CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 79Autism Spectrum Disorder ResearchGenetics and Neurodevelopmental DisordersNeuroscience and Music Perception

Maturation of auditory neural processes in autism spectrum disorder — A longitudinal MEG study

Open access
Port, Russell G., Edgar, J. Christopher, Ku, Matthew, Bloy, Luke, Murray, Rebecca, Blaskey, Lisa, Levy, Susan E., Roberts, Timothy P.L.·2016·NeuroImage: Clinical
DOI 10.1016/j.nicl.2016.03.021PMC PMC4844592
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) show atypical brain activity, perhaps due to delayed maturation. Previous studies examining the maturation of auditory electrophysiological activity have been limited due to their use of cross-sectional designs. The present study took a first step in examining magnetoencephalography (MEG) evidence of abnormal auditory response maturation in ASD via the use of a longitudinal design. METHODS: Initially recruited for a previous study, 27 children with ASD and nine typically developing (TD) children, aged 6- to 11-years-old, were re-recruited two to five years later. At both timepoints, MEG data were obtained while participants passively listened to sinusoidal pure-tones. Bilateral primary/secondary auditory cortex time domain (100 ms evoked response latency (M100)) and spectrotemporal measures (gamma-band power and inter-trial coherence (ITC)) were examined. MEG measures were also qualitatively examined for five children who exhibited "optimal outcome", participants who were initially on spectrum, but no longer met diagnostic criteria at follow-up. RESULTS: M100 latencies were delayed in ASD versus TD at the initial exam (~ 19 ms) and at follow-up (~ 18 ms). At both exams, M100 latencies were associated with clinical ASD severity. In addition, gamma-band evoked power and ITC were reduced in ASD versus TD. M100 latency and gamma-band maturation rates did not differ between ASD and TD. Of note, the cohort of five children that demonstrated "optimal outcome" additionally exhibited M100 latency and gamma-band activity mean values in-between TD and ASD at both timepoints. Though justifying only qualitative interpretation, these "optimal outcome" related data are presented here to motivate future studies. CONCLUSIONS: Children with ASD showed perturbed auditory cortex neural activity, as evidenced by M100 latency delays as well as reduced transient gamma-band activity. Despite evidence for maturation of these responses in ASD, the neural abnormalities in ASD persisted across time. Of note, data from the five children whom demonstrated "optimal outcome" qualitatively suggest that such clinical improvements may be associated with auditory brain responses intermediate between TD and ASD. These "optimal outcome" related results are not statistically significant though, likely due to the low sample size of this cohort, and to be expected as a result of the relatively low proportion of "optimal outcome" in the ASD population. Thus, further investigations with larger cohorts are needed to determine if the above auditory response phenotypes have prognostic utility, predictive of clinical outcome.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.nicl.2016.03.021

Cites

101 of 101 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Medication status varies as an eligibility criterion for ASD studies, with some studies detailing presence/absence of medication, some excluding medicated participants, and others not reporting criteria.

    “Another important consideration is medication status as an eligibility criterion for ASD studies. Some studies detail the presence or absence of medication, such as risperidone, anxiolytics, or antidepressants (Port et al. 2016), or simply exclude ASD-medicated participants, while other do not report any criteria regarding medication.”

    From Autism Spectrum Disorder and auditory sensory alterations: a systematic review on the integrity of cognitive and neuronal functions related to auditory processing (2023) · cites this paper as Port et al. 2016

    The Materials and methods section (Recruitment and inclusion/exclusion criteria; page unavailable) reports medication use and non-use among participants, and the Participants section says later medication use could be an exclusion criterion. Our copy does not identify risperidone, anxiolytics, or antidepressants as medications taken, so those examples are not verified by this source. The claims about other studies are not attributed to Port et al. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Auditory-related gamma and alpha powers seem to be altered in ASD subjects along development.

    “Given that auditory-related gamma and alpha powers also seem to be altered in ASD subjects along development (Port et al. 2016; Pierce et al. 2021; Stefano et al. 2019), it would be interesting to assess these measures together with social, cognitive, and language abilities, as potential predictors of later outcomes in ASD.”

    From Autism Spectrum Disorder and auditory sensory alterations: a systematic review on the integrity of cognitive and neuronal functions related to auditory processing (2023) · cites this paper as Port et al. 2016

    The Results (Gamma-band activity; page not available) report reduced auditory evoked gamma power in children with ASD, and the Discussion says the difference persisted across the longitudinal period. The paper does not report an alteration in auditory-related alpha power; it also found no significant ASD–TD difference in the rate of gamma-power change. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Children initially on the spectrum exhibited optimal outcomes at approximately 12 years old, no longer meeting diagnostic criteria for ASD.

    “A later follow-up revealed that these children exhibited optimal outcomes at approximately 12 years old, no longer meeting diagnostic criteria for ASD (Port et al. 2016).”

    From Autism Spectrum Disorder and auditory sensory alterations: a systematic review on the integrity of cognitive and neuronal functions related to auditory processing (2023) · cites this paper as Port et al. 2016

  • These children showed results in-between ASD and TD peers.

    “Interestingly, these children showed results in-between ASD and TD peers.”

    From Autism Spectrum Disorder and auditory sensory alterations: a systematic review on the integrity of cognitive and neuronal functions related to auditory processing (2023) · cites this paper as Port et al. 2016

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 104 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Crawley J.N. What's Wrong With My Mouse? 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken, NJ, USA

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Port, R. G., Edgar, J. C., Ku, M., Bloy, L., Murray, R., Blaskey, L., Levy, S. E., & Roberts, T. P. L.
Affiliations
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (US)
Corresponding author
Roberts, Timothy P.L.
ORCID
Venue
NeuroImage: Clinical
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016
Volume
11
Pages
566-577
ISSN
2213-1582 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.nicl.2016.03.021
PMC
PMC4844592
OpenAlex
W2325339912
Cited by
79
References
104
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3
FWCI
5.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • NeuroImage Clinical (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • NIH (R01DC008871)
  • Nancy Lurie Marks Family Foundation
  • NIH IDDRC (U54086984)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Music Perception
Keywords
autism spectrum disorder, auditory cortex maturation, inter-trial phase coherence, auditory evoked potentials, longitudinal development, ASD severity, optimal outcomes, children, neurodevelopmental delay, treatment response prediction
MeSH terms
Autism Spectrum Disorder, Acoustic Stimulation, Auditory Cortex, Auditory Pathways, Brain Mapping, Child, Cross-Sectional Studies, Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Female, Humans, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Reaction Time, Regression Analysis, Magnetoencephalography, Cohort Studies

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