Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Neurodiversity and Social Cognition - Coggle Diagram
Neurodiversity and Social Cognition
Neurodiversity
definition and language
ppl experience and interact with world in different ways, no "right" way
differences NOT "deficits"
Social vs medical model
differences in brain stucture and or functioning - applies often to autism, ADHD, dyselxia and intellectual disabilities
neurotypical
= ppl whose patterns of learning/thinking/behaving/experiencing world is shard by majority
neurodivergent
= ppl whose patterns of learning/.thinking/behaving/interacting is shared by minority of other people
neurotypes
= refers to specific clusters or categories of neurotypical/divergent ppl ie autism/adhd
Person-first "people with autism" vs identity-first "autistic ppl" language
no consensus, differences between and within culture, UK (identify first preference from Kenny et al. vs dutch adults some person-first some identity-first)
differences not always decitis - "autism spectrum disoroder" (diagnostic label) vs autism spectrum condition?
"disorder" - highlights difficulties, some -ve connations but condition highlights strengths interpreted, no right language but important to not use -ve connotations of "suffering" or "burden"
Autism
Evolution: first diagnosis 1943 (Kanner) > DSM 4 - broader criteria including Aspergers > DSM 5 - all autism subtypes under "Autism spectrum disorder" - got rid of subtypes
DSM 5 = 1. differences in social interaction/communication 2. restricted/repetitive range of interests/activities/behaviours - including sensitivity to sensory input
also imagination, gestures/non-verb. communication, narrow range of interest/routine, sensory responses
variability in expression, language/intellectual abilities
prevalence (no. of cases at time) - in UK around 1% but higher in other studies
increase in prevalence - not that autism is increasing but increased 1. awareness to gen/ public 2. fewer undetected cases 3. diagnostic substitution
more commonly diagnosed in males > females - underdiagnosed become less aware of presentation,
masking
, gender bias in tools for assessing
AQ - 20 items consistently biased towards men
masking - women able to mask traits by taking persona/social mimicry
males have lower "Liability threshold"- takes less risk factors to express autism characteristics
in adulthood (lecture)
Huang et al. (2020) - many do not identify autistic traits until adulthood
increased awareness/broadening criteria and camouflaging/masking - strategies to present as neurotypical
co-occuring mental health diagnoses and personality traits
gaps in knowledge outside of UK/in women
older adults
limited rsch studies
mixed findings of whether differences in physical/mental health related to experience of navigating neurotyp. world
rsch not adopting a trait approach - exploring those with diagnoses
vs ADHD - similar incidence rates (2.5), similar factors ie seen as a childhood condition, BUT historically been more medicalised
clinical blidness/prejudice, diagnostic challenges and treatment hesitancy to prescribe due to side effects
Theories
cognitive theories - like ToM/Exec function - cannot account for all characteristics/differences not unique to autism (seen also in ADHD)
until 1970's - belief in "refridgerator mother" - no not considered due to stigma
Genetics
ev. of concordance with MZ twins
tends to co occur in family but differences in how expressed (aspergers/trait/classic autism)
family studies - the "spectrum" is what is heritable - on bhvrl and cognitive level differences
influenced by many genes, no single, suggested by de novo gene mutations ( combo of many diff.)
Environmental "risk" factors
NOT MMR - no evidence this leads to autism (ie Hviid et al 2019)
prenatal infection, maternal med use, birth complications, likely g--e interactions = pre natal risks and protection mechanisms involve g-e
executive function and self regulation
exec. function
= higher-order cognitive process including self-reg/inhibition, planning, working memory, attentional ctrl etc
children with ADHD tend to perform poorly on exec. function tasks - poor at test as yg child,, more likely diagnosed later
self reg.
= ability to ctrl emotions/actions, associated with delay gratification - inhibiting an action that wld bring desired reward for a better one
assosciated with frontal lobe/pref. ctrx - develops LAST and adolescence > adulthood so more opportunity for individ. differences due to injury/nutrition etc
Phineas Gage - damage to frontal lobe - led to no impulse ctrl
Cultural differences
eastern cultures - tend to do better in self reg tasks, reinforced/promoted earlier
eg Lamm et al - Cameroon vs Germany - Cam = 70% passes test, may in part be due to children taught to follow instructions, context of authority figure
Young et al - children exposured to high vs low adversity - lower performance on working mem tasks ONLY when stimuli abstract (shapes) - difference disappeared when using real world stimuli
importance of making tasks contextually relevant (ie Banerhee et al - children working in markets in Kolkata - presenting school-like problems vs market transactions (lower performance at school-like)
Tests of self-reg/delayed gratification
Marshmallow test
child left alone with marshmallow, told if don't eat it until experimenter returns will get 2
Glitter wand task
experimenter shows child glitter wand. told not to touch. turn round for 30s. if don't touch - self reg. shown
Head, shoulders task
older children
swapped heads, shoulders, knees and toes.. If experimenter says heads, child touches shoulders etc. children have to 1) pay attention, 2) inhibit bhvr and 3) retain rules in memory - complex use of multiple components of exec. function
Stroop task
+with adults, time considered other than no. of errors
Friedman et al (2011) - developmental trajectory for self reg. = predicting exec. function?
glitter wand task = at 14mths most children didn't pass but by 3 yrs most did
variation assosciated with exec functioning at 17 yrs age - ppl who could ctrl themselves at early age performed better at stroop task
Theory of Mind (ToM) & Social understanding
in adulthood (lecture)
found to decrease with age, hit a ceiling
Aival-Naveh et al (2019) - "individ. cultures" - focus on mental states of self vs "collectivistic" - did better when focus on mental states of others
cultural diff's with stimuli, appropriate translation, verbal vs non-verb. measurement
importance of language = children acquiring spanish with verbs indicating false belief have better performance in these tasks
ToM and perspective taking being other + cognitive part of mentalising (other-self, cognitive-affective)
developmental trajectory
from infancy = self awareness/reg throughout adolescence, emotional understanding/empathy, facial processing and perspective taking
from 4-8yrs - attitudes, prejudice, intergrp relations
ToM - develops later 4-8 yrs
ToM = understanding ppl have other thoughts/opinions, have own internal and mental worlds that differ from own/reality, making inferences abt what others do/why
development is progressive 1) recognise another person is someone else 2) different perspective 3) own mental states
precursor = perspective taking
stage 3 mutual perspective
= can view own perspective, anothers perspective and both can share perspective from view of completely diff/ person - limited in children
stage 2 reciprocal perspective
= child sees selves from others' perspective, appreciate others can too, 1/2 of 8 and 10 yr olds
stage 1 differentiated perspective
= child realises others have same/different perspectives, but can't judge others' accurately what it is, most 6 yr olds
stage 0 egocentric perspective
= child can't distinguish btwn own and others perspectives, most 4 yr olds
stage 4 societal/in-depth perspective
= child sees networks of perspectives, aware these exist and also in unconscious rep's
measures
smarties test -
seems box called smarties, opens and sees pencils, "what do you think your friend would say is in box if saw it" - must say smarties to pass - age 3 and yger tend to fail
false belief tests - whether child recognises diff/ person would have diff. knowledge/belief
Sally Ann test
- where will Sally look for ball (when sally goes, ann moves it) - establishes Sally holding a false belief
triangles test
- non-verbal and animated, children can still attribute mental states to triangles
second order false belief
= 6-8 yr olds struggle, knowing that one person thinks another person has false belief
Reading mind in the eyes
= matching mental state to photo of eyes
Slaughter (2015) - infants may have ToM earlier than 3-5, at 12-18 mths using different methods - ie can identify which one toy out of three that adult not played with yet through interpreting pointing
using non-verbal - shown ToM earlier ie violation of expectation paradigm = infants show surprise when someone looks for object where shouldn't have been able due to false belief
having sibling promoted ToM - depends on birth order ie having younger sib. helps when not too close in age, also promotes exec. function skills