Do autistic individuals show atypical performance in probabilistic learning? A comparison of cue-number, predictive strength, and prediction error.

BACKGROUND

According to recent models of autism, autistic individuals may find learning probabilistic cue-outcome associations more challenging than deterministic learning, though empirical evidence for this is mixed. Here we examined the mechanism of probabilistic learning more closely by comparing autistic and non-autistic adults on inferring a target cue from multiple cues or integrating multiple target cues and learning from associations with various predictive strengths.

METHODS

52 autistic and 52 non-autistic participants completed three tasks: (i) single-cue probabilistic learning, in which they had to infer a single target cue from multiple cues to learn cue-outcome associations; (ii) multi-cue probabilistic learning, in which they had to learn associations of various predictive strengths via integration of multiple cues; and (iii) reinforcement learning, which required learning the contingencies of two stimuli with a probabilistic reinforcement schedule. Accuracy on the two probabilistic learning tasks was modelled separately using a binomial mixed effects model whereas computational modelling was performed on the reinforcement learning data to obtain a model parameter on prediction error integration (i.e., learning rate).

RESULTS

No group differences were found in the single-cue probabilistic learning task. Group differences were evident for the multi-cue probabilistic learning task for associations that are weakly predictive (between 40 and 60%) but not when they are strongly predictive (10-20% or 80-90%). Computational modelling on the reinforcement learning task revealed that, as a group, autistic individuals had a higher learning rate than non-autistic individuals.

LIMITATIONS

Due to the online nature of the study, we could not confirm the diagnosis of our autistic sample. The autistic participants were likely to have typical intelligence, and so our findings may not be generalisable to the entire autistic population. The learning tasks are constrained by a relatively small number of trials, and so it is unclear whether group differences will still be seen when given more trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Autistic adults showed similar performance as non-autistic adults in learning associations by inferring a single cue or integrating multiple cues when the predictive strength was strong. However, non-autistic adults outperformed autistic adults when the predictive strength was weak, but only in the later phase. Autistic individuals were also more likely to incorporate prediction errors during decision making, which may explain their atypical performance on the weakly predictive associations. Our findings have implications for understanding differences in social cognition, which is often noisy and weakly predictive, among autistic individuals.