Although they took a higher percentage of photos containing other people, a smaller proportion of these photos were front-facing ( Figure 1B,1C) or showed faces that were expressive or posing ( Figure 1B–E), suggesting that they did not ask their subjects to attend to the camera when the photo was taken. Participants with ASD did not differ from controls in how well the foreground object was centered or the number of people shown in person photos ( Figure S2B) but took photos of poorer quality overall ( Figure S2B). We further asked two different raters to judge the composition and quality of all photos (see Supplemental Experimental Procedures for definitions). Photos from participants with ASD (D) often were partially occluded, and (E) had odd visual perspective.īased on the themes noted by our three raters, we had the photographs rated on additional scales (three other blind raters, photos blocked by subject) ( Figure S2A), which confirmed that participants with ASD took more repetitive photos ( Figure S2C), more photos of people ( Figures 1D, S2E) and objects ( Figure S2F) that were partly occluded, more blurred photos ( Figure S2G), and more tilted photos ( Figure S2H). (C) Subjects in the portrait photos taken by participants with ASD did not pose or look at the camera and were not expressive. Interestingly, when taking self-portraits, participants with ASD took a similar proportion of front-facing and expressive photos as controls did when taking photos of other people (front-facing: ASD: 56.4 ± 34.9%, controls: 45.4 ± 20.8% t(32) = 1.16, P = 0.26 expressive: ASD: 31.9 ± 34.8% controls: 28.9 ± 22.1% t(32) = 0.31, P = 0.76). (B) Compared to controls, participants with ASD had a higher percentage of photos containing other people (ASD: 36.1 ± 4.75%, controls: 31.8 ± 6.16% two-tailed t-test across subjects: t(35) = 2.32, P = 0.027, g = 0.75, permutation P = 0.030), a lower percentage of portrait photos with front faces of other people (ASD: 26.6 ± 22.4% controls: 45.4 ± 20.8% t(35) = 2.63, P = 0.013, g = 0.86, permutation P = 0.004), and a lower percentage of photos in which people were expressive or posing (ASD: 13.3 ± 16.8% controls: 28.9 ± 22.1% t(35) = 2.34, P = 0.025, g = 0.76, permutation P = 0.026). (A) Ratings from three ADOS-reliable professionals on their confidence that the photo was taken by a person with ASD (1 = ASD, 9 = control). Photographs taken by participants with ASD and controls Raters noted repetitions of specific objects, photos of bodies without faces, photos of other people’s faces that lacked engagement with the photographer, focus on single and often unusual objects, and odd visual perspective and occluded objects ( Figures 1C–1E, S2C–S2H for examples). Raters successfully distinguished photos taken by subjects with ASD from those taken by controls at the group level (Ps < 0.05 for every rater Figures 1A, S1), but ratings were not correlated with any other individual differences. Three independent raters familiar with the clinical presentation of ASD and reliable on the ADOS-2 were asked to judge whether each photo was taken by a subject with ASD or a control (1–9 scale 1 = ASD, 9 = control photos were shown in random order blocked by photography session, and raters were blind to the identity of the subject). They also spent slightly longer than controls on the entire photography session (41 versus 31 minutes), and in particular spent significantly more time taking photos of other people (12 versus 4 minutes) because it took them nearly twice as long as controls for each person photographed (see Supplemental Information for full details). ![]() Participants with ASD took more photos of other people than did controls (mean 16 versus 10), but similar numbers of indoor and outdoor photos not containing people. ![]() Sixteen participants with ASD and 21 matched controls were instructed to take photos freely with the same camera under three blocked conditions: indoors and of people in our laboratory indoors in the lab but not of people and outdoors. What might participants with ASD show us if they were the ones taking the photos? We gave participants a digital camera and analysed the photos they took: images taken by participants with ASD had unusual features and showed strikingly different ways of photographing other people. But all studies to date are limited by the experimenter’s selected stimuli, which are generally photographs taken by people without autism. People with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) show atypical attention to social stimuli and gaze at faces and complex images in unusual ways.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |