freeth et al., 2010) Static
side-by-side photographs Slide 6 + Study 1 Research Questions: Do
children with ASD spontaneously allocate less attention to
naturalistic dynamic social and non-social scenes? Does the
directedness of the stimuli affect visual preference? Two videos
were presented side-by-side for 8000ms One video was social, the
other was non-social The actor/object in both videos were either
directed towards, or moved past the participant Slide 7 + Example
videos Slide 8 + Participants ASD (n=16)SEN (n=16)P CA mean
(SD)13.33 (.62)13.06 (.90).323 Male : Female15 : 1 1.000 Verbal
ability mean standard score 71.94 (18.55)77.75 (15.17).340
Recruited and tested at local special educational needs secondary
school Slide 9 + Dwell Time Proportion No main effect of
participant: No difference in looking time to social or non-social
Main effect of direction: both groups look more at social directed
vs. social non-directed A priori t-tests: Participants with ASD
look less at social directed than participants with SEN (p =.037)
No difference in social non- directed Slide 10 + Time to Fixate No
main effect of participant: No difference time taken to fixate on
social or non-social Main effect of direction: both groups look
quicker to social directed vs. social non-directed A priori
t-tests: No difference in speed to fixate on social directed or
non- directed. Slide 11 + Study 1 Children with ASD look less at
social directed stimuli than children with SEN but fixate on the
stimuli at the same speed Research Questions: Do children with ASD
spontaneously allocate less attention to naturalistic dynamic
social and non-social scenes? No Does the directedness of the
stimuli affect this? Yes Slide 12 + Discussion Similarities in
attentional priority, differences in attentional maintenance
Supports previous literature (Pierce et al., 2011; Klin et al.,
2009) Extends previous literature More natural Only when social
information particularly salient (directed) Slide 13 + Study 2
Genetic syndromes associated with intellectual disability and
unique social profiles Fragile X Syndrome (FXS) 1:4,000 males
1:8,000 females Social withdrawal and anxiety Increased prevalence
of ASD Social interest Slide 14 + Study 2 Genetic syndromes
associated with intellectual disability and unique social profiles
Fragile X Syndrome (FXS) Cornelia de Lange Syndrome (CdLS) 1:4,000
males 1:8,000 females 1: 40,000 live births Social withdrawal and
anxiety Increased prevalence of ASD Social interest Slide 15 +
Study 2 Genetic syndromes associated with intellectual disability
and unique social profiles Fragile X Syndrome (FXS) Cornelia de
Lange Syndrome (CdLS) Rubinstein-Taybi Syndrome (RTS) 1:4,000 males
1:8,000 females 1: 40,000 live births1: 100,000-125,000 live births
Social withdrawal and anxiety Intact social skills relative to
ability Increased prevalence of ASD Increased prevalence of ASD
(repetitive behaviour) Social interest Slide 16 + Social
Information Processing in FXS, CdLS & RTS Limited literature
Fragile X Syndrome (FXS) No difference in looking to social
information (Williams et al., 2013) Reduced eye looking Slide 17 +
Social Information Processing in FXS, CdLS & RTS Limited
literature Fragile X Syndrome (FXS) Cornelia de Lange Syndrome
(CdLS) No difference in looking to social information (Williams et
al., 2013) Reduced eye lookingTypical eye looking Slide 18 + Social
Information Processing in FXS, CdLS & RTS Limited literature
Fragile X Syndrome (FXS) Cornelia de Lange Syndrome (CdLS)
Rubinstein-Taybi Syndrome (RTS) No difference in looking to social
information (Williams et al., 2013) Reduced eye lookingTypical eye
looking Slide 19 + Research Questions Research Questions: Do
children with FXS, RTS and CdLS spontaneously allocate similar
attention to naturalistic dynamic social and non-social scenes?
Does the directedness of the stimuli affect visual preference? Same
method as Study 1 Slide 20 + Participants FXS (n=15) CdLS (n=14)
RTS (n=19) p CA mean (SD)24.21 (8.61)18.21 (5.59)20.94 (11.94).303
Male : female15 : 06 : 85 : 14
