Typical and atypical profiles of temporal perception
in Autism Spectrum Disorder
Anna Lambrechts , Kielan Yarrow, Sebastian Gaigg
City University London
Introduction
• Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is characterised by difficulties in social interaction and communication, restricted interests and repetitive behaviour
• Recent studies suggest that abnormalities in timing and time perception may contribute to these difficulties (1)
• Relevant evidence, however, is inconclusive, possibly due to the variety of methodologies employed (2, 3, 5, 6)
• Atypical profile of perceptual processing in ASD could affect temporal perception differently across sensory modalities (7)
This study aims to further characterise time perception in ASD by:
 targeting durations relevant for social interaction (ms to sec range)
 examining time perception in the auditory, visual and audiovisual modalities
Analysis
Materials & Methods
TD (n=22)
Mean
Min
Max
ASD (n=24)
Age
VIQ
PIQ
FIQ
45.2
19
60
110
82
128
106
75
136
109
77
135
AQ
Age
14.7
4
25
39.5
24
61
VIQ
PIQ
109
73
143
• Stimuli: Pure tone (auditory), light grey square
(visual) or both simultaneously (audio-visual)
Short range: Standard = 800ms
Long range: Standard = 1200ms
Probe durations: ±5, 10, 25, 50% the standard
duration
FIQ
106
73
128
108
70
135
PSE - TDC
AQ
ADOS
com
ADOS
total
38.5
26
59
9
5
17
2.3
0
5
• Analysis: Data were fitted to a cumulative Gaussian
function f using the Psignifit toolbox in Matlab.
400-800 ms
Std
Point of Subjective Equality (PSE): measure
accuracy
First or second?
200-600 ms
Weber Ratio (WR): measure of precision
Probe
Slope normalised by the PSE
Auditory modality
1. WR
PSE - ASD
WR - TDC
WR - ASD
1.4
1.4
0.35
0.35
1.3
1.3
0.3
0.3
1.2
1.2
0.25
0.25
1.1
1.1
0.2
0.2
1
Short range
Long range
0.9
1
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
Aud
Vis
AV
Aud
of
Value supporting 50% of responses “probe longer than standard”
• Task: Duration comparison task, i.e. decide which
of two durations lasted longer for each pair
Results
1. PSE
• Inclusion criteria: two-parameter (psychometric
curve) significantly better than one-parameter
(horizontal line) fit in all conditions
 4 / 22 TD and 12 / 24 ASD participants were
excluded (significantly different ratio between groups)
Vis
Short range
Short range
0.15
Long range
Long range
Short range
0.15
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0
0
AV
Main effect of range (F(30,1)=27.800, p<.001, η²=0.498): PSErange1 < PSErange2
Marginal interaction modality x range (F(30,2)=3.228, p=.064 , η²=0.103)
Post-hoc paired t-tests:
- magnitude of range effect larger in visual than AV modality
- small effect of modality dependent on the range
Aud
Vis
AV
Long range
Aud
Vis
AV
Main effect of modality (F(30,2)=28.079, p<.001, η²=0.501): WRAud < WRVis, WRAV < WRVis
Main effect of range (F(30,1)=13.481, p≤.001, η²=0.325): WRrange1 > WRrange2
Marginal interaction modality x group (F(30,2)=2.921, p=.062, η²=0.094)
Marginal interaction range x group (F(30,1)=3.324, p=.079, η²=0.106)
Marginal interaction modality x range (F(30,2)=2.975, p=.072, η²=0.096)
Discussion
(1) No difference between groups in accuracy
(2) Marginally lower precision in ASD group (short range, visual modality)
(3) Central tendency of duration representation across the task in both groups (4)
(4) Expected lesser precision in the visual modality (8) and for the shorter range in both groups
(5) Large subgroup of individuals with ASD (12/24) who have great difficulty to perform the
task, in particular in the visual modality and for the shorter range of durations, and show
shorter reaction times
A large subgroup of individuals with ASD are able to perform temporal judgement on sociallyrelevant durations typically, but with less precision than TD participants. Another large subgroup
however demonstrate great difficulties in timing, especially in the visual modality. These individuals
could be lower-functioning and/or impulsive participants. Such subgroups could account for some
heterogeneity in the literature, and should be taken in consideration in future research.
References
(1) Allman, M. J. (2011). Deficits in temporal processing associated with
autistic disorder. Front Integr Neurosci., 5(March), 2.
(2) Allman, M. J., DeLeon, I. G., & Wearden, J. H. (2011). Psychophysical
assessment of timing in individuals with autism. Am. J. Intellect. Dev.
Disabil., 116(2), 165–78.
(3) Falter, C. M., Noreika, V., Wearden, J. H., & Bailey, A. J. (2012). More
consistent, yet less sensitive: Interval timing in autism spectrum
disorders. Q J Exp Psychol-A (2006), (July), 37–41.
(4) Jazayeri, M., & Shadlen, M. N. (2010). Temporal context calibrates
interval timing. Nature neuroscience, 13(8), 1020–6.
(5) Jones, C. R. G., Happé, F., Baird, G., Simonoff, E., Anita, J. S., Tregay, J.,
Phillips, R. J., et al. (2009). Auditory Discrimination and Auditory
Sensory Behaviours in Autism Spectrum Disorders. Neuropsychologia,
47(13), 2850–2858.
(6) Martin, J. S., Poirier, M., & Bowler, D. M. (2010). Brief report:
Impaired temporal reproduction performance in adults with autism
spectrum disorder. JADD, 40(5), 640–6.
(7) O’Connor, K. (2011). Auditory processing in autism spectrum disorder:
A review. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews, 36(2), 836–854.
(8) Wearden, J. H., Edwards, H., Fakhri, M., & Percival, A. (1998). Why
“Sounds Are Judged Longer Than Lights”: Application of a Model of the
Internal Clock in Hum an s Q J Exp Psychol-A, 51B(2), 97–120.