Skip to main content

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