Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 1 Summary of studies involving face perception ERP’s in non-intellectually disabled ASD subjects with effect size estimates (Cohen’s d and unbiased Hedges g)

From: Event-related potential (ERP) correlates of face processing in verbal children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and their first-degree relatives: a family study

Study Demographics: final N (age range: mean ± SD), males %) EEG system/Reference Stimuli Task N170 latency face superiority (effect size d/g*) N170 amplitude face inversion (effect size d/g*) P1 amplitude face inversion (effect size d/g*) Other ERP findings
Tye et al., 2013 [31] ASD: 19 (8–13:11.7 ± 1.7, 100%) ASD + ADHD: 26 (8–13:10.6 ± 1.7, 100%) ADHD: 18 (8–13:10.5 ± 1.9, 100%) TD: 26 (8–13:10.6 ± 1.8, 100%) 62 Acticap/Average Female faces upright/inverted with gaze direct/averted No fixation cross Count flags among fixation   ASD/ASD + ADHD vs. TD + ADHD: d = 0.38, n.s. n.s. Enhanced N170 amplitude in Left Hemisphere
Churches et al., 2012 [30] ASD: 10 (30 ± 6.2, 100%) TD: 13 (30 ± 4.8, 100%) 32 Neuroscan/Nose Faces/face-like objects/non-face stimuli No fixation cross Motor response on flower n.s.    Smaller N170 amplitude for non-face like objects
Webb et al., 2012 [29] ASD: 32 (18–44:23.1 ± 6.9, 94%) TD: 32 (18–43:23.7 ± 6.7, 91%) 128 EGI/Average Faces/houses, upright/inverted, scrambles faces Motor response on scrambled faces 0.56/0.54 n.s. +, p < 0.05 Face inversion effect on P1/N170 slope: d = 0.63/g* = 0.61
McPartland et al., 2011 [27] ASD: 36 (11.2 ± 3.4, 89%) TD: 18 (12.6 ± 2.4, 83%) 256 EGI/Average Faces/houses, upright/inverted (inverted houses not analyzed) Motor response on repeated stimuli 0.63/0.61 0.41/0.40 −0.10/−0.10, n.s.  
Hileman et al., 2011 [28] ASD: 27 (9.4–17.4:13.2 ± 2.7, 85%) TD: 22 (9.0–16.9:14.3 ± 2.0, 82%) 128 EGI/Average Emotional faces, upright/inverted vehicle No fixation cross Count female faces/left pointing cars −0.65/− 0.63, n.s. −0.43/− 0.42, n.s. 1.09/1.05 Strange data: positive N170, no face inversion effect even in TD
Churches et al., 2010 [26] ASD: 12 (31.4 ± 6.7, 100%) TD: 13 (29.3 ± 4.6, 100%) 32 Neuroscan/Nose Faces/Chairs No fixation cross Stimulus repetition detection task n.s.    Modulation by attention
O’Connor et al., 2007 [25] ASD: 15 (18–41:23 ± 4, 100%) TD: 15 (19–37:18 ± 15,100%) 128 EGI/Average Sad/neutral faces/eyes/months/objects Motor response on sad 0.67/0.63    
Webb et al., 2006 [24] ASD: 27 (2.7–4.5:3.7 ± 0.3) TD: 18 (2.7–4.5:3.7 ± 0.6) DD: 18 (2.7–4.5:3.7 ± 0.4) % of males not reported 64 EGI/Average Familiar and unfamiliar faces and objects No fixation cross No task 0.56/0.54    N170 precursor Larger ERPs to objects
McPartland et al., 2004 [16] ASD: 9 (15–42:21 ± 8, 89%) TD: 15 (16–37:24 ± 6, 93%) 128 EGI/Average Faces/furniture, upright/inverted, butterflies as targets (inverted furniture not analyzed) No fixation cross Count butterflies 1.19/1.10 0.18/0.17, n.s.   
Dawson et al., 2005 [45] Parents of ASD: 21 (29–52:38.5, 48%) Parents of TD: 21 (28–51:38.9, 38%) 128 EGI/Average Faces, inverted/upright, chairs No fixation cross Count scrambled faces 0.62/0.59    Smaller N170 amplitude in Right Hemisphere for faces
  1. Note: One entry (Hileman et al., 2011) is italized in the table due to highly atypical results. The text in bold highlights the studies’ characteristics that might have influenced the results, e.g. suboptimal reference schemas, absence of fixation cross or inclusion of female participants