Cited by 92Autism Spectrum Disorder ResearchChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentAction Observation and Synchronization

10 years of Bayesian theories of autism: A comprehensive review

Angeletos Chrysaitis, Nikitas, Seriès, Peggy·2023·Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

Abstract

Ten years ago, Pellicano and Burr published one of the most influential articles in the study of autism spectrum disorders, linking them to aberrant Bayesian inference processes in the brain. In particular, they proposed that autistic individuals are less influenced by their brains' prior beliefs about the environment. In this systematic review, we investigate if this theory is supported by the experimental evidence. To that end, we collect all studies which included comparisons across diagnostic groups or autistic traits and categorise them based on the investigated priors. Our results are highly mixed, with a slight majority of studies finding no difference in the integration of Bayesian priors. We find that priors developed during the experiments exhibited reduced influences more frequently than priors acquired previously, with various studies providing evidence for learning differences between participant groups. Finally, we focus on the methodological and computational aspects of the included studies, showing low statistical power and often inconsistent approaches. Based on our findings, we propose guidelines for future research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.105022

Cites

131 of 131 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A meta-analysis found mixed results regarding the integration of priors, possibly due to low power and inconsistent approaches, but various studies showed differences in learning between autistic and non-autistic individuals.

    “This meta-analysis found mixed results regarding the integration of priors possibly to low power and inconsistent approaches, but various studies showed differences in learning between autistic and non-autistic individuals [11].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 132 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Angeletos Chrysaitis, N., & Seriès, P.
Affiliations
University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
Seriès, Peggy
Venue
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-02
Volume
145
Pages
105022
ISSN
0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4312220799
Cited by
92
References
132
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 1
FWCI
2.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
Keywords
autism spectrum disorder, Bayesian inference, prior beliefs, prior distributions, autism theory, prior learning, autistic traits, statistical power, research methodology guidelines
MeSH terms
Autism Spectrum Disorder, Autistic Disorder, Bayes Theorem, Head, Humans

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review