Advertisement

Do ostensive cues affect object processing in children with and without autism? A test of natural pedagogy theory

  • Tobias SchuwerkEmail author
  • Johannes Bätz
  • Birgit Träuble
  • Beate Sodian
  • Markus Paulus
Original Article
  • 3 Downloads

Abstract

Theories suggest that the perception of others’ actions and social cues leads to selective processing of object features. Most recently, natural pedagogy theory postulated that ostensive cues lead to a selective processing of an object’s features at the expense of processing of its location. This study examined this hypothesis in 10-year-old children with and without autism spectrum condition (ASC) to better understand social information processing in ASC and the relevance of observing others in human object processing in general. Participants saw an agent either ostensively pointing to an object or non-ostensively grasping an object. Thereafter, the cued or uncued object changed either its location or identity. We assessed not only behavioral responses, but also participants’ gaze behavior by means of eye tracking. In contrast to natural pedagogy theory, we found that in the non-ostensive grasping context, participants rather noticed an identity change than a location change. Moreover, location changes were more readily identified in the ostensive pointing context. Importantly, there was no difference between children with and without ASC. Our study shows that the perception of ostensively vs. non-ostensively framed actions leads to different processing of object features, indicating a close link between action perception, object processing, and social cues. Moreover, the lacking group difference in our study suggests that these basic perception–action processes are not impaired in autism.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by a grant from VolkswagenStiftung. We thank all children and their families for participating in this study. Furthermore, we are grateful to Tabea Schädel, Veronika Eisenschmid, Verena Rampeltshammer, and Teresa Wenhart for their help in data acquisition. We thank Martin Sobanski (Heckscher-Klinikum gGmbH) and Martina Schabert (autkom) for their help with recruiting participants.

References

  1. Aldaqre, I., Paulus, M., & Sodian, B. (2015). Referential gaze and word learning in adults with autism. Autism, 19(8), 944–955.Google Scholar
  2. Aldaqre, I., Schuwerk, T., Daum, M. M., Sodian, B., & Paulus, M. (2016). Sensitivity to communicative and non-communicative gestures in adolescents and adults with autism spectrum disorder: saccadic and pupillary responses. Experimental Brain Research, 234(9), 2515–2527.Google Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Becchio, C., Bertone, C., & Castiello, U. (2008). How the gaze of others influences object processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(7), 254–258.Google Scholar
  5. Bekkering, H., & Neggers, S. F. (2002). Visual search is modulated by action intentions. Psychological Science, 13(4), 370–374.Google Scholar
  6. Böckler, A., van der Wel, R. P., & Welsh, T. N. (2014). Catching eyes: effects of social and nonsocial cues on attention capture. Psychological Science, 25(3), 720–727.Google Scholar
  7. Böckler, A., van der Wel, R. P., & Welsh, T. N. (2015). Eyes only? Perceiving eye contact is neither sufficient nor necessary for attentional capture by face direction. Acta Psychologica, 160, 134–140.Google Scholar
  8. Bolis, D., Balsters, J., Wenderoth, N., Becchio, C., & Schilbach, L. (2017). Beyond autism: introducing the dialectical misattunement hypothesis and a bayesian account of intersubjectivity. Psychopathology, 50(6), 355–372.Google Scholar
  9. Bölte, S., & Poustka, F. (2006). Fragebogen zur sozialen Kommunikation (FSK) [Social Communication Questionnaire]. Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  10. Bölte, S., & Poustka, F. (2008). Skala zur Erfassung sozialer Reaktivität (SRS) [Social Responsiveness Scale]. Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  11. Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1988). Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: University of Chicago press.Google Scholar
  12. Chevallier, C., Kohls, G., Troiani, V., Brodkin, E. S., & Schultz, R. T. (2012). The social motivation theory of autism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(4), 231–239.Google Scholar
  13. Constantino, J. N., & Gruber, C. P. (2005). Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS). Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.Google Scholar
  14. Corkum, V., & Moore, C. (1998). The origins of joint visual attention in infants. Developmental Psychology, 34(1), 28.Google Scholar
  15. Csibra, G. (2010). Recognizing communicative intentions in infancy. Mind and Language, 25, 141–168.Google Scholar
  16. Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2009). Natural pedagogy. Trends in cognitive sciences, 13(4), 148–153.Google Scholar
  17. Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2011). Natural pedagogy as evolutionary adaptation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(1567), 1149–1157.Google Scholar
  18. Csibra, G., & Shamsudheen, R. (2015). Nonverbal generics: Human infants interpret objects as symbols of object kinds. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 689–710.Google Scholar
  19. Cusack, J. P., Williams, J. H., & Neri, P. (2015). Action perception is intact in autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Neuroscience, 35(5), 1849–1857.Google Scholar
  20. de Bordes, P. F., Cox, R. F., Hasselman, F., & Cillessen, A. H. (2013). Toddlers’ gaze following through attention modulation: Intention is in the eye of the beholder. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(2), 443–452.Google Scholar
  21. De Jaegher, H. (2013). Embodiment and sense-making in autism. Frontier in Integrative Neuroscience, 7, 15.Google Scholar
  22. Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2013). The (not so) social Simon effect: a referential coding account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(5), 1248.Google Scholar
  23. Fagioli, S., Ferlazzo, F., & Hommel, B. (2007a). Controlling attention through action: Observing actions primes action-related stimulus dimensions. Neuropsychologia, 45(14), 3351–3355.Google Scholar
  24. Fagioli, S., Hommel, B., & Schubotz, R. I. (2007b). Intentional control of attention: Action planning primes action-related stimulus dimensions. Psychological Research, 71(1), 22–29.Google Scholar
  25. Falck-Ytter, T. (2009). Young children with autism spectrum disorder use predictive eye movements in action observation. Biology Letters, 6(3), 375–378.Google Scholar
  26. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.Google Scholar
  27. Ferguson, H. J., & Breheny, R. (2012). Listeners’ eyes reveal spontaneous sensitivity to others’ perspectives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 257–263.Google Scholar
  28. Frischen, A., Bayliss, A. P., & Tipper, S. P. (2007). Gaze cueing of attention: visual attention, social cognition, and individual differences. Psychological Bulletin, 133(4), 694.Google Scholar
  29. Frith, U. (2012). Why we need cognitive explanations of autism. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(11), 2073–2092.Google Scholar
  30. Frith, C., & Frith, U. (2008). Implicit and Explicit Processes in Social Cognition. Neuron, 60(3), 503–510.Google Scholar
  31. Ganglmayer, K., Schuwerk, T., Sodian, B., & Paulus, M. (2019). Do children and adults with autism spectrum condition anticipate others’ actions as goal-directed? A predictive coding perspective. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 8, 1–13.Google Scholar
  32. Gredebäck, G., Astor, K., & Fawcett, C. (2018). Gaze following is not dependent on ostensive cues: a critical test of natural pedagogy. Child Development, 89, 2091–2098.Google Scholar
  33. Guillon, Q., Hadjikhani, N., Baduel, S., & Rogé, B. (2014). Visual social attention in autism spectrum disorder: Insights from eye tracking studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 42, 279–297.Google Scholar
  34. Hamilton, A. F. D. C. (2015). Cognitive underpinnings of social interaction. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(3), 417–432.Google Scholar
  35. Hanna, J. E., & Brennan, S. E. (2007). Speakers’ eye gaze disambiguates referring expressions early during face-to-face conversation. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(4), 596–615.Google Scholar
  36. Heasman, B., & Gillespie, A. (2018). Perspective-taking is two-sided: Misunderstandings between people with Asperger’s syndrome and their family members. Autism, 22(6), 740–750.Google Scholar
  37. Heyes, C. (2016). Born pupils? Natural pedagogy and cultural pedagogy. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(2), 280–295.Google Scholar
  38. IBM SPSS Statistics, Version 24.0 [Computer software]. Armonk: IBM Corp.Google Scholar
  39. JASP, Version 0.9 [Computer software]. Amsterdam, NL: JASP Team.Google Scholar
  40. Jaswal, V. K., & Akhtar, N. (2018). Being vs. appearing socially uninterested: challenging assumptions about social motivation in autism. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X18001826.Google Scholar
  41. Jeffreys, H. (1961). The Theory of Probability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Karatekin, C. (2007). Eye tracking studies of normative and atypical development. Developmental Review, 27(3), 283–348.Google Scholar
  43. Knoblich, G., & Sebanz, N. (2008). Evolving intentions for social interaction: from entrainment to joint action. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 363(1499), 2021–2031.Google Scholar
  44. Kunde, W., Weller, L., & Pfister, R. (2018). Sociomotor action control. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(3), 917–931.Google Scholar
  45. LeBel, E. P., McCarthy, R. J., Earp, B. D., Elson, M., & Vanpaemel, W. (2018). A unified framework to quantify the credibility of scientific findings. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(3), 389–402.Google Scholar
  46. Lord, C., Risi, S., Lambrecht, L., Cook, E. H., Jr., Leventhal, B. L., DiLavore, P. C., & Rutter, M. (2000). The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule—Generic: A standard measure of social and communication deficits associated with the spectrum of autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30(3), 205–223.Google Scholar
  47. Marno, H., Davelaar, E. J., & Csibra, G. (2014). Nonverbal communicative signals modulate attention to object properties. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(2), 752–762.Google Scholar
  48. Marsh, L. E., Pearson, A., Ropar, D., & Hamilton, A. D. C. (2015). Predictive gaze during observation of irrational actions in adults with autism spectrum conditions. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(1), 245–261.Google Scholar
  49. Moore, C. (2013). The Development of Commonsense Psychology. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  50. Palmer, C. J., Paton, B., Kirkovski, M., Enticott, P. G., & Hohwy, J. (2015). Context sensitivity in action decreases along the autism spectrum: a predictive processing perspective. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 282(1802), 20141557.Google Scholar
  51. Paulus, M. (2012). Action mirroring and action understanding: An ideomotor and attentional account. Psychological Research, 76, 760–767.Google Scholar
  52. Paulus, M., Murillo, E., & Sodian, B. (2016). When the body reveals the mind: Children’s use of others’ body orientation to understand their focus of attention. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 148, 101–118.Google Scholar
  53. Pellicano, E., & Burr, D. (2012). When the world becomes ‘too real’: a Bayesian explanation of autistic perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(10), 504–510.Google Scholar
  54. Petermann, F., & Petermann, U. (2007). Hamburg-Wechsler Intelligenztest für Kinder—IV (HAWIK-IV). Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  55. Rouder, J. N., Speckman, P. J., Sun, D., & Morey, R. D. (2009). Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(2), 225–237.Google Scholar
  56. Rutter, M., Bailey, A., & Lord, C. (2003). The social communication questionnaire: Manual. Western Psychological Services.Google Scholar
  57. Schmidt, S. (2009). Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected in the social sciences. Review of General Psychology, 13(2), 90–100.Google Scholar
  58. Schönbrodt, F. D., Wagenmakers, E. J., Zehetleitner, M., & Perugini, M. (2017). Sequential hypothesis testing with Bayes factors: Efficiently testing mean differences. Psychological Methods, 22(2), 322.Google Scholar
  59. Schütz-Bosbach, S., & Prinz, W. (2007). Perceptual resonance: Action-induced modulation of perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(8), 349–355.Google Scholar
  60. Schuwerk, T., Sodian, B., & Paulus, M. (2016). Cognitive mechanisms underlying action prediction in children and adults with autism spectrum condition. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46(12), 3623–3639.Google Scholar
  61. Schwartz, S., & Susser, E. (2011). The use of well controls: an unhealthy practice in psychiatric research. Psychological Medicine, 41(6), 1127–1131.Google Scholar
  62. Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., Stumpf, L., & Prinz, W. (2005). Far from action-blind: Representation of others’ actions in individuals with autism. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3–4), 433–454.Google Scholar
  63. Senju, A., & Csibra, G. (2008). Gaze Following in Human Infants Depends on Communicative Signals. Current Biology, 18(9), 668–671.Google Scholar
  64. Shultz, S., Jones, W., & Klin, A. (2015). Early departures from normative processes of social engagement in infants with autism spectrum disorder. The Many Faces of Social Attention (pp. 157–177). Berlin: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  65. Silverstein, P., Gliga, T., Westermann, G., & Parise, E. (2019). Probing communication-induced memory biases in preverbal infants: Two replication attempts of Yoon, Johnson and Csibra (2008). Infant Behavior and Development, 55, 77–87.Google Scholar
  66. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2012). A 21 word solution. Dialogue: The Official Newsletter of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 4–7.Google Scholar
  67. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  68. Szufnarowska, J., Rohlfing, K. J., Fawcett, C., & Gredebäck, G. (2014). Is ostension any more than attention? Scientific Reports, 4, 5304.Google Scholar
  69. Tobii Studio (3.1) [computer software]. Stockholm, Sweden: Tobii Technology.Google Scholar
  70. Thill, S., Caligiore, D., Borghi, A. M., Ziemke, T., & Baldassarre, G. (2013). Theories and computational models of affordance and mirror systems: an integrative review. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 37(3), 491–521.Google Scholar
  71. Träuble, B., & Bätz, J. (2014). Shared function knowledge: Infants’ attention to function information in communicative contexts. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 124, 67–77.Google Scholar
  72. Träuble, B., & Pauen, S. (2007). The role of functional information for infant categorization. Cognition, 105(2), 362–379.Google Scholar
  73. Vivanti, G., McCormick, C., Young, G. S., Abucayan, F., Hatt, N., Nadig, A., … Rogers, S. J. (2011). Intact and impaired mechanisms of action understanding in autism. Developmental Psychology, 47(3), 841–856.Google Scholar
  74. Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-WISC-IV. Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  75. Wetzels, R., Grasman, R. P., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2012). A default Bayesian hypothesis test for ANOVA designs. The American Statistician, 66(2), 104–111.Google Scholar
  76. Williams, J. H., Whiten, A., & Singh, T. (2004). A systematic review of action imitation in autistic spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(3), 285–299.Google Scholar
  77. Witt, J. K. (2011). Action’s effect on perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(3), 201–206.Google Scholar
  78. World Health Organization. (1993). ICD-10: The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders: Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  79. Wykowska, A., Schubö, A., & Hommel, B. (2009). How you move is what you see: action planning biases selection in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(6), 1755–1769.Google Scholar
  80. Yoon, J. M., Johnson, M. H., & Csibra, G. (2008). Communication-induced memory biases in preverbal infants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(36), 13690–13695.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyLudwig-Maximilians-UniversityMunichGermany
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CologneCologneGermany

Personalised recommendations