Neurological Differences in Autistic Individuals Research Paper

Introduction

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD), commonly referred to as autism, is a complex neurodevelopmental condition characterized by a range of challenges in social communication and behavior. It affects a significant portion of the population, with an estimated global prevalence of approximately 1 in 160 individuals (Baio et al., 2018). The study of autism has a rich historical context, dating back to the pioneering work of Leo Kanner and Hans Asperger in the mid-20th century. Kanner’s description of “early infantile autism” (Kanner, 1943) and Asperger’s identification of “autistic psychopathy” (Asperger, 1944) laid the foundation for subsequent research, which has since evolved to recognize the broad spectrum of autistic experiences and characteristics.

The central objective of this research paper is to investigate the neurological differences exhibited by autistic individuals, a crucial area of inquiry within the broader field of autism research. By exploring the intricacies of these neurological distinctions, we aim to enhance our understanding of autism and its multifaceted nature. Our primary research question is as follows: What are the key neurological differences that underlie the manifestations of autism in individuals, and how do these differences impact their daily lives? Understanding these neurological distinctions is of paramount importance for several reasons. Firstly, it contributes to the development of targeted interventions and support systems that can improve the quality of life for autistic individuals and their families (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Secondly, it aids in destigmatizing autism by highlighting that these neurological differences are inherent and not a result of personal choice or parenting. Lastly, delving into this area provides critical insights into the broader field of neurology, as the unique features of the autistic brain challenge our understanding of typical neurodevelopment.

This paper is organized as follows: In the subsequent sections, we will provide a comprehensive literature review on the neurological differences observed in autistic individuals (Section III). We will delve into the methodologies used to study these differences (Section IV) and present the results and findings from previous research (Section V). In the discussion (Section VI), we will analyze the implications of these neurological distinctions, their theoretical contributions, practical applications, and suggest avenues for future research. In the conclusion (Section VII), we will summarize the key findings and reiterate the significance of understanding neurological differences in autistic individuals.

Literature Review

Theoretical Framework

The study of autism and its neurological underpinnings is underpinned by various theoretical frameworks and models. One prominent theoretical framework in autism research is the “Theory of Mind” (ToM). This framework, introduced by Baron-Cohen, Leslie, and Frith (1985), suggests that individuals with autism may have difficulty understanding the mental states and perspectives of others, leading to challenges in social interactions and communication. Additionally, the “Weak Central Coherence” theory proposed by Frith (1989) posits that autistic individuals tend to focus on local details while struggling with global processing, which may explain their strength in certain cognitive tasks, such as pattern recognition, but challenges in social and communication domains.

Neurological Differences in Autistic Individuals

The investigation of neurological differences in autistic individuals has uncovered several key areas of interest. Neuroimaging studies have revealed differences in brain structure, such as increased gray matter volume in certain regions like the prefrontal cortex and amygdala (Ecker et al., 2012), as well as differences in white matter connectivity, particularly in the corpus callosum (Aoki et al., 2017). These structural variances are associated with functional differences, impacting sensory processing, emotional regulation, and social cognition (Dinstein et al., 2011). Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have demonstrated atypical patterns of brain activation during social tasks, further highlighting the neurological basis of social difficulties in autism (Redcay et al., 2013).

Numerous studies have contributed to our understanding of neurological differences in autism. For instance, a study by Müller et al. (2011) used functional connectivity MRI to demonstrate that in autistic individuals, the default mode network, associated with self-referential thinking, showed weaker connectivity with the social brain networks, which may contribute to social challenges in autism. Another study by Just et al. (2007) used fMRI to identify differences in the activation of the mirror neuron system, suggesting potential reasons for difficulties in imitation and social learning in autistic individuals. These studies collectively underscore the role of brain structure and functioning in the manifestation of autistic traits.

Behavioral and Cognitive Characteristics

Autistic individuals exhibit a wide range of behavioral and cognitive characteristics. These traits include difficulties in social communication and interaction, repetitive behaviors and restricted interests, sensory sensitivities, and atypical communication styles (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Moreover, many autistic individuals display exceptional skills in areas such as mathematics, music, or visual-spatial reasoning, highlighting the heterogeneity of cognitive profiles within the autism spectrum (Happé, 1999). It’s crucial to recognize that these behavioral and cognitive characteristics are closely intertwined with the neurological differences observed in autism.

Genetics and Heritability

Genetic factors play a significant role in the development of neurological differences in autistic individuals. Recent research has highlighted the involvement of multiple genes, with a high degree of heritability in autism (Tick et al., 2016). For instance, mutations in genes like SHANK3, NLGN3, and NLGN4X have been associated with autism and may affect synaptic function, leading to altered connectivity and neural signaling (Bourgeron, 2015). While specific genetic factors are implicated in some cases, the complex genetic architecture of autism underscores its heterogeneity, with various genetic pathways contributing to neurological differences.

Environmental Factors

In addition to genetic factors, environmental influences have also been explored in relation to the development of neurological differences in autism. Prenatal and perinatal factors, such as maternal infection, exposure to environmental toxins, and maternal stress, have been investigated as potential contributors to the risk of autism (Lyall et al., 2017). Furthermore, studies have examined the impact of early life experiences, such as the quality of parent-child interactions and access to early intervention services, on the neurological and behavioral outcomes of autistic individuals (Volkmar et al., 2014). The interplay between genetic and environmental factors further complicates our understanding of the etiology of autism and the associated neurological differences.

Gender and Age Differences

Research on autism has increasingly recognized the importance of understanding potential gender differences in neurological profiles. Studies suggest that females with autism may exhibit different patterns of brain connectivity and cognitive strengths compared to males (Lai et al., 2015). The “female protective effect” hypothesis posits that females require a greater genetic or environmental “hit” to manifest autism, potentially leading to distinct neurological presentations. The investigation of gender differences in autism is an evolving area of research, emphasizing the need for a nuanced understanding of neurological variation within the autism spectrum.

Age-related changes in neurological profiles have also been a subject of interest. Longitudinal studies have revealed dynamic alterations in brain connectivity and structure throughout the lifespan of autistic individuals (Libero et al., 2015). Early interventions and supports can contribute to positive neurological adaptations and mitigate challenges (Dawson et al., 2010). The examination of age-related neurological differences underscores the potential for targeted interventions to facilitate adaptive changes in the brains of autistic individuals.

In summary, this literature review has provided a comprehensive overview of the theoretical frameworks, key neurological differences, behavioral and cognitive characteristics, genetic and environmental factors, as well as potential gender and age variations in neurological profiles within the autism spectrum. Understanding these complexities is vital for developing effective interventions and support systems that can enhance the lives of autistic individuals and inform future research directions.

Methodology

Data Collection

The methodology employed in previous research studies on neurological differences in autistic individuals encompasses various data collection techniques that provide valuable insights into the neurological aspects of autism. Neuroimaging studies have been instrumental in this regard, enabling researchers to investigate the structural and functional brain differences associated with autism. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) are common tools used to collect data in this domain. These techniques offer detailed images of the brain’s anatomy and activation patterns during specific tasks, respectively (Ecker et al., 2012).

Moreover, electrophysiological methods, such as Electroencephalography (EEG) and Magnetoencephalography (MEG), have been utilized to examine the brain’s electrical activity and magnetic fields, providing information on neural dynamics and connectivity (Brock et al., 2002). Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scans have also been applied to assess regional brain metabolism and neurotransmitter activity (Haznedar et al., 1997).

Behavioral and cognitive data collection methods in previous studies include standardized assessments, questionnaires, and observational measures. The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) and the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R) are widely used tools for diagnosing autism and assessing social and communicative behaviors (Lord et al., 1999). Additionally, studies often employ the Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS) to quantify social impairments and the Repetitive Behavior Scale-Revised (RBS-R) to measure repetitive behaviors (Constantino and Gruber, 2012; Bodfish et al., 2000).

Participants

Participants in studies examining neurological differences in autistic individuals vary in terms of age, gender, and clinical characteristics. These studies typically involve both children and adults, allowing researchers to explore how neurological profiles evolve across the lifespan. The recruitment of neurotypical control groups facilitates comparisons to highlight specific differences associated with autism.

Furthermore, the inclusion of participants from diverse demographic backgrounds, such as gender and ethnicity, is important for a comprehensive understanding of neurological variations within the autism spectrum. While many studies aim to balance the representation of gender, challenges in recruiting female autistic participants are noted, as autism is more frequently diagnosed in males (Lai et al., 2015). Efforts to include more females in research studies contribute to a more nuanced understanding of gender-related neurological differences.

Data Analysis

The data collected in studies investigating neurological differences in autistic individuals undergo rigorous analysis to draw meaningful conclusions. In neuroimaging studies, structural MRI data are typically processed through software like FreeSurfer or FSL to assess brain anatomy and volume (Fischl, 2012; Smith et al., 2004). Functional MRI data are analyzed using various approaches, including seed-based correlation analysis, independent component analysis, or graph theory, to examine connectivity patterns between different brain regions (Biswal et al., 2010; Smith et al., 2013).

EEG and MEG data analysis often involves preprocessing to remove noise and artifacts, followed by source localization techniques to identify brain regions associated with specific neural activity (Hämäläinen et al., 1993). PET scan data are analyzed to assess regional differences in brain metabolism or neurotransmitter receptor binding (Minoshima et al., 1995).

In behavioral and cognitive data analysis, statistical software such as SPSS or R is used to analyze data obtained from questionnaires and assessments. Descriptive statistics, t-tests, ANOVA, and regression analyses are common methods to explore relationships and differences between groups (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007).

imitations

Despite the valuable insights gained from these methodologies, there are several limitations that researchers encounter in studies examining neurological differences in autistic individuals. First, the heterogeneity within the autism spectrum presents a challenge, as participants may exhibit vastly different clinical characteristics, cognitive profiles, and neurological variations. This diversity can complicate the identification of consistent neurological patterns associated with autism.

Second, recruitment bias is often an issue, as studies may disproportionately include high-functioning or male participants, potentially overlooking individuals with more significant neurological differences or those who are underrepresented in the autism spectrum.

Third, methodological differences across studies can make it challenging to synthesize findings. Variability in data collection techniques, analysis tools, and sample characteristics can lead to inconsistencies and hinder the generalization of results.

Lastly, the cross-sectional nature of many studies limits our understanding of how neurological differences in autism change over time. Longitudinal research is essential to capture developmental trajectories and age-related variations.

In summary, the methodology utilized in studies investigating neurological differences in autistic individuals employs diverse data collection techniques, participant characteristics, and analytical tools. While these methodologies have yielded valuable insights, they are not without limitations, including the challenge of heterogeneity within the autism spectrum, recruitment bias, methodological differences, and the need for more longitudinal research to capture age-related changes in neurological profiles.

Results

Summary of Findings

The investigation of neurological differences in autistic individuals has yielded several key findings that shed light on the underlying factors contributing to the complex and heterogeneous nature of autism. These findings pertain to various aspects, including brain structure, connectivity, functioning, as well as behavioral and cognitive characteristics. The synthesis of multiple studies and experiments provides valuable insights into the neurological distinctions within the autism spectrum.

Neuroimaging studies have consistently demonstrated that autistic individuals exhibit structural and connectivity differences in specific brain regions. For instance, Ecker et al. (2012) found increased gray matter volume in the prefrontal cortex and amygdala, which is associated with emotion processing, and often implicated in the social challenges experienced by autistic individuals. Meanwhile, Aoki et al. (2017) identified differences in white matter connectivity, particularly in the corpus callosum, which plays a vital role in integrating information between the two brain hemispheres. This alteration in connectivity can affect information transfer and coordination between brain regions, potentially contributing to the varied cognitive and social profiles observed in autism.

Functional neuroimaging studies have provided insight into the unique patterns of brain activation in autistic individuals. Dinstein et al. (2011) showed atypical activation in sensory processing regions during social tasks, emphasizing the connection between sensory sensitivities and social difficulties. Additionally, fMRI studies have revealed distinct brain activation patterns during tasks related to theory of mind (ToM) and social cognition. The study by Redcay et al. (2013) demonstrated that autistic individuals often exhibit altered activation in brain regions associated with ToM, suggesting potential difficulties in understanding the mental states of others, a characteristic feature of autism (Baron-Cohen et al., 1985). These findings underscore the neurological basis of social and communication challenges in autism.

Supporting Evidence

The structural and connectivity differences observed in autistic individuals are further supported by numerous studies. For example, a study by Nordahl et al. (2007) identified increased brain volume in the amygdala, a region crucial for processing emotional information and social cues. Their findings align with Ecker et al.’s (2012) observations of increased gray matter volume in the amygdala, reinforcing the connection between amygdala alterations and emotional regulation difficulties in autism.

The study by Damarla et al. (2010) utilized diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) to investigate white matter integrity in autistic individuals. They reported decreased fractional anisotropy (FA) in the corpus callosum, which is in line with Aoki et al.’s (2017) findings. Reduced FA indicates compromised white matter connectivity, affecting communication between brain regions and contributing to the diverse cognitive and social characteristics associated with autism.

Functional neuroimaging studies corroborate the presence of unique patterns of brain activation in autistic individuals. Monk et al. (2010) conducted an fMRI study on face processing in autism, revealing differential activation in the fusiform face area, a region implicated in face recognition. These findings are consistent with Dinstein et al.’s (2011) observations of atypical sensory activation during social tasks and further underscore the neurological underpinnings of difficulties in social interactions and facial recognition often experienced by autistic individuals.

The research by Just et al. (2007) using fMRI highlighted differences in the activation of the mirror neuron system in autistic individuals during imitation tasks. These findings align with the “Weak Central Coherence” theory (Frith, 1989) and support the notion that autistic individuals may experience difficulties in imitating and learning from others due to atypical neural responses in areas associated with mirroring and social learning.

In summary, the results of numerous studies and experiments consistently support the existence of neurological differences in autistic individuals, including structural and connectivity variations in specific brain regions, as well as unique patterns of brain activation during social and cognitive tasks. These findings emphasize the importance of understanding the neurological foundations of autism to develop targeted interventions and support systems for autistic individuals and their families.

Discussion

Implications

The neurological differences observed in autistic individuals have significant implications for their daily lives. Understanding these distinctions offers insights into the challenges they face and provides a foundation for developing more effective support systems and interventions. One key implication is the recognition that many of the challenges autistic individuals encounter, such as social difficulties and sensory sensitivities, are not the result of personal choice or parenting but have a neurological basis. This recognition can contribute to destigmatizing autism and promoting greater acceptance and understanding.

Moreover, the knowledge of neurological differences can inform the design of more tailored interventions. For instance, awareness of atypical brain connectivity in autistic individuals can guide the development of interventions that target specific neural pathways to improve social and communication skills. Additionally, recognizing the sensory processing differences can lead to sensory-friendly environments and accommodations to reduce sensory overload and enhance the well-being of autistic individuals. Furthermore, an understanding of the neurological underpinnings of repetitive behaviors can inform strategies to address and manage such behaviors effectively, improving the quality of life for autistic individuals and their families.

Theoretical Contributions

The findings related to neurological differences in autistic individuals have made substantial contributions to both autism research and the broader field of neurology. They have provided empirical support for several key theoretical frameworks, such as the Theory of Mind (ToM) and the Weak Central Coherence theory, which were initially proposed to explain behavioral and cognitive differences in autism. The atypical patterns of brain activation and connectivity observed during ToM tasks align with the ToM framework (Baron-Cohen et al., 1985) and substantiate the idea that autistic individuals may struggle to understand the mental states of others.

Furthermore, the altered activation in brain regions associated with mirroring and social learning in autism, as demonstrated by Just et al. (2007), lends support to the Weak Central Coherence theory (Frith, 1989). This theory suggests that autistic individuals may focus on local details and struggle with global processing, leading to difficulties in social cognition. The neurological evidence for this theory underscores the importance of considering the cognitive and neurological factors that contribute to the diverse cognitive profiles within the autism spectrum.

Practical Applications

The knowledge of neurological differences in autistic individuals has practical applications that can directly benefit the lives of those on the autism spectrum. First, this understanding informs the development of personalized interventions. For example, behavioral interventions that target specific neural circuits can be designed to improve social communication skills or reduce repetitive behaviors. Occupational therapy and sensory integration interventions can be adapted to accommodate sensory sensitivities and enhance the daily experiences of autistic individuals.

Moreover, this understanding can guide the creation of sensory-friendly environments in schools, workplaces, and public spaces. These environments consider the sensory processing differences in autism, reducing sensory overload and promoting comfort for autistic individuals. This inclusive approach fosters a more inclusive society where autistic individuals can thrive and participate fully in various aspects of life.

Additionally, the identification of gender and age-related variations in neurological differences can inform personalized interventions based on an individual’s unique neurological profile. For example, interventions can be tailored to address the specific neurological challenges faced by females with autism, recognizing their distinct patterns of connectivity and cognitive strengths (Lai et al., 2015). Age-specific interventions can focus on addressing age-related neurological changes and facilitating adaptive alterations in brain functioning.

Future Research

While significant progress has been made in understanding the neurological differences in autistic individuals, there remain several avenues for future research and potential improvements in methodology. Longitudinal studies that track the neurological changes across the lifespan of autistic individuals are essential to capture the dynamic nature of these differences. Such studies can provide insights into age-related variations in neurological profiles, as well as the impact of early interventions and supports on neurological development.

Moreover, research exploring the interplay between genetic and environmental factors in shaping neurological differences in autism is warranted. Understanding how genetic predispositions interact with environmental influences to produce specific neurological profiles is critical for a more comprehensive understanding of the condition. Additionally, studies that examine the impact of various therapies and interventions on brain structure and functioning can provide valuable data for optimizing treatment strategies.

Methodological improvements can include standardizing data collection techniques and analysis procedures across studies to enhance the comparability of results. Collaborative efforts among researchers and the sharing of datasets can facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of neurological differences in autism. Finally, efforts to include diverse and underrepresented populations within the autism spectrum in research studies are crucial to ensure that findings apply to a broader range of individuals with autism.

In conclusion, the neurological differences in autistic individuals hold important implications for their daily lives, theoretical contributions to our understanding of autism and neurology, practical applications for interventions and support systems, and avenues for future research and methodological improvements. This growing body of knowledge not only advances our understanding of autism but also paves the way for more targeted and inclusive approaches to enhance the lives of autistic individuals and their families.

Conclusion

Summarize the key points of the paper

This research paper has delved into the intricate landscape of neurological differences in autistic individuals, offering a comprehensive examination of their implications, theoretical contributions, practical applications, and avenues for future research. We explored the structural and functional variations in the brains of autistic individuals, highlighting key findings from neuroimaging studies that underpin the neurological basis of autism. The neurological differences are intertwined with the behavioral and cognitive characteristics exhibited by autistic individuals, contributing to the diverse profiles within the autism spectrum. Additionally, genetic and environmental factors play a substantial role in shaping these neurological distinctions. Gender and age-related variations in neurological profiles further emphasize the complexity of autism.

Reiterate the significance of understanding neurological differences in autistic individuals

The significance of understanding neurological differences in autistic individuals cannot be overstated. These distinctions provide a window into the challenges faced by autistic individuals, destigmatizing their experiences and encouraging greater acceptance and support. Knowledge of the neurological basis of autism informs the design of more tailored interventions and accommodations, enhancing the quality of life for autistic individuals. The theoretical contributions of this research provide empirical support for key frameworks in autism research, aiding in the development of a more nuanced understanding of the condition. Furthermore, practical applications include the creation of sensory-friendly environments and personalized interventions that cater to the unique neurological profiles of autistic individuals. Finally, future research directions hold the promise of uncovering more about age-related variations, genetic and environmental influences, and the impact of interventions on neurological development. This knowledge is not only academically enlightening but also paves the way for a more inclusive and supportive society where autistic individuals can thrive and participate fully in all aspects of life.

Bibliography

1. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Publishing.
2. Aoki, Y., Abe, O., Nippashi, Y., Yamasue, H. (2017). Comparison of white matter integrity between autism spectrum disorder subjects and typically developing individuals: A meta-analysis of diffusion tensor imaging tractography studies. Molecular Autism, 8, 1-10.
3. Asperger, H. (1944). Die ‘Autistischen Psychopathen’ im Kindesalter. Archives of Psychiatry and Nervous Diseases, 117(1), 76-136.
4. Baio, J., Wiggins, L., Christensen, D. L., et al. (2018). Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder Among Children Aged 8 Years – Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 Sites, United States, 2014. MMWR Surveillance Summaries, 67(6), 1-23.
5. Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind”? Cognition, 21(1), 37-46.
6. Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Skinner, R., Martin, J., Clubley, E. (2001). The Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ): Evidence from Asperger Syndrome/High-Functioning Autism, Males and Females, Scientists and Mathematicians. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31(1), 5-17.
7. Bourgeron, T. (2015). From the genetic architecture to synaptic plasticity in autism spectrum disorder. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 16(9), 551-563.
8. Constantino, J. N., & Gruber, C. P. (2012). Social Responsiveness Scale (2nd ed.). Western Psychological Services.
9. Damarla, S. R., Keller, T. A., Kana, R. K., Cherkassky, V. L., Williams, D. L., Minshew, N. J., & Just, M. A. (2010). Cortical underconnectivity coupled with preserved visuospatial cognition in autism: Evidence from an fMRI study of an embedded figures task. Autism Research, 3(5), 273-279.
10. Dawson, G., Jones, E. J. H., Merkle, K., Venema, K., Lowy, R., Faja, S., Kamara, D., … & Webb, S. J. (2012). Early behavioral intervention is associated with normalized brain activity in young children with autism. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 51(11), 1150-1159.
11. Ecker, C., Rocha-Rego, V., Johnston, P., Mourao-Miranda, J., Marquand, A., Daly, E. M., … & Murphy, D. G. M. (2012). Investigating the predictive value of whole-brain structural MR scans in autism: A pattern classification approach. NeuroImage, 62(3), 1224-1231.
12. Fischl, B. (2012). FreeSurfer. NeuroImage, 62(2), 774-781.
13. Frith, U. (1989). Autism: Explaining the Enigma. Blackwell.
14. Frith, U. (1989). Autism: Explaining the Enigma. Blackwell.
15. Hämäläinen, M., Hari, R., Ilmoniemi, R. J., Knuutila, J., & Lounasmaa, O. V. (1993). Magnetoencephalography—theory, instrumentation, and applications to noninvasive studies of the working human brain. Reviews of Modern Physics, 65(2), 413-497.
16. Hämäläinen, M., Hari, R., Ilmoniemi, R. J., Knuutila, J., & Lounasmaa, O. V. (1993). Magnetoencephalography—theory, instrumentation, and applications to noninvasive studies of the working human brain. Reviews of Modern Physics, 65(2), 413-497.
17. Happé, F. (1999). Autism: Cognitive deficit or cognitive style? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(6), 216-222.
18. Haznedar, M. M., Buchsbaum, M. S., Luu, C., & Hazlett, E. A. (1997). Volume measurement of the temporal and parietal lobes in autism: A magnetic resonance imaging study. Biological Psychiatry, 42(5), 396-403.
19. Just, M. A., Cherkassky, V. L., Keller, T. A., Kana, R. K., Minshew, N. J. (2007). Functional and anatomical cortical underconnectivity in autism: Evidence from an FMRI study of an executive function task and corpus callosum morphometry. Cerebral Cortex, 17(4), 951-961.
20. Lai, M. C., Lombardo, M. V., Suckling, J., Ruigrok, A. N., Chakrabarti, B., Ecker, C., … & Baron-Cohen, S. (2015). Biological sex affects the neurobiology of autism. Brain, 136(9), 2799-2815.
21. Lord, C., Rutter, M., DiLavore, P. C., Risi, S., Gotham, K., Bishop, S. L. (2012). Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (2nd ed.). Western Psychological Services.
22. Lord, C., Rutter, M., Le Couteur, A. (1999). Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised: A revised version of a diagnostic interview for caregivers of individuals with possible pervasive developmental disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24(5), 659-685.
23. Minoshima, S., Giordani, B., Berent, S., Frey, K. A., Foster, N. L., Kuhl, D. E. (1995). Metabolic reduction in the posterior cingulate cortex in very early Alzheimer’s disease. Annals of Neurology, 42(1), 85-94.
24. Müller, R. A., Shih, P., Keehn, B., Deyoe, J. R., Leyden, K. M., Shukla, D. K. (2011). Underconnected, but how? A survey of functional connectivity MRI studies in autism spectrum disorders. Cerebral Cortex, 21(10), 2233-2243.
25. Redcay, E., Dodell-Feder, D., Mavros, P. L., Kleiner, M., Pearrow, M. J., Triantafyllou, C., … & Saxe, R. (2013). Atypical brain activation patterns during a face-to-face joint attention game in adults with autism spectrum disorder. Human Brain Mapping, 34(10), 2511-2523.
26. Smith, S. M., Jenkinson, M., Woolrich, M. W., Beckmann, C. F., Behrens, T. E., Johansen-Berg, H., … & Matthews, P. M. (2004). Advances in functional and structural MR image analysis and implementation as FSL. NeuroImage, 23(S1), 208-219.
27. Smith, S. M., Vidaurre, D., Beckmann, C. F., Glasser, M. F., Jenkinson, M., Miller, K. L., … & Van Essen, D. C. (2013). Functional connectomics from resting-state fMRI. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(12), 666-682.
28. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics (5th ed.). Pearson.
29. Tick, B., Bolton, P., Happé, F., Rutter, M., Rijsdijk, F. (2016). Heritability of autism spectrum disorders: A meta-analysis of twin studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 57(5), 585-595.
30. Volkmar, F. R., Siegel, M., Woodbury-Smith, M. R., King, B. H., McCracken, J. T., & State, M. (2014). Practice parameter for the assessment and treatment of children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 53(2), 237-257.