Adlam Jonathan
Emmanuel College Cambridge and Clinical School University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK,
Psychiatr Danub. 2015 Sep;27 Suppl 1:S535-41.
There are a number of cognitive models of autism that aim to explain how mental processes are handled differently in the condition. These models make claims about the nature of cognitive function in people with autism, and suggest that these differences applied in social contexts lead to the characteristic behavioural patterns. However, it is difficult to study these cognitive differences directly because of the complexity of social situations. Studies of perceptual function are tempting as an alternative way to study cognition because it is far easier to control the conditions and the stimuli that participants are exposed to. This makes hypothesis generation and interpretation of results more objective and more convincing. However, the study of perception in autism hasn't been very productive in contributing towards a model of cognition in autism. In many areas there are studies reporting contradictory results, preventing arrival at a consensus about the largest unresolved issues in the area. These studies tend to be repeated multiple times, but continue to provide contradictory evidence that doesn't allow us to place confidence in any of the cognitive models. An approach to these issues is proposed, focusing on critical analysis of contradictory studies rather than the endless process of repetition. This allows previous studies to be interpreted more objectively and resolve conflicts, and guides the design of future studies in ways that avoid the pitfalls that have been identified. Both of these outcomes result in more productive work being done. The first example is in the study of motion perception in autism, where the use of non-identical stimuli has been problematic. On closer critical analysis, a fundamental aspect of the motion stimuli demonstrates that the contradictions might be expected based on the differences in stimuli used. Addressing this issue can move the field towards resolution. A second example is in the study of spatial frequency sensitivity. Here, poor study design has created results leading to an "eagle-eyed visual acuity" hypothesis of autism. Errors in the initial study are revealed, suggesting that the model should be abandoned. Finally, a general issue is the assumption of homogeneity of perceptual ability and genetics in autism, where the reality is that subgroups exist within the population of people with autism, and significant variation exists between them. The evidence for this is summarised and the issues that it creates explored.
有许多关于自闭症的认知模型，旨在解释在这种病症中思维过程是如何被不同处理的。这些模型对自闭症患者认知功能的本质提出了主张，并表明这些在社会情境中存在的差异导致了其特征性的行为模式。然而，由于社会情境的复杂性，很难直接研究这些认知差异。对感知功能的研究作为研究认知的一种替代方法很有吸引力，因为控制参与者所接触的条件和刺激要容易得多。这使得假设的产生和结果的解释更加客观和有说服力。然而，自闭症感知方面的研究在推动自闭症认知模型的发展上成效不大。在许多领域，研究报告的结果相互矛盾，无法就该领域最大的未解决问题达成共识。这些研究往往被多次重复，但仍然提供相互矛盾的证据，使我们无法对任何一种认知模型产生信心。本文提出了一种解决这些问题的方法，重点在于对相互矛盾的研究进行批判性分析，而不是无休止的重复过程。这使得以往的研究能够得到更客观的解释并解决冲突，同时引导未来研究的设计，避免已发现的陷阱。这两个结果都能使研究工作更有成效。第一个例子是关于自闭症运动感知的研究，其中使用不同的刺激存在问题。经过更深入的批判性分析，运动刺激的一个基本方面表明，基于所使用刺激的差异，出现矛盾是可以预料的。解决这个问题可以推动该领域走向问题的解决。第二个例子是关于空间频率敏感性的研究。在这里，糟糕的研究设计得出的结果导致了自闭症的“鹰眼视力”假说。最初研究中的错误被揭示出来，这表明该模型应该被摒弃。最后，一个普遍的问题是在自闭症中假设感知能力和基因的同质性，而实际情况是自闭症患者群体中存在亚组，且他们之间存在显著差异。本文总结了这方面的证据，并探讨了由此产生的问题。
