Pattern of fixation explains atypical eye processing during observation of faces with direct or averted gaze in autism (results of the INFoR Cohort)

Olena V. Bogdanova; Volodymyr B. Bogdanov; Etienne Guillaud; Charles Laidi; Josselin Houenou; Richard Delorme; Myriam Ly‑Le Moal; Marion Leboyer; Manuel Bouvard; Jean‑René Cazalets; Anouck Amestoy

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0334878

Abstract

One of the most reliable early predictors of autism is atypical social attention, particularly attenuated eye gaze contact. As a part of the InFoR cohort, a multicentric French longitudinal study, 88 autistic participants and 56 participants without autism performed a gaze discrimination task using 28 static pictures of faces with either direct or averted gaze. We monitored eye fixation behavior during face picture observation and analyzed subsequent key-press responses. The eyes of faces with direct gaze attracted more fixations than those of faces with averted gaze. Autistic participants showed significantly reduced Eye Fixations Indexes (EFI; a parameter derived from the number of fixations on eyes of the image; it reflects participant’s strategy of face observation) and longer response times (RTs), strongly and negatively correlated with each other. A mediational analysis demonstrated that the influence of group on RTs was mainly driven by the EFI. The EFI was related to the number of anticipatory saccades obtained for basic oculomotor tasks. The RTs were related to scores of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Rating Scale (ADHD-RS), Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) and severity of autism as tested by the Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS-2), but not to the level of social anxiety. Altogether we demonstrate that the eye fixation index during face observation was associated with attentional control and influenced judgment response of participants, while the task performance is affected by a wider range of individual variables.

Citation: Bogdanova OV, Bogdanov VB, Guillaud E, Laidi C, Houenou J, Delorme R, et al. (2025) Pattern of fixation explains atypical eye processing during observation of faces with direct or averted gaze in autism (results of the INFoR Cohort). PLoS One 20(11): e0334878. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334878

Editor: Laura Morett, University of Missouri Columbia, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Received: June 6, 2024; Accepted: October 2, 2025; Published: November 17, 2025

Copyright: © 2025 Bogdanova et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The final dataset and accompanying code are available on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/vs2gu/.

Funding: This work was supported via collaboration with the Institut Roche, Fondation FondaMental and by the “Investissements d’Avenir” programs, ANR under references ANR-11-IDEX-004-02 (Labex BioPsy) and ANR-10-COHO-10-01. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: Myriam LY‑LE MOAL received salary support as full-time employee of the Institute Roche. The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Introduction

Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are neurodevelopmental lifelong conditions that affect a large number of people worldwide [1,2]. The core symptoms of ASD, as defined by DSM-5 [3], include restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and persistent deficits in social communication and interaction. Alterations in the perception of social information conveyed through another person’s eyes are considered one of the early behavioral signs observed in autism [4,5].

The eyes tend to be the primary focus of attention. This is because they provide rich social information, including emotional expressions and gaze direction, which are crucial for social interactions. The “eye region” typically draws the first and most fixations, especially the area around the eyes and eyebrows. Eye-tracking technology has been used extensively to study these fixation patterns. Such studies often reveal altered order and duration of fixations when participants look at faces under various conditions (e.g., when viewing faces with different expressions, lighting conditions, or familiarity) [6]. Individuals with ASD may show atypical patterns of eye fixation on faces [7], often spending less time looking at the eyes and more time focusing on other features, which can affect their social communication skills. However, studies using eye-tracking to explore face and gaze stimuli perception in autistic people have reported a variety of results [4,8,9]. Several researchers have attempted to generalize these findings, suggesting, among others, eye avoidance [5], aversion to direct gaze [10], a lack of preference for eyes [11], a lack of preference for direct gaze [12,13], and atypical patterns in face scanning strategies [7] in autistic people.

The origins and consequences of altered eye contact in autism are still unclear and the subject of debate. The observation of another person’s eyes evokes modified brain and physiological responses in autistic people [14,15]. Early excitatory/inhibitory imbalances in the brain [16], may impact the development of social orientation toward gaze from the early stages of life in autism [17]. Consequently, in autistic individuals, both cortical and subcortical circuits involved in face exploration may be impacted. In contrast to individuals with typical development who commonly employ a strategy of exploring unfamiliar faces by looking at both eyes, this pattern is not typically observed in autistic adults [7].

Several theoretical models attempt to explain the atypical gaze behavior in autism. Among others, the hypersensitivity model proposes that for individuals with autism, the need to focus on others’ eyes triggers heightened arousal, often resulting in discomfort and aversive reactions [15,18,19]. This is thought to be linked to overactivation of the amygdala, a brain region associated with emotional processing. Another theoretical concept, called the hyposensitivity model, suggests that autistic individuals may not prioritize social information, leading to reduced salience assigned to social stimuli [20]. The fast-track detector model [21] posits that subcortical regions like the superior colliculus play a key role in quickly orienting social attention via oculomotor mechanisms [22]. These subcortical processes are thought to underpin the typical saccadic patterns observed during face perception [7].

To explore several hypothetical factors associated with atypical eye contact in autism, the current paper analyzes data from the unique French large dataset obtained from the InFoR multicentric longitudinal cohort study. This dataset encompasses information from epidemiological, clinical, neuropsychological, biochemical, eye-tracking, and neuroimaging experiments [23–25]. In our experimental design, participants freely explored pictures of unfamiliar faces with averted or centered gazes and subsequently provided answers regarding the gaze direction of the presented face. To characterize the fixation pattern, reflecting automated, successive fixations on both eyes of a face, we introduced the Eye Fixation Index (EFI). This three level measure at the level of a trail captures whether a participant did not fixate on the eyes at all, fixated on only one eye, or successfully fixated on both eyes. Then the score is summed up across the trials. By using the EFI, we aimed to provide a more nuanced approach to assessing eye gaze behavior, enabling us to detect differences in social attention that might otherwise be overlooked with purely continuous measures. In our opinion, the EFI may have the potential as a biomarker, contributing to a better measurements of gaze behavior in autism. By capturing patterns of eye fixation, the EFI may offer a more specific profile of social attention, which could help clarify the mechanisms underlying reduced eye contact commonly observed in autism spectrum disorder.

We hypothesized that the strategy employed to explore the pictures would differ between conditions (averted vs direct gaze) and between groups of participants. We expected that the focus of visual attention on task-relevant elements of the image would be higher in typically developing (TD) participants and would define task performance. Subsequently, we investigated whether the participants’ key-press responses to gaze direction identification were influenced by the strategy used to examine the eye region of the displayed faces.

The attentional preference to the eye region and direct eye contact is observed from very early in life and is believed to be governed by an innate subcortical mechanism [14]. Previous results from this cohort [23] provided evidence for particularities in orienting, shifting, and disengaging visual attention among participants with ASD, which specifically impacted accuracy and rates of saccade errors. In these tasks, participants are instructed to maintain fixation on the central fixation point and, immediately after the appearance of the lateral target, make a saccade towards the target as quickly as possible. The increased number of anticipatory saccades, observed in the study of participants with ASD may be interpreted as a misbalance in attention engagement and disengagement [23]. Building on the same cohort, we explored whether there is a relationship between participants’ approach to exploring the face image and their ability to maintain attentional focus, as well as their levels of attentional and executive functioning assessed using the Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Rating Scale (ADHD-RS) and the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF). Finally, we also assessed whether participants’ behavior was influenced by the severity of autism and the social nature of the stimuli by examining the relationship between the task-derived variables and scores on the Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS-2) and the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale.

Materials and methods

Participants

All participants were part of a study named InFoR, sponsored by Inserm (the French National Institute for Health), in collaboration with the Roche Institute for Research and Translational Medicine. This study received approval from the local Ethics Committee, known as the ‘Comité de Protection des Personnes,’ on October 12th, 2012, and was authorized by the French authorities (AFSSAPS B80738-70). All study participants provided their informed written consent to participate, in accordance with French ethical guidelines. For minor participants, written informed consents were obtained from parents. Inclusion visits have been achieved between March 2013 and January 2015. The present study included 88 autistic participants (16 women) and 56 participants without autism (17 women), referred to as the ASD and TD groups in the following text. Detailed demographic data can be found in Table 1.

Download:

Table 1. Demographic and clinical characteristics of participants with typical development, TD group (n = 56) and autistic participants, ASD group (n = 88), mean±SD.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334878.t001

The inclusion and exclusion criteria for all participants were the same as previously published for a study of oculomotor functions [23]. Participants younger than 6 or older than 56 years old were not included. Autistic children, adolescents, and adults received their diagnosis through the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R) [26] and the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule 2 (ADOS 2) [27], which were administered and rated by trained clinicians. The diagnoses were based on the DSM-5 criteria for ASD [3]. All autistic participants were considered high-functioning, as they were included in the study when their total IQ score was above 70. IQ was assessed using the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-III or WAIS-IV) or Wechsler Child Intelligence Scale (WISC-IV) [28,29]. Control participants were recruited through advertisements in the local press and met the following criteria: no diagnosed psychiatric disorder, no first-degree family history of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, autism, or bipolar disorder, and no known genetic or neurological disorders.

Clinical and psychological evaluations

The clinical evaluations included the Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS) [30], which consists of 65 items and assesses the social communication and social interaction dimensions of ASD. IQ was assessed using the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-III or WAIS-IV) or the Wechsler Child Intelligence Scale (WISC IV) [28,29].

Executive functions were evaluated with the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) [31]. The BRIEF clinical scales measured the intensity of difficulties related to the nine domains of executive functioning in daily life. It consists of equivalent Self-Report (for adults) and Informant Report Forms (for children), each having 75 items and provides a score reflecting ‘overall functioning’ known as the Global Executive Composite (GEC). Higher scores indicate a higher level of dysfunction in executive functioning.

Attention deficits and hyperactivity comorbidity was assessed using the Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Rating Scale (ADHD-RS IV), a questionnaire designed for individuals aged 4–18 years old and adults [32]. The ADHD RS-IV was completed by either the parents of children or the adult participants themselves and scored by a clinician. Higher scores indicate a greater incidence of attention deficits and hyperactivity symptoms.

Symptoms of social anxiety were assessed using The Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS) [33,34]. The LSAS is one of the most widely used measures of social anxiety in both the general population and clinical samples. This scale evaluates fear and avoidance behaviors in social interaction situations.

The gaze direction discrimination task

The experiments took place in a dimly illuminated room, with participants seated 60 cm in front of a Tobii Pro TX300 eye-tracker (Tobii Technology, Stockholm, Sweden), which has a sampling rate of 300 Hz. Stimuli were displayed on the integrated 23“screen, with a resolution of 1920x1080. Calibration was performed before each task presentation, and participants’ head positions were fixed using a chinrest. Instructions were displayed on the screen and also verbally explained by the experimenter before the task.

The protocol comprised 28 trials, each involving a 3-second exploration of faces with either direct or averted gaze. After observing each face, participants had to indicate whether the gaze was direct or averted by pressing the keyboard keys as quickly as possible, as depicted in Figure 1. There was no time limitation for their responses. The entire task was completed in less than five minutes.

Download:

Fig 1. The stimuli and experimental paradigm.

A. Experimental design with drawing representing stimuli image position and trial structure. 28 faces from 14 different individuals looking either directly or aside were presented for 3s each; after each face presentation a choice screen was presented with the option “Ne me regarde pas ” (does not look at me) and “me regarde” (looks at me). B. Definition of the Area Of Interest: Right and Left eyes.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334878.g001

Stimuli description

Three distinct sets of human faces (both genders) were selected from the same dataset used in the studies by Burra et al, 2017 and George et al, 2001 [35,36]. These sets consisted of pictures of 14 different individuals, encompassing both males and females, captured in front view with either direct gaze or averted gaze. Between trials, the direction of the averted gaze was counterbalanced between the left and right sides of the screen. There were no central fixation point in the trial. Each participant was presented with a total of 28 randomly chosen images. The images were randomly displayed on either the left or right side of the screen using TobiiStudio™ version 3.3.2 software (Tobii Technology, Stockholm, Sweden), during 3 seconds, followed by the participant’s unlimited time to make a response. The response options selected by pressing the ‘S’ or ‘L’ keys on the keyboard, were ‘does not look at me’ and ‘look at me’ (in French) (Fig 1A). The response keys were not counterbalanced across trials.

Eye-tracking data preprocessing and variable definition

During the task, subjects were free to explore the presented picture. As the task of determining gaze direction required participants to focus on the person’s eyes, we defined the eyes of the image as the main area of interest (AOI) for our analysis (Fig 1B). The parameters of ocular fixations (X and Y positions in pixels, latency values, accuracy, inside/outside AOIs), and time stamps of the stimulus presentations were exported from TobiiStudio™. To define the eye fixations, we used a velocity-threshold identification filters in TobiiStudio™, following the recommendations of de Urabain et al. [37]. The parameters were set as follows: a maximum visual angle between fixations of 0.5 degrees, a minimum fixation duration of 60 ms, and a velocity threshold of 30 degrees per second. This filter is known for its conservative approach in detecting fixations, ensuring reliable fixation-saccade differentiation. We also conducted a data quality check, excluding eye-tracking data that showed a poor validity index (greater than 2) according to TobiiStudio™ internal criteria. During preprocessing, the percentage of rejected trials was calculated, resulting in an average of 5.25% (SD = 6.5%) of fixations being excluded due to this criterion. The cumulative number of fixations on the area of interest was selected as the most representative metric, as the fraction of fixations per trial does not provide meaningful information when values such as 0–3 fixations per trial are averaged. A limitation of this approach is that it does not account for trials with poor quality. However, as highlighted by our estimate, the entire face area was attended to in 78% of the trials, with every one of the 28 trials having at least some attention, and 95% of participants having at least 70% of their trials populated with face fixations. Unfortunately, the available database does not allow us to estimate the number of excluded trials, but this number appears to be low for the majority of the subjects. A custom-built toolbox developed with Matlab (version 2018a; The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA, USA) was used to compute the following eye fixation variables for each recorded trial. Using the Tobii algorithm, the eye fixation variables were estimated for the Areas of Interest (AOIs), which included the face, eyes, nose, and mouth of the presented image. The total fixation time on the entire screen was not estimated. To characterize eye fixations on the AOI of interest (eyes of the image), we examined the following variables:

[1]. Latency of the first fixation in the eye (either left of right): the delay between the appearance of the image and the first fixation into the eye;
[2]. Total time of fixation: the overall time spent looking into the eye(s) during the trial;
[3]. Number of fixations into the eyes: the number of fixations in the eyes across all trials.

In addition to this, to better characterize the presence of automated pattern of AOI eye observation, we introduced a second-level qualitative variable, the “eye fixation index, EFI”.

For each trial, we attributed a value for that index which varied from 0 to 2, as follows: 0 – no fixation on eyes; 1 – at least one fixation on any of image’s eyes (left or right); 2 – at least one fixation on each eye. Therefore, for the whole task, the total EFI for each participant varied from 0 to 28.

For the task-related key press responses, we assessed response accuracy and response times (RT) in discriminating faces with direct or averted gaze. Response accuracy was determined as the percentage of all correct responses. We calculated the mean RT for averted and direct gaze trails for each participant. Total RTs for each participant were then calculated as the mean of RTs from all trials. One participant’s data were excluded from the analysis due to excessively long RT delay, exceeding 20 seconds.

Oculomotor variables from basic oculomotor tasks. We extracted data on the number of anticipatory saccades, which are eye movements not attributed to the appearance of the target stimuli from Step and Overlap oculomotor prosaccade tasks [23]. The experimental procedures, data analysis and results on the anticipatory saccades themselves were published before [23]. Here individual anticipatory saccade scores will be used only for correlational analysis.

Statistical analysis

We conducted statistical analyses using MATLAB, Statisica software version 13.5.0.17 (TIBCO Inc.), and the open-source computer software JASP (Version 0.15, by JASP Team, 2021). To assess the normality of the data, we performed the Shapiro-Wilk normality test for all dependent variables. A resulting p-value of less than 0.05 confirmed that the data followed a non-parametric distribution. Consequently, for further analysis, we applied non-parametric statistics. We used the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon nonparametric test to assess group differences [38], and the Wilcoxon signed rank nonparametric test to evaluate the effect of the condition (averted or direct gaze of the image). For the effect size for the group, we calculated d of Cohen by subtracting the means and dividing the result by the pooled standard deviation. The general guidelines for interpreting the effect size are 0.2 = small effect; 0.5 = moderate effect and 0.8 = large effect. Cohen’s d was estimated along with Wilcoxon’s r effect size, which was based on the Z score from either the Wilcoxon or Mann-Whitney test divided by the square root of the sample size. The formula of the Wilcoxon effect size was taken from [39].

To investigate the causal relationships between groups, eye-tracking behavior and task-related key-press response, we conducted a mediational analysis. First, we normalized response times (RTs) and the eye fixation index using the rank-based inverse normal transformation with random tie-splitting [40]. To determine whether the inclusion of the mediator variable, EFI (M) explained a significant portion of the effect of independent variable, the group (X) on outcome variable, RT (Y), a Baron & Kenny’s 3-steps mediation analysis was then conducted [41] using The VBA toolbox [42] calculating: 1) regression of response Y (RT) on X (group), 2) regression of mediator M (EFI) on X (group) and 3) regression of Y (RT) on both X and M. The Sobel test [43] further estimated the significance of the reduction of relationship between X and Y when the mediator M was included. The effect size was reported in terms of adjusted percentage of variance explained.

We conducted partial rank order Spearman correlations between the response times (RTs), the Eye Fixation Index (EFI), and the clinical scores (ADHD-RS, BRIEF, SRS, LSAS) implemented in MATLAB, to disentangle the contribution of the group effect in these correlations. In order to correct for multitude of statistical tests we adjusted p values with a permutation-based control of Generalized Family-Wise Error Rate (GFWER) method [44,45]. Furthermore, we performed correlational analyses using the Spearman rank correlation method to examine the relationships between the EFI and anticipatory saccades percentage derived from the prosaccade tasks.

Data Availability: The final dataset and accompanying code are available on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/vs2gu/.

Results

Pattern of fixations

On total fixation time spent on AOI eyes we have found effect of group (Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon nonparametric test, p < 0.05) with less time spent fixating on the image’s eyes by participants in ASD group then by participants in TD group, and effect of condition (Wilcoxon signed rank nonparametric test, p < 0.01, Cohen’s effect size d = 0.4093), with less time spent for averted gaze condition then for direct gaze, but no interaction (S1 Table).

For latency of first fixation on AOI eyes we observed effect of group (Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon nonparametric test, p < 0.05, Cohen’s effect size d = 0.2729) with faster first fixation on the image’s eyes made by participants in TD group then by participants from ASD group, but neither effect of condition nor interaction (S2 Table).

We observed a main effect of the condition on the total number of fixations on the eyes of the image (Wilcoxon signed rank nonparametric test, p < 0.05). Specifically, participants fixated more on faces with direct gaze than on faces with averted gaze (S3 Table).

The derivative of the number of fixations, the Eye Fixation Index (EFI), emerged as the most sensitive oculomotor measure to both group and condition differences (Fig 2, S4 Table). The EFI was significantly influenced by both group (p < 0.0005, Cohen’s effect size d = 0.6212) and condition of the image presentation (p < 0.0005). Participants exhibited a higher EFI when looking at faces with direct gaze compared to faces with averted gaze. Participants in the TD group had a significantly higher EFI compared to autistic participants. Therefore, eye fixation index better explains atypical eye processing than other eye fixation parameters during observation of faces with direct or averted gaze.

Download:

Fig 2. Effects of condition (centered or averted gaze) and group (TD or ASD) on Eye Fixation Index, EFI, counts, and Key-Press Response Time, RT, ms, during gaze discrimination task in direct and averted gaze conditions of participants in TD and ASD groups.

The medians are shown with horizontal lines and inter-quartile intervals are shown with vertical lines. *** p < 0.001, * p < 0.05 for effect of the group (Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon nonparametric test), ^### p < 0.001 for effect of the condition (Wilcoxon signed rank test).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334878.g002

Task-related key press response behavior

Participants without autism exhibited significantly shorter mean response times, RTs (785 ms) compared to autistic participants (1107 ms; p < 0.05, Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon nonparametric test), as illustrated in Fig 2 and detailed in S5 Table. Additionally, participants without autism achieved significantly higher mean accuracy scores (0.98) compared to autistic participants (0.92, p < 0.05, Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon nonparametric test), as presented in S6 Table. There was no significant effect of condition on either RTs or the accuracy of the response.

Analysis of mediation

Autistic participants exhibited reduced EFI and longer RTs compared to individuals in the TD group, and a significant negative correlation was found between these two parameters (Spearman R = −0.37; p = 0.000012, n = 136). To assess whether the differences in RTs and EFI between the two groups were independently influenced by group attribution or if RTs were mediated by the pattern of face exploration (EFI), we conducted a mediational analysis (Fig 3). A direct effect of group on RTs was confirmed (R2 = 3.4%, p = 0.03). However, when EFI was introduced as the mediator between the two variables, it weakened the direct relationship between the group and RT (R2 = 0.9%, p = 0.287), suggesting that the difference in RTs between the groups was primarily mediated by the pattern of face exploration (EFI).

Relationship between EFI, RT, attentional control and executive functioning scores

To explore our secondary hypothesis that the observed group effects on eye behavior in the gaze direction judgment task might be linked to global atypicality in attentional control or executive functioning, we conducted a partial correlation analysis between EFI, RTs, and corresponding clinical scores (see S7 Tables). If corrected for group, no significant correlations were identified between EFI and ADHD-RS and BRIEF scores.

These clinical measures were highly influenced by group differences (see Table 1). Our analysis revealed that after controlling for the group effect, the positive relationships between RTs and higher ADHD-RS (R = 0.21, p < 0.05) and BRIEF (R = 0.33, p < 0.0005) total mean scores were significant. This suggests that the level of attentional and executive functioning may impact participants’ key-press behavioral responses in the gaze discrimination task independently of the group, whereas the relationship between EFI and clinical scores was group-driven because they disappeared after correction for group (see S7b and S7c Table).

We examined the relationship between RT, EFI, response accuracy and latency to look at the eyes, as these variables reflect the processing speed and strategies used for face observation (S8 Table). Our analysis shows that EFI was negatively correlated with latency (R = −0.52, p < 0.001) and positively correlated with accuracy (R = 0.28, p = 0.001). Additionally, RT was positively correlated with latency (R = 0.42, p < 0.001) and negatively correlated with accuracy (R = −0.42, p < 0.001). To further explore how gaze direction discrimination task performance is affected by attentional and executive functioning, we assessed relationships of RT and EFI with performance in visually guided saccade-based tasks. The parameters of performance reflect attentional engagement and disengagement processes and were previously analyzed within the same cohort. In these oculomotor tasks, the percentage of anticipatory saccades was found to be significantly higher for autistic participants (see Fig 3 in Amestoy et al., 2021, [23]. Using partial Spearman rank correlation for correction for group effect we discovered that participants who had lower EFI scores in the gaze direction discrimination task demonstrated greater overall likelihood of anticipatory saccades in STEP and OVERLAP conditions (R = −0.26, p = 0.004).

Download:

Fig 3. Results of the mediation analysis on three interrelated variables: the independent variable Group (X), the mediator eye fixation index (EFI, M) and the outcome variable Response Time (RT, Y).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334878.g003

Impacts of autism severity, social anxiety, age and gender

To assess whether participants’ performance in the gaze direction task was influenced by the severity of autism and/or social anxiety, we estimated partial correlation of their performance with the scores on the Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS-2) and the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS). We identified that after controlling for the group effect, the positive relationships between RTs and higher SRS scores were significant (R = 0.26, p < 0.005) as well as negative relationship between EFI and SRS (R = −0.17). No significant correlation was found with social anxiety scores (S7 Table).

The age of participants exhibited strong correlations with RT (n = 136, R = −0.47, p < 1*10⁻⁸) and the accuracy of response (n = 137, R = 0.26, p = 0.002), and some relations with total fixation time (n = 142, R = 0.18, p < 0.05), and the latency of the first fixation (n = 142, R = −0.21, p < 0.05), but not with EFI. To explore other potential limitations, we evaluated the effect of gender on eye fixation and key-press responses by comparing groups (males vs. females) using the Mann-Whitney U test. However, we found no significant differences for any of the variables of interest.

Discussion

The objective of the present study was to analyze how the patterns of exploration of faces with different gaze directions may vary between autistic participants and participants without autism. The absence of interaction between groups and the presentation condition indicates that both autistic and non-autistic individuals exhibit a similar reaction to the gaze direction of the presented face. However, autistic participants had diminished fixations on eyes overall, demonstrating a decreased interest in others’ eyes independent of the presentation condition.

Engaging in typical gaze processing, which involves fixating on both eyes, appears to improve key-press responses, as faster reaction times are associated with more consistent fixation behavior. Additionally, responses in the task were found to be correlated with scores related to executive and attentional control, as well as with basic oculomotor performance, highlighting the importance of visual attention engagement in the pattern of face observation.

Effect of the gaze of the face on the image

We found that the condition of image presentation may influence the subject’s fixation on the image’s eyes: there were more fixations when the presented image had a direct gaze. This confirms that the automated pattern of eye fixations is influenced by the gaze direction of the observed face. Our data regarding the superiority of visual attention towards faces with direct gaze aligns with the concept of social attention governance, which postulates that faces with direct gazes should attract more fixations on the eye region due to the increased potential for social interaction. Our analysis does not allow us to confirm either hypersensitivity or hyposensitivity to gaze direction in autism. Consistent with our observations, more efficient visual scanning of faces with direct gaze compared to those with averted gaze was found for both autistics participants and their counterparts in the control group [46]. These results can also be explained by task instructions. When comparing the exploration patterns of the same image, Del Bianco et al. (2018) found that in tasks involving the judgement of gaze direction, autistic participants looked at the face image significantly longer compared to the other tasks such as free observation or object visual scanning [47].

Eye fixation behavior and key press response in different participant groups

The analysis of common eye fixation variables (total fixation on eyes, latency of first fixation and total number of fixations) revealed lower values in autistic participants compared to their TD peers. The second-level variable, EFI, showed a significant decrease in autistic individuals and the largest effect size for between-group comparison. This suggests that EFI might be more effective in revealing differences between groups compared to the first-level variables. This effect is likely attributed to its focus on the dynamics of face exploration, including whether the eyes are meticulously observed one after another or not.

The relationship between EFI, RT and latency of first fixation remains highly significant even after controlling for the group factor (see S8 Table). This indicates that, in both groups, participants who looked at the eyes more quickly had more eye fixations and faster response times. Similarly, participants with greater EFI and faster RT were more accurate in their responses. Taken together, these findings may contribute to our understanding of the generalized dynamics in the processing of socially relevant information.

The significance of the dynamics of social stimuli processing has also been acknowledged [4]. During prolonged image observation, multiple “peaks” of increased attentional focus on social cues are observed [48,49]. However, autistic individuals do not exhibit these recurrent peaks; they demonstrate the same initial social engagement but fail to regain their attention after the decline of interest. In line with this, the distinct pattern of automatic face observation seen in typical development – where individuals consistently fixate on prominent facial features like eyes (one after another) and mouth [7] – no longer emerges in autism. This alteration may contribute to specific difficulties in processing and responding to social stimuli.

Relevance of existing models for explaining group differences in task-related performances

The hypersensitivity model suggests that the need to look into others’ eyes or observe direct gaze triggers heightened arousal in autistic individuals, often resulting in discomfort and aversive reactions [15,18,19]. This has been linked to overactivation of the amygdala, a brain region associated with emotional salience. Notably, in autism, this heightened amygdala reactivity is observed only when tasks explicitly instruct participants to focus on the eyes [14]. However, our findings indicate that gaze hypersensitivity in ASD is distinct from eyes hypersensitivity. In our task, a significant difference between centered and averted gaze faces is observed only in the ASD group. Therefore, the reduced eye fixations observed for all images in the ASD group are unlikely to be explained by hypersensitivity to gaze. Rather, hypersensitivity to eyes may be responsible for this reduction in autistic participants.

The hyposensitivity model suggests that autistic individuals may not prioritize social information, leading to a reduced level of salience attributed to such stimuli [20]. In our study autistic participants had diminished fixations on eyes overall, demonstrating a decreased interest in others’ eyes independent of the presentation condition.

The “fast-track detector” model proposed by Senju and Johnson (2009) [21] suggests involvement of subcortical regions like the superior colliculus into rapid orientation of social attention via oculomotor mechanisms [22]. Such subcortical processes may underlie the typical saccadic pattern observed during face observation [7]. The decline in EFI during face observation in our task may be indicative of interruptions of such automated fixation pattern in autistic participants.

The lack of attentional engagement when observing socially relevant stimuli can result in subsequent variations in socially evoked responses. Consistent with this idea, we observed that individuals who had reduced EFI tended to have longer key-press RTs in the task. Furthermore, the results of the mediational analysis indicated that slower behavioral responses were influenced by decreased semi-voluntary eye fixations during the observation of face images. This aligns with other studies that have shown that the quantity of fixations on the eyes serves as a significant predictor for performance in social tasks, such as face or emotion recognition [50].

Relationships between task-related measures, clinical scores and basic oculomotor behavior

The observed group effects on the eye fixation and key press behavior might be attributed to alterations in attentional, executive or oculomotor control functions previously documented in autistic individuals [23,51]. The ability of autistic participants to maintain focus of attention may be specifically impaired in case of social stimuli [52]. Here we found that participants’ key press responses are related to clinical scores characterizing executive functions and attentional deficits after accounting for group effect. However, the relationship between EFI and these clinical indexes is not significant in partial correlation analysis, indicating a relatively stronger between-group effect in gaze behaviors affecting both gaze behavior and task performance. EFI values were negatively related to the percentages of anticipatory saccades observed previously in visually guided saccade-based tasks, confirming that the ability to sustain attentional engagement may impact the eye fixation behavior during the observation of socially relevant stimuli particularly in autistic participants.

We found that autism severity, as estimated by SRS, was associated with slower decisions regarding gaze direction and decreased EFI. However, the relationship between SRS score and EFI appears to be more dependent on the group effect than between SRS and RTs. Surprisingly, we did not find any relationship between social anxiety scores and performance on the gaze discrimination task. This may possibly be attributed to the task’s diminished affective content, which included neutral expressions of the stimuli face, static images instead of dynamic videos, and the absence of an obligation to fixate on the presented face.

Limitations

Due to the nature of the cohort study, our sample of participants is not perfectly balanced in terms of age and gender distribution. To assess the impacts of participants’ age on their performance, we correlated variables that showed group sensitivity and found a relationship with RTs, total number of eye fixation and latency of the first fixation but not EFI. In addition, we tested whether gender groups differ in their performance, but no significant results were found for any of the variables of interest. In our study design, face pictures were displayed on the left or right side of the presentation screen. Therefore, during trials with faces that had straight-ahead gazes, the gaze was not actually directed at the participant. It cannot be excluded that this might have influenced the responses of some participants. It is important to note that the calculation algorithm of EFI may possess a potential bias: a score of 10 can be obtained either because a participant looked at one eye in ten different trials or because they looked at both eyes in five trials. However, this bias does not undermine the efficacy of characterizing the participant’s interest in the image’s eyes. Despite the limitations of our study, it is worth noting that the observed relationship may provide insights into the treatment of social information processing not only in autistic people but also in a broader population.

Conclusions

Evaluation of eye fixation in non-forced tasks, like free viewing, is considered the optimal eye-tracking approach for enhancing the accuracy and specificity of autism characterization. In such scenarios, semi-qualitative variables such as EFI might offer greater sensitivity in unveiling group-specific traits compared to primary-level eye-tracking metrics. The way individuals fixate the partner’s eyes plays a crucial role in making judgments during social interactions, such as gaze direction discrimination and shared attention. The reduced attentional engagement may contribute to the modification of the eye fixation patterns observed in autistic individuals. Quicker decision-making regarding gaze direction is associated with executive functions, attention/hyperactivity symptoms, and social skills, which go beyond the differences attributed solely to autism.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Total fixation time on AOI eyes, ms, mean, SD of mean, median and inter-quartile interval for images with direct and averted gazes of participants with typical development, TD group (n = 56) and autistic participants, ASD group (n = 86).

*p < 0.05 for effect of the group ^##p < 0.01 for effect of the condition.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334878.s001

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Latency of first fixation on AOI eyes, ms, mean SD of mean, median and inter-quartile interval for images with direct and averted gazes of participants with typical development, TD group (n = 56) and autistic participants, ASD group (n = 86).

*p < 0.05 for effect of the group

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334878.s002

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Total number of fixations on AOI eyes, mean, SD of mean, median and range for images with direct and averted gazes of participants with typical development, TD group (n = 56) and autistic participants, ASD group (n = 88).

^#p < 0.05 for effect of the condition.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334878.s003

(DOCX)

S4 Table. Eye Fixation Index, EFI, mean, SD of mean, median and inter-quartile interval for images with direct and averted gazes of participants with typical development, TD group (n = 56) and autistic participants, ASD group (n = 88).

***p < 0.001 for effect of the group ^###p < 0.001 for effect of the condition.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334878.s004

(DOCX)

S5 Table. Key-press response time, RT, ms mean, SD of mean, median and inter-quartile interval for images with direct and averted gazes of participants with typical development, TD group (n = 54) and autistic participants, ASD group (n = 82).

*p < 0.05 for effect of the group.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334878.s005

(DOCX)

S6 Table. Accuracy of key-press responses, mean, SD of mean, median and range for images with direct and averted gazes of participants with typical development, TD group (n = 54) and autistic participants, ASD group (n = 83).

*p < 0.05 for effect of the group.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334878.s006

(DOCX)

S7 Table. a. Partial correlation (Spearman rank correlation, corrected for group effect) of clinical scores with task-related variables: eye-fixation index and key-press response time.

b. Partial correlation (Spearman rank correlation, corrected for gender effect) of clinical scores with task-related variables: eye-fixation index and key-press response time pa – GFWER adjusted level of significance. c. Partial correlation (Spearman rank correlation, corrected for age effect) of clinical scores with task-related variables: eye-fixation index and key-press response time pa – GFWER adjusted level of significance. d. Partial correlation (Spearman rank correlation, corrected for group, gender and age effect) of clinical scores with task-related variables: eye-fixation index and key-press response time.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334878.s007

(DOCX)

S8 Table. Partial correlation (Spearman rank correlation, corrected for group, gender and age effect) of Latency of first fixation and Accuracy of key-press responses with task-related variables: eye-fixation index and key-press response time.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334878.s008

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

This work was coordinated by the Fondation FondaMental and achieved thanks to the following establishments: AP-HP, Hôpital Robert Debré, Hôpital Charles Perrens, Hôpital Mondor. The authors would like to thank the participating personnel of the centers, and the subjects who participated in the study. The authors would like to thank and acknowledge Tiziana Zalla (July 1, 1963–April 28, 2018) for her contributions not only to this work but also to the greater scientific community. Tiziana Zalla was a well-respected international researcher and friend who will be remembered for her strong core values and many achievements in the fields of cognitive science and psychiatry.

References

1. Elsabbagh M, Divan G, Koh Y-J, Kim YS, Kauchali S, Marcín C, et al. Global prevalence of autism and other pervasive developmental disorders. Autism Res. 2012;5(3):160–79. pmid:22495912
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
2. Maenner MJ, Shaw KA, Bakian AV, Bilder DA, Durkin MS, Esler A, et al. Prevalence and Characteristics of Autism Spectrum Disorder Among Children Aged 8 Years - Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 Sites, United States, 2018. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2021;70(11):1–16. pmid:34855725
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
3. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5. Washington; 2013.
4. Nayar K, Shic F, Winston M, Losh M. A constellation of eye-tracking measures reveals social attention differences in ASD and the broad autism phenotype. Mol Autism. 2022;13(1):18. pmid:35509089
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
5. Tanaka JW, Sung A. The “Eye Avoidance” Hypothesis of Autism Face Processing. J Autism Dev Disord. 2016;46(5):1538–52. pmid:24150885
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
6. Riddiford JA, Enticott PG, Lavale A, Gurvich C. Gaze and social functioning associations in autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Autism Res. 2022;15(8):1380–446. pmid:35593039
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7. Amestoy A, Guillaud E, Bouvard MP, Cazalets J-R. Developmental changes in face visual scanning in autism spectrum disorder as assessed by data-based analysis. Front Psychol. 2015;6:989. pmid:26236264
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Falck-Ytter T, von Hofsten C. How special is social looking in ASD: a review. Prog Brain Res. 2011;189:209–22. pmid:21489391
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Setien-Ramos I, Lugo-Marín J, Gisbert-Gustemps L, Díez-Villoria E, Magán-Maganto M, Canal-Bedia R, et al. Eye-Tracking Studies in Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Autism Dev Disord. 2022;53(6):2430–43.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
10. Hutt C, Ounsted C. The biological significance of gaze aversion with particular reference to the syndrome of infantile autism. Behav Sci. 1966;11(5):346–56. pmid:5970485
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. Jones W, Carr K, Klin A. Absence of preferential looking to the eyes of approaching adults predicts level of social disability in 2-year-old toddlers with autism spectrum disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2008;65(8):946–54. pmid:18678799
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
12. Senju A, Tojo Y, Yaguchi K, Hasegawa T. Deviant gaze processing in children with autism: an ERP study. Neuropsychologia. 2005;43(9):1297–306. pmid:15949514
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
13. Clin E, Maes P, Stercq F, Kissine M. No preference for direct versus averted gaze in autistic adults: a reinforced preferential looking paradigm. Mol Autism. 2020;11(1):91. pmid:33208193
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. Hadjikhani N, Åsberg Johnels J, Zürcher NR, Lassalle A, Guillon Q, Hippolyte L, et al. Look me in the eyes: constraining gaze in the eye-region provokes abnormally high subcortical activation in autism. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):3163. pmid:28600558
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15. Kylliäinen A, Hietanen JK. Skin conductance responses to another person’s gaze in children with autism. J Autism Dev Disord. 2006;36(4):517–25. pmid:16555137
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. Coghlan S, Horder J, Inkster B, Mendez MA, Murphy DG, Nutt DJ. GABA system dysfunction in autism and related disorders: from synapse to symptoms. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2012;36(9):2044–55. pmid:22841562
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
17. Hadjikhani N, Åsberg Johnels J, Lassalle A, Zürcher NR, Hippolyte L, Gillberg C, et al. Bumetanide for autism: more eye contact, less amygdala activation. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):3602. pmid:29483603
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
18. Joseph RM, Ehrman K, McNally R, Keehn B. Affective response to eye contact and face recognition ability in children with ASD. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2008;14(6):947–55. pmid:18954475
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19. Trevisan DA, Roberts N, Lin C, Birmingham E. How do adults and teens with self-declared Autism Spectrum Disorder experience eye contact? A qualitative analysis of first-hand accounts. PLoS One. 2017;12(11):e0188446. pmid:29182643
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
20. Moriuchi JM, Klin A, Jones W. Mechanisms of Diminished Attention to Eyes in Autism. AJP. 2017;174(1):26–35.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
21. Senju A, Johnson MH. Atypical eye contact in autism: models, mechanisms and development. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2009;33(8):1204–14. pmid:19538990
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Jure R. Autism Pathogenesis: The Superior Colliculus. Front Neurosci. 2019;12:1029. pmid:30686990
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. Amestoy A, Guillaud E, Bucchioni G, Zalla T, Umbricht D, Chatham C, et al. Visual attention and inhibitory control in children, teenagers and adults with autism without intellectual disability: results of oculomotor tasks from a 2-year longitudinal follow-up study (InFoR). Mol Autism. 2021;12(1):71. pmid:34774105
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
24. Baltazar M, Geoffray M-M, Chatham C, Bouvard M, Martinez Teruel A, Monnet D, et al. “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” in Autistic Adults is Modulated by Valence and Difficulty: An InFoR Study. Autism Res. 2021;14(2):380–8. pmid:32929870
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. Laidi C, Boisgontier J, de Pierrefeu A, Duchesnay E, Hotier S, d’Albis M-A, et al. Decreased Cortical Thickness in the Anterior Cingulate Cortex in Adults with Autism. J Autism Dev Disord. 2019;49(4):1402–9. pmid:30511125
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Rutter M, LeCouteur A, Lord C. (ADI^TM-R) Autism Diagnostic Interview–Revised. 2003. Available from: https://www.wpspublish.com/adi-r-autism-diagnostic-interviewrevised
27. Lord C, Risi S, Lambrecht L, Cook EH Jr, Leventhal BL, DiLavore PC, et al. The autism diagnostic observation schedule-generic: a standard measure of social and communication deficits associated with the spectrum of autism. J Autism Dev Disord. 2000;30(3):205–23. pmid:11055457
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28. Wechsler D. WISC-IV. Échelle d’intelligence de Wechsler pour enfants – 4ème édition. Manuel d’interprétation. 4th edition. Paris: ECPA; 2006.
29. Wechsler. Wechsler adult intelligence scale fourth UK edition (WIAS‐IV) administration and scoring manual. London; 2008.
30. Constantino JN. Social responsiveness scale. 2nd edition. Los Angeles (CA): Western Psychological Services; 2012.
31. Gioia GA, Isquith PK, Retzlaff PD, Espy KA. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) in a Clinical Sample. Child Neuropsychol J Norm Abnorm Dev Child Adolesc. 2002;8(4):249–57.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
32. DuPaul GJ, Power TJ, Anastopoulos AD, Reid R. ADHD Rating Scale-IV: Checklists, Norms, and Clinical Interpretation. New York (NY): The Guilford Press; 1998.
33. Liebowitz MR. Social phobia. Anxiety. 1987;22:141–73. pmid:2885745
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
34. Heeren A, Maurage P, Rossignol M, Vanhaelen M, Peschard V, Eeckhout C, et al. Self-report version of the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale: Psychometric properties of the French version. Can J Behav Sci Rev Can Sci Comport. 2012;44(2):99–107.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
35. Burra N, Baker S, George N. Processing of gaze direction within the N170/M170 time window: A combined EEG/MEG study. Neuropsychologia. 2017;100:207–19. pmid:28450203
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
36. George N, Driver J, Dolan RJ. Seen gaze-direction modulates fusiform activity and its coupling with other brain areas during face processing. Neuroimage. 2001;13(6 Pt 1):1102–12. pmid:11352615
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
37. Saez de Urabain IR, Johnson MH, Smith TJ. GraFIX: a semiautomatic approach for parsing low- and high-quality eye-tracking data. Behav Res Methods. 2015;47(1):53–72. pmid:24671827
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
38. Cardilo G. MWWTEST: Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon non parametric test for two unpaired samples. 2009 [cited 10 Apr 2024]. Available from: http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/25830
39. Rosnow RL. Effect sizes for experimenting psychologists. Can J Exp Psychol. 2003;57(3):221–37. pmid:14596479
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
40. Pain O, Dudbridge F, Ronald A. Are your covariates under control? How normalization can re-introduce covariate effects. Eur J Hum Genet. 2018;26(8):1194–201. pmid:29706643
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
41. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51(6):1173–82. pmid:3806354
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
42. Daunizeau J, Adam V, Rigoux L. VBA: a probabilistic treatment of nonlinear models for neurobiological and behavioural data. PLoS Comput Biol. 2014;10(1):e1003441. pmid:24465198
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
43. Sobel ME. Asymptotic Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural EQUATION MODELS. Sociol Methodol. 1982;290–312.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
44. Groppe DM, Urbach TP, Kutas M. Mass univariate analysis of event-related brain potentials/fields I: a critical tutorial review. Psychophysiology. 2011;48(12):1711–25. pmid:21895683
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
45. Korn EL, Troendle JF, McShane LM, Simon R. Controlling the number of false discoveries: application to high-dimensional genomic data. J Stat Plann Inference. 2004;124(2):379–98.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
46. Senju A, Kikuchi Y, Hasegawa T, Tojo Y, Osanai H. Is anyone looking at me? Direct gaze detection in children with and without autism. Brain Cogn. 2008;67(2):127–39. pmid:18226847
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
47. Del Bianco T, Mazzoni N, Bentenuto A, Venuti P. An Investigation of Attention to Faces and Eyes: Looking Time Is Task-Dependent in Autism Spectrum Disorder. Front Psychol. 2018;9:2629. pmid:30619019
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
48. Del Bianco T, Mason L, Charman T, Tillman J, Loth E, Hayward H, et al. Temporal Profiles of Social Attention Are Different Across Development in Autistic and Neurotypical People. Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimag. 2021;6(8):813–24. pmid:33191160
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
49. Hedger N, Chakrabarti B. Autistic differences in the temporal dynamics of social attention. Autism. 2021;25(6):1615–26. pmid:33706553
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
50. Kliemann D, Dziobek I, Hatri A, Steimke R, Heekeren HR. Atypical reflexive gaze patterns on emotional faces in autism spectrum disorders. J Neurosci. 2010;30(37):12281–7. pmid:20844124
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
51. Schmitt LM, Cook EH, Sweeney JA, Mosconi MW. Saccadic eye movement abnormalities in autism spectrum disorder indicate dysfunctions in cerebellum and brainstem. Mol Autism. 2014;5(1):47. pmid:25400899
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
52. Haskins AJ, Mentch J, Botch TL, Garcia BD, Burrows AL, Robertson CE. Reduced social attention in autism is magnified by perceptual load in naturalistic environments. Autism Res. 2022;15(12):2310–23.
- View Article
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Elsabbagh M, Divan G, Koh Y-J, Kim YS, Kauchali S, Marcín C, et al. Global prevalence of autism and other pervasive developmental disorders. Autism Res. 2012;5(3):160–79. pmid:22495912
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] PubMed/NCBI

[4] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Maenner MJ, Shaw KA, Bakian AV, Bilder DA, Durkin MS, Esler A, et al. Prevalence and Characteristics of Autism Spectrum Disorder Among Children Aged 8 Years - Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 Sites, United States, 2018. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2021;70(11):1–16. pmid:34855725
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[6] View Article

[7] PubMed/NCBI

[8] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5. Washington; 2013.

[ref4] 4. Nayar K, Shic F, Winston M, Losh M. A constellation of eye-tracking measures reveals social attention differences in ASD and the broad autism phenotype. Mol Autism. 2022;13(1):18. pmid:35509089
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[11] View Article

[12] PubMed/NCBI

[13] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Tanaka JW, Sung A. The “Eye Avoidance” Hypothesis of Autism Face Processing. J Autism Dev Disord. 2016;46(5):1538–52. pmid:24150885
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[15] View Article

[16] PubMed/NCBI

[17] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Riddiford JA, Enticott PG, Lavale A, Gurvich C. Gaze and social functioning associations in autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Autism Res. 2022;15(8):1380–446. pmid:35593039
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[19] View Article

[20] PubMed/NCBI

[21] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Amestoy A, Guillaud E, Bouvard MP, Cazalets J-R. Developmental changes in face visual scanning in autism spectrum disorder as assessed by data-based analysis. Front Psychol. 2015;6:989. pmid:26236264
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[23] View Article

[24] PubMed/NCBI

[25] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Falck-Ytter T, von Hofsten C. How special is social looking in ASD: a review. Prog Brain Res. 2011;189:209–22. pmid:21489391
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[27] View Article

[28] PubMed/NCBI

[29] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Setien-Ramos I, Lugo-Marín J, Gisbert-Gustemps L, Díez-Villoria E, Magán-Maganto M, Canal-Bedia R, et al. Eye-Tracking Studies in Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Autism Dev Disord. 2022;53(6):2430–43.
View Article
Google Scholar

[31] View Article

[32] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Hutt C, Ounsted C. The biological significance of gaze aversion with particular reference to the syndrome of infantile autism. Behav Sci. 1966;11(5):346–56. pmid:5970485
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[34] View Article

[35] PubMed/NCBI

[36] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Jones W, Carr K, Klin A. Absence of preferential looking to the eyes of approaching adults predicts level of social disability in 2-year-old toddlers with autism spectrum disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2008;65(8):946–54. pmid:18678799
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[38] View Article

[39] PubMed/NCBI

[40] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Senju A, Tojo Y, Yaguchi K, Hasegawa T. Deviant gaze processing in children with autism: an ERP study. Neuropsychologia. 2005;43(9):1297–306. pmid:15949514
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[42] View Article

[43] PubMed/NCBI

[44] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Clin E, Maes P, Stercq F, Kissine M. No preference for direct versus averted gaze in autistic adults: a reinforced preferential looking paradigm. Mol Autism. 2020;11(1):91. pmid:33208193
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[46] View Article

[47] PubMed/NCBI

[48] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Hadjikhani N, Åsberg Johnels J, Zürcher NR, Lassalle A, Guillon Q, Hippolyte L, et al. Look me in the eyes: constraining gaze in the eye-region provokes abnormally high subcortical activation in autism. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):3163. pmid:28600558
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[50] View Article

[51] PubMed/NCBI

[52] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Kylliäinen A, Hietanen JK. Skin conductance responses to another person’s gaze in children with autism. J Autism Dev Disord. 2006;36(4):517–25. pmid:16555137
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[54] View Article

[55] PubMed/NCBI

[56] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Coghlan S, Horder J, Inkster B, Mendez MA, Murphy DG, Nutt DJ. GABA system dysfunction in autism and related disorders: from synapse to symptoms. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2012;36(9):2044–55. pmid:22841562
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[58] View Article

[59] PubMed/NCBI

[60] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Hadjikhani N, Åsberg Johnels J, Lassalle A, Zürcher NR, Hippolyte L, Gillberg C, et al. Bumetanide for autism: more eye contact, less amygdala activation. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):3602. pmid:29483603
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[62] View Article

[63] PubMed/NCBI

[64] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Joseph RM, Ehrman K, McNally R, Keehn B. Affective response to eye contact and face recognition ability in children with ASD. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2008;14(6):947–55. pmid:18954475
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[66] View Article

[67] PubMed/NCBI

[68] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Trevisan DA, Roberts N, Lin C, Birmingham E. How do adults and teens with self-declared Autism Spectrum Disorder experience eye contact? A qualitative analysis of first-hand accounts. PLoS One. 2017;12(11):e0188446. pmid:29182643
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[70] View Article

[71] PubMed/NCBI

[72] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Moriuchi JM, Klin A, Jones W. Mechanisms of Diminished Attention to Eyes in Autism. AJP. 2017;174(1):26–35.
View Article
Google Scholar

[74] View Article

[75] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Senju A, Johnson MH. Atypical eye contact in autism: models, mechanisms and development. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2009;33(8):1204–14. pmid:19538990
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[77] View Article

[78] PubMed/NCBI

[79] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Jure R. Autism Pathogenesis: The Superior Colliculus. Front Neurosci. 2019;12:1029. pmid:30686990
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[81] View Article

[82] PubMed/NCBI

[83] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Amestoy A, Guillaud E, Bucchioni G, Zalla T, Umbricht D, Chatham C, et al. Visual attention and inhibitory control in children, teenagers and adults with autism without intellectual disability: results of oculomotor tasks from a 2-year longitudinal follow-up study (InFoR). Mol Autism. 2021;12(1):71. pmid:34774105
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[85] View Article

[86] PubMed/NCBI

[87] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Baltazar M, Geoffray M-M, Chatham C, Bouvard M, Martinez Teruel A, Monnet D, et al. “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” in Autistic Adults is Modulated by Valence and Difficulty: An InFoR Study. Autism Res. 2021;14(2):380–8. pmid:32929870
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[89] View Article

[90] PubMed/NCBI

[91] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Laidi C, Boisgontier J, de Pierrefeu A, Duchesnay E, Hotier S, d’Albis M-A, et al. Decreased Cortical Thickness in the Anterior Cingulate Cortex in Adults with Autism. J Autism Dev Disord. 2019;49(4):1402–9. pmid:30511125
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[93] View Article

[94] PubMed/NCBI

[95] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Rutter M, LeCouteur A, Lord C. (ADI^TM-R) Autism Diagnostic Interview–Revised. 2003. Available from: https://www.wpspublish.com/adi-r-autism-diagnostic-interviewrevised

[ref27] 27. Lord C, Risi S, Lambrecht L, Cook EH Jr, Leventhal BL, DiLavore PC, et al. The autism diagnostic observation schedule-generic: a standard measure of social and communication deficits associated with the spectrum of autism. J Autism Dev Disord. 2000;30(3):205–23. pmid:11055457
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[98] View Article

[99] PubMed/NCBI

[100] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Wechsler D. WISC-IV. Échelle d’intelligence de Wechsler pour enfants – 4ème édition. Manuel d’interprétation. 4th edition. Paris: ECPA; 2006.

[ref29] 29. Wechsler. Wechsler adult intelligence scale fourth UK edition (WIAS‐IV) administration and scoring manual. London; 2008.

[ref30] 30. Constantino JN. Social responsiveness scale. 2nd edition. Los Angeles (CA): Western Psychological Services; 2012.

[ref31] 31. Gioia GA, Isquith PK, Retzlaff PD, Espy KA. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) in a Clinical Sample. Child Neuropsychol J Norm Abnorm Dev Child Adolesc. 2002;8(4):249–57.
View Article
Google Scholar

[105] View Article

[106] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. DuPaul GJ, Power TJ, Anastopoulos AD, Reid R. ADHD Rating Scale-IV: Checklists, Norms, and Clinical Interpretation. New York (NY): The Guilford Press; 1998.

[ref33] 33. Liebowitz MR. Social phobia. Anxiety. 1987;22:141–73. pmid:2885745
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[109] View Article

[110] PubMed/NCBI

[111] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Heeren A, Maurage P, Rossignol M, Vanhaelen M, Peschard V, Eeckhout C, et al. Self-report version of the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale: Psychometric properties of the French version. Can J Behav Sci Rev Can Sci Comport. 2012;44(2):99–107.
View Article
Google Scholar

[113] View Article

[114] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Burra N, Baker S, George N. Processing of gaze direction within the N170/M170 time window: A combined EEG/MEG study. Neuropsychologia. 2017;100:207–19. pmid:28450203
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[116] View Article

[117] PubMed/NCBI

[118] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. George N, Driver J, Dolan RJ. Seen gaze-direction modulates fusiform activity and its coupling with other brain areas during face processing. Neuroimage. 2001;13(6 Pt 1):1102–12. pmid:11352615
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[120] View Article

[121] PubMed/NCBI

[122] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Saez de Urabain IR, Johnson MH, Smith TJ. GraFIX: a semiautomatic approach for parsing low- and high-quality eye-tracking data. Behav Res Methods. 2015;47(1):53–72. pmid:24671827
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[124] View Article

[125] PubMed/NCBI

[126] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Cardilo G. MWWTEST: Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon non parametric test for two unpaired samples. 2009 [cited 10 Apr 2024]. Available from: http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/25830

[ref39] 39. Rosnow RL. Effect sizes for experimenting psychologists. Can J Exp Psychol. 2003;57(3):221–37. pmid:14596479
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[129] View Article

[130] PubMed/NCBI

[131] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Pain O, Dudbridge F, Ronald A. Are your covariates under control? How normalization can re-introduce covariate effects. Eur J Hum Genet. 2018;26(8):1194–201. pmid:29706643
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[133] View Article

[134] PubMed/NCBI

[135] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51(6):1173–82. pmid:3806354
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[137] View Article

[138] PubMed/NCBI

[139] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Daunizeau J, Adam V, Rigoux L. VBA: a probabilistic treatment of nonlinear models for neurobiological and behavioural data. PLoS Comput Biol. 2014;10(1):e1003441. pmid:24465198
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[141] View Article

[142] PubMed/NCBI

[143] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Sobel ME. Asymptotic Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural EQUATION MODELS. Sociol Methodol. 1982;290–312.
View Article
Google Scholar

[145] View Article

[146] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Groppe DM, Urbach TP, Kutas M. Mass univariate analysis of event-related brain potentials/fields I: a critical tutorial review. Psychophysiology. 2011;48(12):1711–25. pmid:21895683
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[148] View Article

[149] PubMed/NCBI

[150] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Korn EL, Troendle JF, McShane LM, Simon R. Controlling the number of false discoveries: application to high-dimensional genomic data. J Stat Plann Inference. 2004;124(2):379–98.
View Article
Google Scholar

[152] View Article

[153] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Senju A, Kikuchi Y, Hasegawa T, Tojo Y, Osanai H. Is anyone looking at me? Direct gaze detection in children with and without autism. Brain Cogn. 2008;67(2):127–39. pmid:18226847
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[155] View Article

[156] PubMed/NCBI

[157] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. Del Bianco T, Mazzoni N, Bentenuto A, Venuti P. An Investigation of Attention to Faces and Eyes: Looking Time Is Task-Dependent in Autism Spectrum Disorder. Front Psychol. 2018;9:2629. pmid:30619019
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[159] View Article

[160] PubMed/NCBI

[161] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Del Bianco T, Mason L, Charman T, Tillman J, Loth E, Hayward H, et al. Temporal Profiles of Social Attention Are Different Across Development in Autistic and Neurotypical People. Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimag. 2021;6(8):813–24. pmid:33191160
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[163] View Article

[164] PubMed/NCBI

[165] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. Hedger N, Chakrabarti B. Autistic differences in the temporal dynamics of social attention. Autism. 2021;25(6):1615–26. pmid:33706553
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[167] View Article

[168] PubMed/NCBI

[169] Google Scholar

[ref50] 50. Kliemann D, Dziobek I, Hatri A, Steimke R, Heekeren HR. Atypical reflexive gaze patterns on emotional faces in autism spectrum disorders. J Neurosci. 2010;30(37):12281–7. pmid:20844124
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[171] View Article

[172] PubMed/NCBI

[173] Google Scholar

[ref51] 51. Schmitt LM, Cook EH, Sweeney JA, Mosconi MW. Saccadic eye movement abnormalities in autism spectrum disorder indicate dysfunctions in cerebellum and brainstem. Mol Autism. 2014;5(1):47. pmid:25400899
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[175] View Article

[176] PubMed/NCBI

[177] Google Scholar

[ref52] 52. Haskins AJ, Mentch J, Botch TL, Garcia BD, Burrows AL, Robertson CE. Reduced social attention in autism is magnified by perceptual load in naturalistic environments. Autism Res. 2022;15(12):2310–23.
View Article
Google Scholar

[179] View Article

[180] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Participants

Clinical and psychological evaluations

The gaze direction discrimination task

Stimuli description

Eye-tracking data preprocessing and variable definition

Statistical analysis

Results

Pattern of fixations

Task-related key press response behavior

Analysis of mediation

Relationship between EFI, RT, attentional control and executive functioning scores

Impacts of autism severity, social anxiety, age and gender

Discussion

Effect of the gaze of the face on the image

Eye fixation behavior and key press response in different participant groups

Relevance of existing models for explaining group differences in task-related performances

Relationships between task-related measures, clinical scores and basic oculomotor behavior

Limitations

Conclusions

Supporting information

S1 Table. Total fixation time on AOI eyes, ms, mean, SD of mean, median and inter-quartile interval for images with direct and averted gazes of participants with typical development, TD group (n = 56) and autistic participants, ASD group (n = 86).

S2 Table. Latency of first fixation on AOI eyes, ms, mean SD of mean, median and inter-quartile interval for images with direct and averted gazes of participants with typical development, TD group (n = 56) and autistic participants, ASD group (n = 86).

S3 Table. Total number of fixations on AOI eyes, mean, SD of mean, median and range for images with direct and averted gazes of participants with typical development, TD group (n = 56) and autistic participants, ASD group (n = 88).

S4 Table. Eye Fixation Index, EFI, mean, SD of mean, median and inter-quartile interval for images with direct and averted gazes of participants with typical development, TD group (n = 56) and autistic participants, ASD group (n = 88).

S5 Table. Key-press response time, RT, ms mean, SD of mean, median and inter-quartile interval for images with direct and averted gazes of participants with typical development, TD group (n = 54) and autistic participants, ASD group (n = 82).

S6 Table. Accuracy of key-press responses, mean, SD of mean, median and range for images with direct and averted gazes of participants with typical development, TD group (n = 54) and autistic participants, ASD group (n = 83).

S7 Table. a. Partial correlation (Spearman rank correlation, corrected for group effect) of clinical scores with task-related variables: eye-fixation index and key-press response time.

S8 Table. Partial correlation (Spearman rank correlation, corrected for group, gender and age effect) of Latency of first fixation and Accuracy of key-press responses with task-related variables: eye-fixation index and key-press response time.

Acknowledgments

References