Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-07
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • 2024-04
  • 2024-05

    • It is likely that a history

    2018-11-15

    It is likely that a history of atypical social experiences contributes to the abnormal eicosapentaenoic acid activity observed in children with ASD during social interactions. Research examining the nature of social relationships in children and adolescents with ASD has found that compared to typically developing (TD) youth, children with ASD show higher rates of peer victimization (Little, 2001), as well as social rejection and bullying (Symes and Humphrey, 2010). Youth with ASD also report receiving less peer approval (Williamson et al., 2008) and experiencing more loneliness (Bauminger and Kasari, 2000). Children with ASD initiate social interactions less frequently than TD peers (Hauck et al., 1995). High-functioning children with ASD are both cognizant and distressed by social rejection (Ochs et al., 2001). Thus, by adolescence, individuals with ASD have likely endured a very different and profoundly difficult experience of peer relationships relative to their TD counterparts. One\'s previous experiences and expectations of social interactions can influence immediate responses to peer rejection. For instance, the expectation of future social exclusion leads to emotional numbing to physical and social pain (DeWall and Baumeister, 2006). While adolescents with ASD exhibit normal anxiety and need threat responses to rejection, they also show decreased modulation of mood following exclusion compared to TD peers (Sebastian et al., 2009). This finding, along with two separate accounts of hypoactivation in brain regions typically responsive to social exclusion including ACC and anterior insula (Bolling et al., 2011b; Masten et al., 2011), led Masten et al. to hypothesize that reduced neural sensitivity to rejection in ASD may be a result of habituation to social exclusion or increased expectancy of being rejected by unfamiliar peers. In contrast to the idea that experience accounts for abnormal brain responses to exclusion in ASD, other research suggests that endogenous, biological factors influence brain responses to social stimuli in children with ASD. Neuroimaging work has detected signs of a “neural endophenotype” of autism; atypical patterns of brain structure and function that are shared between children with ASD and their unaffected siblings (UAS; Barnea-Goraly et al., 2010; Belmonte et al., 2010; Dalton et al., 2007; Kaiser et al., 2010; Spencer et al., 2011). One study investigating brain responses to biological motion found trait-level hypoactivation shared between children with ASD and UAS in regions including right inferior temporal gyrus, left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, and bilateral fusiform gyrus (Kaiser et al., 2010). Because UAS do not share in the ASD clinical phenotype or the experience of growing up with ASD, these common neural profiles are thought to be a result of the strong genetic basis for the disorder (for review see Gupta and State, 2007). Supporting this claim, behavioral assessments of UAS of children with ASD have found largely normal patterns of social support, social competence, and psychosocial development (Kaminsky and Dewey, 2002; Macks and Reeve, 2007; Pilowsky et al., 2004; Rodrigue and Geffken, 1993). Thus, while some neural profiles are common among the two groups, the experience of social victimization and isolation in youth with ASD does not seem to be shared by their healthy siblings. To investigate atypical neural responses to social rejection in children with ASD and UAS that may represent trait-level biological vulnerabilities to developing autism, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure brain responses to discrete periods of social exclusion. To this end, we used a modification of the Cyberball task (Williams et al., 2000) during which participants play an online ball-tossing game with two other ostensibly-real children. The game alternates between periods of fair play, where the participant receives the ball on one-third of the throws, and social exclusion, where the participant does not receive any throws. While it is extremely difficult to assess neural activation during actual peer rejection because of methodological constraints, this study utilized an experimental model of peer rejection that has been developed in an attempt to marry a naturalistic social experience of rejection with necessary controls on presentation (Williams et al., 2000). The hope is that for each participant, brain responses to the experience of social exclusion during Cyberball will mirror brain responses during a natural occurrence of peer rejection.