Action prediction in autistic and non-autistic observers with perceptual and cognitive load

Authors

  • Kiara Sun University of British Columbia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14288/cjur.v10i2.200923

Keywords:

imitation, prediction, movement, autism, load

Abstract

According to the broken mirror neuron theory of autism, autistic individuals are less efficient at mapping the behaviors of others onto their own bodily representations, which leads to difficulties in imitating and understanding others’ actions. However, limited research has explored the broken mirror neuron theory within the context of action prediction, the application of action understanding. In a pilot study, I employed a modified version of the pointing task where autistic and non-autistic participants predicted whether a target actor would point to the right or left without knowing that the actors were either instructed or allowed to choose freely where to point. I expanded on the original study by incorporating trials with perceptual or cognitive load. For the former, three actors were shown instead of just one, requiring the observer to respond to the actions of one target actor. For the latter, the observer was required to guess the target actor’s actions by pressing a key that is in the opposite (anti) direction as the target actor’s predicted pointing direction, as opposed to the same (pro) direction. All observers responded faster in the trials where the target actor chose freely where to point, called the choice advantage. However, an analysis of the autistic and non-autistic groups separately indicated that the choice advantage was observed in all experimental conditions in the non-autistic cohort but was reduced to the 1-actor, anti-pointing trials in the autistic group. These results indicate that autistic individuals may not be using body-language cues to predict the actions of others as effectively as non-autistic individuals, while offering a more nuanced perspective on autistic peoples’ understanding of others’ actions than the broken mirror neuron theory.

References

Boria, S., Fabbri-Destro, M., Cattaneo, L., Sparaci, L., Sinigaglia, C., Santelli, E., Cossu, G., & Rizzolatti, G. (2009). Intention understanding in autism. PLoS ONE, 4(5), e5596. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005596

Chetcuti, L., Hudry, K., Grant, M., & Vivanti, G. (2019). Object-directed imitation in autism spectrum disorder is differentially influenced by motoric task complexity, but not social contextual cues. Autism, 23(1), 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361317734063

Constantino, J. N., & Gruber, C. P. (2012). Social responsiveness scale–second edition (SRS-2). Torrance, CA: Western Psychological Services.

Gallese, V., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (1996). Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain, 119(2), 593–609. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/119.2.593

Gallese, V. (2006). Intentional attunement: A neurophysiological perspective on social cognition and its disruption in autism. Brain Research, 1079(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.01.054

Iacoboni, M., & Dapretto, M. (2006). The mirror neuron system and the consequences of its dysfunction. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7(12), 942–951. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2024

Iacoboni, M., Molnar-Szakacs, I., Gallese, V., Buccino, G., Mazziotta, J. C., & Rizzolatti, G. (2005). Grasping the intentions of others with one’s own mirror neuron system. PLoS Biology, 3(3), e79. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030079

Iacoboni, M., Woods, R. P., Brass, M., Bekkering, H., Mazziotta, J. C., & Rizzolatti, G. (1999). Cortical mechanisms of human imitation. Science, 286, 2526–2528. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.286.5449.2526

McIntosh, D. N., Reichmann-Decker, A., Winkielman, P., & Wilbarger, J. L. (2006). When the social mirror breaks: Deficits in automatic, but not voluntary, mimicry of emotional facial expressions in autism. Developmental Science, 9(3), 295–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2006.00492.x

Pesquita, A., Chapman, C. S., & Enns, J. T. (2016). Humans are sensitive to attention control when predicting others’ actions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(31), 8669–8674. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1601872113

Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 169–192. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144230

Russell, G., Mandy, W., Elliott, D., White, R., Pittwood, T., & Ford, T. (2019). Selection bias on intellectual ability in autism research: A cross-sectional review and meta-analysis. Molecular Autism, 10, 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13229-019-0260-x

Smith, I. M., & Bryson, S. E. (1994). Imitation and action in autism: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 259–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.2.259

Southgate, V., & Hamilton, A. F. de C. (2008). Unbroken mirrors: Challenging a theory of autism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(6), 225–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.03.005

Sowden, S., Koehne, S., Catmur, C., Dziobek, I., & Bird, G. (2016). Intact automatic imitation and typical spatial compatibility in Autism Spectrum Disorder: Challenging the broken mirror theory. Autism Research, 9(2), 292–300. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.1511

Vivanti, G., & Hamilton, A. (2014). Imitation in autism spectrum disorders. In Volkmar, F. R., Rogers, S. J., Paul, R., & Pelphrey, K. A. (Eds.), Handbook of autism and pervasive developmental disorders, fourth edition. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118911389.hautc12

Williams, J. H., Whiten, A., Suddendorf, T., & Perrett, D. I. (2001). Imitation, mirror neurons and autism. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 25(4), 287–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0149-7634(01)00014-8

Published

2026-05-27

Issue

Section

Articles