The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 46 of the 74 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Adults with autism overestimate the volatility of the sensory environment
Open accessAbstract
Insistence on sameness and intolerance of change are among the diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder (ASD), but little research has addressed how people with ASD represent and respond to environmental change. Here, behavioral and pupillometric measurements indicated that adults with ASD are less surprised than neurotypical adults when their expectations are violated, and decreased surprise is predictive of greater symptom severity. A hierarchical Bayesian model of learning suggested that in ASD, a tendency to overlearn about volatility in the face of environmental change drives a corresponding reduction in learning about probabilistically aberrant events, thus putatively rendering these events less surprising. Participant-specific modeled estimates of surprise about environmental conditions were linked to pupil size in the ASD group, thus suggesting heightened noradrenergic responsivity in line with compromised neural gain. This study offers insights into the behavioral, algorithmic and physiological mechanisms underlying responses to environmental volatility in ASD.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
35 Own result · 20 Own interpretation · 17 Own method · 11 Partly supported · 6 Supported · 5 No full text of the sources · 3 Sources not found · 2 Supported so far · 2 Couldn’t confirm · 1 Mixed support · 1 Not checked yet · 1 No basis given · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The recent application of hierarchical learning models has allowed the quantification of individual learning about both probabilistic relationships and how these relationships change over time (volatility)11–14”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Introduction
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [11] Mathys, C.D. et al. Uncertainty in perception and the Hierarchical Gaussian Filter. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8, 825 (2014). source
The Discussion (page not provided) says that subject-specific HGF parameters can be estimated from behavioral data and that people use volatility estimates to adapt their learning. The Inversion example (page not provided) shows estimated trajectories for both the probability of an input and its volatility, supporting the claim that the model quantifies individual learning about probabilistic relationships and their change over time. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Supportedcites [12] Iglesias, S. et al. Hierarchical prediction errors in midbrain and basal forebrain during sensory learning. Neuron 80, 519–530 (2013). source
The Hierarchical Gaussian Filter section (p. 9) says the model uses subject-specific parameters to characterize individual learning at multiple levels. The fMRI Data Acquisition and Analysis section (p. 10) identifies subject-specific belief trajectories for both cue–outcome probabilities and estimated log-volatility, supporting the claim that the model quantifies learning about relationships and their change over time. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Supportedcites [13] Marshall, L. et al. Pharmacological fingerprints of contextual uncertainty. PLoS Biol. 14, e1002575 (2016). source
The Results, Model-Based Analyses (Fig. 3), say the hierarchical model tracks an individual’s beliefs about transition probabilities and trialwise volatility, using participant-specific parameters for belief updating. Materials and Methods, Model-Based Analyses, also state that model-based analyses quantify participants’ inferences during the task. Together, these passages support the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Supportedcites [14] de Berker, A.O. et al. Computations of uncertainty mediate acute stress responses in humans. Nat. Commun. 7, 10996 (2016). source
The Results section describes an HGF that estimates each participant’s beliefs about probabilities and the volatility of those probabilities on every trial. The Methods section says the model was fitted to individuals’ choices and produced trajectories that evolve over time. The supplied passages do not include page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In this study, behavioural (RT/error rates) and pupillometric results based on the experimental ground truth converge on the finding of reduced distinction between unexpected and expected outcomes in ASD (Figure 2, Figure 5a) which is consistent with many previous studies across a range of methods reporting reduced ‘surprise’ in ASD 21,23,36,37.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Discussion
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [21] Ewbank, M.P. et al. Repetition suppression in ventral visual cortex is diminished as a function of increasing autistic traits. Cereb. Cortex 25, 3381–3393 (2015). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page unavailable) reports diminished repetition suppression as autistic traits increase and discusses a possible link to prediction error. That is consistent with a reduced neural distinction between repeated and changed stimuli, but the study tested neurotypical participants, not an ASD group, and did not establish reduced surprise for unexpected versus expected outcomes. The citing sentence’s behavioural and pupillometric findings are presented as its own results, not as findings of this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [23] Kleinhans, N.M. et al. Reduced neural habituation in the amygdala and social impairments in autism spectrum disorders. Am. J. Psychiatry 166, 467–475 (2009). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [36] Courchesne, E., Kilman, B.A., Galambos, R. & Lincoln, A.J. Autism: processing of novel auditory information assessed by event-related brain potentials. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 59, 238–248 (1984). source
- Supportedcites [37] Jeste, S.S. et al. Electrophysiological evidence of heterogeneity in visual statistical learning in young children with ASD. Dev. Sci. 18, 90–105 (2015). source
The citation is attached to the statement about previous studies reporting reduced ‘surprise’ in ASD, not to the citing authors’ own behavioural and pupillometric results. In Results §3.2 (page unavailable), the cited paper reports that the ASD group as a whole showed no ERP differentiation between expected and unexpected conditions, although its Discussion describes substantial subgroup differences. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Importantly, these findings provide preliminary empirical evidence for neurobiologically informed Bayesian accounts of autism that emphasise aberrant representation of volatility and, consequently, inappropriate setting of gain (precision) on cortical responses (prediction errors) 4,6 under conditions of uncertainty.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [4] Lawson, R.P., Rees, G. & Friston, K.J. An aberrant precision account of autism. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8, 302 (2014). source
The cited paper describes a Bayesian account in which uncertainty and environmental volatility affect the weighting of sensory evidence, and aberrant precision in autism involves inappropriate gain control of cortical neurons encoding prediction errors (Introduction; “Representing and responding to uncertainty”; “The neuromodulatory basis of precision”; page numbers unavailable). Its Summary says the limited existing evidence is consistent with this account. The citing authors’ statement that their own findings provide preliminary evidence is their conclusion, not a finding attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Partly supportedcites [6] Lawson, R.P., Friston, K.J. & Rees, G. A more precise look at context in autism. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112, E5226 (2015). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “A more precise look at context in autism” (page not available), the paper links environmental volatility to precision-weighting, identifies prediction-error gain as a cortical mechanism, and proposes that precision-weighting may be aberrant in autism. It does not specifically say that volatility is aberrantly represented in autism or establish that this causes inappropriate gain. The citing authors’ statement about their findings providing preliminary evidence is their own conclusion, not a result attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.83)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Thus, under the assumption that pupil size is an index of NA release from the locus coruleus (LC) 40 these results are suggestive of raised phasic neuromodulatory signalling in ASD.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Discussion
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [40] Costa, V.D. & Rudebeck, P.H. More than meets the eye: the relationship between pupil size and locus coeruleus activity. Neuron 89, 8–10 (2016). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In the Abstract (page unavailable), the paper says pupil size closely tracks activity in noradrenergic LC neurons, supporting the premise for which it is cited. It does not establish that pupil size indexes noradrenaline release specifically, and it cautions that the mechanism linking pupil size and LC activity remains unclear. The ASD interpretation is the citing authors’ inference, not a finding attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Pupil size is an index of noradrenaline release from the locus coeruleus.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Phasic pupil response to surprising outcomes (ground truth contrast of UE-E trials) revealed a significant increase in pupil size in NT’s (Figure 5a), consistent with many previous studies 25.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Pupillometry
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [25] Yu, A.J. Change is in the eye of the beholder. Nat. Neurosci. 15, 933–935 (2012). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper-scoped search for Yu’s 2012 “Change is in the eye of the beholder” returned no snippets for either the specific NT/UE-minus-E result or a broader pupil-and-surprise query. An unscoped search found a related discussion of phasic pupil dilation after unexpected stimuli in “Noradrenaline causes a spread of association in the hippocampal cognitive map” (score 0.617), but not the claimed NT-group comparison. The available evidence therefore does not verify this specific result or establish a different source for it. (LLM, conf=0.72)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Using Bayesian model comparison we have shown (Figure S6) that the simplest learning model (similar to the one employed previously45) performs poorest in explaining participant behaviour.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [45] Manning, C., Kilner, J., Neil, L., Karaminis, T. & Pellicano, E. Children on the autism spectrum update their behaviour in response to a volatile environment. Dev. Sci. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/desc.12435 (2016). source
The citation identifies the earlier learning model, not the citing authors’ Bayesian model comparison or their Figure S6 result. The cited paper’s Materials and methods section describes a reinforcement-learning model with a simple delta-learning rule and a single free parameter, supporting the comparison to a simple model employed previously. (LLM, conf=0.90)
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“However, by logical extension, beyond a single ambiguous sensory event, all Bayesian accounts imply that dynamic learning about structural regularities (i.e. the formation of priors) is likely impaired in ASD 2–7.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Discussion
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [2] Pellicano, E. & Burr, D. When the world becomes 'too real': a Bayesian explanation of autistic perception. Trends Cogn. Sci. 16, 504–510 (2012). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Autistic perception within a Bayesian framework” (page not provided), the paper proposes that atypical priors could arise from their construction or from how they are combined with sensory information. Its Conclusion says it remains to be determined whether the atypicality lies in applying priors, learning and generating them, or both. The paper therefore supports impaired prior formation as a possibility, not the claim that all Bayesian accounts imply it. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Partly supportedcites [3] Van de Cruys, S. et al. Precise minds in uncertain worlds: predictive coding in autism. Psychol. Rev. 121, 649–675 (2014). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Predictive Coding in ASD” (page unavailable), the paper locates an ASD impairment in meta-learning when cue reliability changes in volatile environments, supporting a qualified claim about learning regularities. But it says people with ASD can learn new contingencies in relatively unambiguous situations, and “Attention and Executive Functioning” says they can learn fixed contingencies. It therefore does not support the broader assertion that all Bayesian accounts imply impaired formation of priors. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Partly supportedcites [4] Lawson, R.P., Rees, G. & Friston, K.J. An aberrant precision account of autism. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8, 302 (2014). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Perception and action in autism Summary (page unavailable) says the proposed sensory-precision imbalance raises questions about perceptual learning and the acquisition of hierarchical models. Related accounts of autism (page unavailable) also discusses secondary consequences for perceptual learning. But it does not say that all Bayesian accounts imply impaired formation of priors; it notes that one account may instead yield highly precise priors. (LLM, conf=0.83)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [5] Friston, K.J., Lawson, R. & Frith, C.D. On hyperpriors and hypopriors: comment on Pellicano and Burr. Trends Cogn. Sci. 17, 1 (2013). source
- Partly supportedcites [6] Lawson, R.P., Friston, K.J. & Rees, G. A more precise look at context in autism. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112, E5226 (2015). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “A more precise look at context in autism” (page not provided), the authors say that perception beyond a single sensory event depends on estimating changes in environmental contingencies, and that precision-weighting could be aberrant in autism. They do not say that all Bayesian accounts imply impaired learning of structural regularities or formation of priors; they describe the possible abnormalities as empirical questions. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [7] Palmer, C.J., Lawson, R.P. & Hohwy, J. Bayesian approaches to autism: towards volatility, action, and behavior. Psychol. Bull. 143, 521–542 (2017). source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Heightened encoding of prediction errors in pupil size measures is consistent with neurobiologically focused Bayesian accounts of autism, that emphasise neural gain impairments due to aberrant neuromodulatory funcion4–6.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Conclusion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [4] Lawson, R.P., Rees, G. & Friston, K.J. An aberrant precision account of autism. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8, 302 (2014). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Semantic Scholar did not index the cited DOI for paper-scoped text search, so the source text could not be checked directly. Secondary evidence supports the attribution: a review describes Lawson et al. (2014) as proposing a failure to attenuate sensory precision (score 0.725), and another paper explicitly cites Lawson et al. (2014) for atypical neuromodulatory function and pathological neural gain (score 0.541). The claim reasonably links a pupil finding to that theoretical account; it does not attribute the pupil finding itself to Lawson et al. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Supportedcites [5] Friston, K.J., Lawson, R. & Frith, C.D. On hyperpriors and hypopriors: comment on Pellicano and Burr. Trends Cogn. Sci. 17, 1 (2013). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The claim cites Friston, Lawson, and Frith (2013) for a neurobiological Bayesian interpretation of autism, not as the source of the pupil measurements. No paper-scoped full-text snippets were available, but a secondary paper explicitly credits their commentary with arguing that predictive coding provides a neurally plausible implementation of Bayesian inference (score 0.468). The pupil and neuromodulation evidence appears in the distinct study “Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment” (score 0.689); that does not make the citation to the compatible theoretical account a misattribution. The specific neural-gain wording could not be checked directly against the cited commentary. (LLM, conf=0.72)
- Supportedcites [6] Lawson, R.P., Friston, K.J. & Rees, G. A more precise look at context in autism. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112, E5226 (2015). source
In “A more precise look at context in autism,” the paper describes a neurobiological account of aberrant precision in autism and links prediction-error weighting to postsynaptic neural gain and the integrity of neuromodulatory function. The pupil-size finding is the citing authors’ own result; the cited paper supports the model they say it is consistent with. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participant-specific modelled estimates of surprise about environmental conditions are linked to pupil size in the ASD group”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“with reduced surprise predicting greater symptom severity”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 38
- Probably not a substantial claim. 40
Some cited sources support this claim and some don’t — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“This pattern mirrors previous findings in the domains of electrophysiology (reduced mismatch negativity in ASD/smaller P300 36,37 and BOLD imaging (reduced fMRI repetition suppression in ASD 21,23) but now in the novel domain of pupillometry.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Pupillometry
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [36] Courchesne, E., Kilman, B.A., Galambos, R. & Lincoln, A.J. Autism: processing of novel auditory information assessed by event-related brain potentials. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 59, 238–248 (1984). source
- Disputedcites [37] Jeste, S.S. et al. Electrophysiological evidence of heterogeneity in visual statistical learning in young children with ASD. Dev. Sci. 18, 90–105 (2015). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The citation is attached to the electrophysiological finding of a smaller P300 in ASD. In Results §3.2 (page unavailable), the paper reports no significant group effect for P300; its finding that the ASD group did not differentiate expected from unexpected conditions is not a finding of a smaller P300 than the TD group. The mismatch-negativity and BOLD findings are attached to other citations. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
- Partly supportedcites [21] Ewbank, M.P. et al. Repetition suppression in ventral visual cortex is diminished as a function of increasing autistic traits. Cereb. Cortex 25, 3381–3393 (2015). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page unavailable) reports diminished fMRI repetition suppression with increasing autistic traits in neurotypical participants. It does not establish reduced repetition suppression in people diagnosed with ASD, as the citing sentence states. The electrophysiology findings are attached to other citations and are not attributed to this paper. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [23] Kleinhans, N.M. et al. Reduced neural habituation in the amygdala and social impairments in autism spectrum disorders. Am. J. Psychiatry 166, 467–475 (2009). source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Bayesian theories of perception in ASD1 propose that reduced weighting of prior expectations, relative to sensory inputs, leads to the perceptual atypicalities associated with the condition2–7”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [1] Kenny, L. et al. Which terms should be used to describe autism? Perspectives from the UK autism community. Autism 20, 442–462 (2016). source
- Supportedcites [2] Pellicano, E. & Burr, D. When the world becomes 'too real': a Bayesian explanation of autistic perception. Trends Cogn. Sci. 16, 504–510 (2012). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Autistic perception within a Bayesian framework,” the authors propose that attenuated priors, including how priors combine with sensory information, underlie atypical autistic perception. In “Hypo-priors may explain many of the non-social symptoms of autism,” they say hypo-priors increase reliance on incoming sensory signals and could explain sensory atypicalities. Page numbers were not provided. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Supportedcites [3] Van de Cruys, S. et al. Precise minds in uncertain worlds: predictive coding in autism. Psychol. Rev. 121, 649–675 (2014). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Other Information Processing Accounts of ASD,” the paper describes a Bayesian account in which less influential priors leave perception closer to sensory input and help explain atypical responses to visual illusions. “Local versus global perception” likewise discusses reduced influence of contextual or prior information in ASD. The paper distinguishes its own proposed mechanism from weaker priors, but the claim attributes the general proposal to Bayesian accounts, not specifically to the authors’ model. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Supportedcites [4] Lawson, R.P., Rees, G. & Friston, K.J. An aberrant precision account of autism. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8, 302 (2014). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Related accounts of autism section says that reduced precision of priors relative to sensory evidence makes perception more driven by sensory input and less sensitive to context. The Conclusions attribute abnormalities in autistic perception to this imbalance, while allowing that increased sensory precision can produce the same effect. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [5] Friston, K.J., Lawson, R. & Frith, C.D. On hyperpriors and hypopriors: comment on Pellicano and Burr. Trends Cogn. Sci. 17, 1 (2013). source
- Supportedcites [6] Lawson, R.P., Friston, K.J. & Rees, G. A more precise look at context in autism. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112, E5226 (2015). source
In “A more precise look at context in autism” (page not provided), the authors describe a proposed account in which sensory precision is too high relative to the precision of prior beliefs. They also state that aberrant precision-weighting can result in context-insensitive perception, supporting the paraphrase as a description of the theory rather than an established cause. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [7] Palmer, C.J., Lawson, R.P. & Hohwy, J. Bayesian approaches to autism: towards volatility, action, and behavior. Psychol. Bull. 143, 521–542 (2017). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“While computational studies of decision-making about rewards and punishments show that participants adapt their rate of learning about action-outcome contingencies in response to changes in environmental volatility 8–10”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [8] Behrens, T.E., Woolrich, M.W., Walton, M.E. & Rushworth, M.F. Learning the value of information in an uncertain world. Nat. Neurosci. 10, 1214–1221 (2007). source
- Supportedcites [9] Browning, M., Behrens, T.E., Jocham, G., O'Reilly, J.X. & Bishop, S.J. Anxious individuals have difficulty learning the causal statistics of aversive environments. Nat. Neurosci. 18, 590–596 (2015). source
The Results section (‘Effect of Environmental Volatility on Learning Rate’) reports higher learning rates in volatile than stable blocks of the aversive task and says the study replicated prior reward findings. This supports the claim for both punishment and reward decision-making; page numbers are not supplied in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Partly supportedcites [10] Behrens, T.E.J., Hunt, L.T., Woolrich, M.W. & Rushworth, M.F.S. Associative learning of social value. Nature 456, 245–249 (2008). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper’s Abstract (page unavailable) says the optimal learning rate depends on volatility: faster in volatile conditions and slower in stable ones. It also reports that participants used model-tracked reward information in their choices. The study concerns reward outcomes and social advice, however, not punishment decision-making, so it does not support that part of the cited sentence. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Recent neurocomputational accounts of autism have proposed that aberrant signalling of volatility could result in pathological neural gain, consistent with the cognitive and perceptual profile of autism such as enhanced perceptual functioning, sensory overload and context insensitivity4–6,20.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Introduction
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [4] Lawson, R.P., Rees, G. & Friston, K.J. An aberrant precision account of autism. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8, 302 (2014). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Representing and responding to uncertainty” (page unavailable), the paper explains that estimating environmental volatility determines how sensory evidence is weighted against prior beliefs and discusses a possible failure to contextualize sensory processing in autism. “The neuromodulatory basis of precision” identifies neural gain as the mechanism for that weighting, while “Sensory attenuation” links excessive sensory influence to enhanced local perception, sensory overload, and reduced sensitivity to context. The claim is a fair, hedged synthesis of the proposed account, not a reported experimental finding. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [5] Friston, K.J., Lawson, R. & Frith, C.D. On hyperpriors and hypopriors: comment on Pellicano and Burr. Trends Cogn. Sci. 17, 1 (2013). source
- Partly supportedcites [6] Lawson, R.P., Friston, K.J. & Rees, G. A more precise look at context in autism. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112, E5226 (2015). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In the main text (page unavailable), the paper links environmental volatility to the weighting of sensory evidence, links precision to neural gain, and proposes that aberrant precision-weighting in autism could produce context-insensitive perception. It does not specifically propose aberrant volatility signalling as the cause of pathological neural gain, or discuss sensory overload and enhanced perceptual functioning as outcomes of that mechanism. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Partly supportedcites [20] Lawson, R.P., Aylward, J., White, S. & Rees, G. A striking reduction of simple loudness adaptation in autism. Sci. Rep. 5, 16157 (2015). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page unavailable in our copy) describes a proposed imbalance in the precision, or neuromodulatory gain, assigned to sensory input in autism. The Abstract links altered adaptation to reduced sensitivity to sensory context. These passages support a gain-and-context account, but the paper does not specifically propose aberrant volatility signalling as its cause. (LLM, conf=0.83)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Noradrenaline (NA), in particular, is thought to signal contextual change, leading to enhanced bottom-up, thalamocortical transmission of sensory information17–19.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [17] Hasselmo, M.E. & McGaughy, J. High acetylcholine levels set circuit dynamics for attention and encoding and low acetylcholine levels set dynamics for consolidation. Prog. Brain Res. 145, 207–231 (2004). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [18] Kobayashi, M. et al. Selective suppression of horizontal propagation in rat visual cortex by norepinephrine. Eur. J. Neurosci. 12, 264–272 (2000). source
- Could not verifycites [19] Shepard, K.N., Liles, L.C., Weinshenker, D. & Liu, R.C. Norepinephrine is necessary for experience-dependent plasticity in the developing mouse auditory cortex. J. Neurosci. 35, 2432–2437 (2015). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page unavailable) speculates that norepinephrine may facilitate synaptic plasticity and says its role in thalamocortical connectivity remains to be tested. Neither that passage nor the additional searches for contextual change and sensory transmission say that norepinephrine signals contextual change or enhances bottom-up thalamocortical transmission. (LLM, conf=0.76)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“When the environment is volatile people should give more weight to recent sensory outcomes in building expectations about what they will see next (e.g. adopt a high α), in contrast they should give information from the distant past more weight when the environment is stable (e.g. adopt a low α) 8,9.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Computational Modelling
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [8] Behrens, T.E., Woolrich, M.W., Walton, M.E. & Rushworth, M.F. Learning the value of information in an uncertain world. Nat. Neurosci. 10, 1214–1221 (2007). source
- Supportedcites [9] Browning, M., Behrens, T.E., Jocham, G., O'Reilly, J.X. & Bishop, S.J. Anxious individuals have difficulty learning the causal statistics of aversive environments. Nat. Neurosci. 18, 590–596 (2015). source
The Abstract says that recent events should guide choices in volatile environments, whereas outcomes from many previous actions should be averaged when surprising outcomes reflect noise. The Results section, “Effect of Environmental Volatility on Learning Rate” (page not supplied), defines high α as giving recent outcomes more influence and reports higher learning rates in volatile than stable blocks. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Aberrant phasic NA (c.f precision on prediction errors4,6) may alter the signal-to-noise ratio of cortical responses 41,42, broaden the tuning functions of sensory responses and, subsequently improve discrimination behaviour43.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [4] Lawson, R.P., Rees, G. & Friston, K.J. An aberrant precision account of autism. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8, 302 (2014). source
This source is cited for the parenthetical link to precision on prediction errors, not for the later claims about signal-to-noise ratio, sensory tuning, or discrimination, which have separate citations. The Introduction links prediction-error precision to neuromodulatory gain control; the Monoamines section discusses norepinephrine in perceptual uncertainty, and the Summary notes that tonic versus phasic neuromodulator availability can shape perception and learning. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Supportedcites [6] Lawson, R.P., Friston, K.J. & Rees, G. A more precise look at context in autism. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112, E5226 (2015). source
The citation to this paper is attached to the parenthetical comparison with precision on prediction errors, not to the later claims about signal-to-noise ratio, sensory tuning, or discrimination, which have separate citations. In “A more precise look at context in autism” (page unavailable), the paper links norepinephrine to the weighting of sensory evidence and locates precision-weighting in the gain of cells encoding prediction errors. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [41] Hasselmo, M.E., Linster, C., Patil, M., Ma, D. & Cekic, M. Noradrenergic suppression of synaptic transmission may influence cortical signal-to-noise ratio. J. Neurophysiol. 77, 3326–3339 (1997). source
- Partly supportedcites [42] Hirata, A., Aguilar, J. & Castro-Alamancos, M.A. Noradrenergic activation amplifies bottom-up and top-down signal-to-noise ratios in sensory thalamus. J. Neurosci. 26, 4426–4436 (2006). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The discussion section reports that noradrenergic activation increases signal-to-noise ratios in VPM thalamocortical cells, including for cortical inputs. It does not establish a change in the signal-to-noise ratio of responses recorded in cortex. The tuning and discrimination clauses appear to be attached to a different citation and are not judged here. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Partly supportedcites [43] Martins, A.R.O. & Froemke, R.C. Coordinated forms of noradrenergic plasticity in the locus coeruleus and primary auditory cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 18, 1483–1492 (2015). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section (‘Locus coeruleus pairing improves auditory perception’; page not available) reports that auditory-cortical tuning initially broadened and discrimination later improved above baseline. But it says performance initially worsened during the broadening phase and improved after tuning width recovered; it does not show that broadening itself improved discrimination. The source studies locus coeruleus pairing, not aberrant phasic noradrenaline. (LLM, conf=0.86)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Pupil size is an index of noradrenaline release from the locus coeruleus.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Such an explanation is implied by conservative interpretations of non-hierarchical Bayesian accounts of ASD 2 and predictive processing accounts that emphasise “uniform” inflexibly high precision in sensory processing 3.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [2] Pellicano, E. & Burr, D. When the world becomes 'too real': a Bayesian explanation of autistic perception. Trends Cogn. Sci. 16, 504–510 (2012). source
The section “Autistic perception within a Bayesian framework” proposes a Bayesian account of ASD in which broader, attenuated priors leave perception less constrained by prior knowledge. This supports the account attributed to this source; the separate claim about uniformly high sensory precision is attached to citation 3, not this paper. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Supportedcites [3] Van de Cruys, S. et al. Precise minds in uncertain worlds: predictive coding in autism. Psychol. Rev. 121, 649–675 (2014). source
The “Predictive Coding in ASD” section describes the paper’s model as assigning high, inflexible precision to prediction errors in autism. It says low-level sensory prediction errors are assigned precision that is too high and independent of context, supporting the part of the citing sentence attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.91)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Motivated by these claims, a relatively recent study found no differences in learning rate malleability in autistic children during a reward learning task modelled with a delta learning rule 45.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [45] Manning, C., Kilner, J., Neil, L., Karaminis, T. & Pellicano, E. Children on the autism spectrum update their behaviour in response to a volatile environment. Dev. Sci. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/desc.12435 (2016). source
The Results report that learning rates rose in the volatile condition, with no significant group-by-condition interaction: autistic children adjusted their rates to a similar extent as typically developing children and adults. Materials and methods states that learning rates were estimated in the reward task using a delta-learning rule. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Atypical social prediction error processing in the gyral surface of the ACC(g) has recently been shown in autism44”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [44] Balsters, J.H. et al. Disrupted prediction errors index social deficits in autism spectrum disorder. Brain 140, 235–246 (2017). source
The Results section, “Social prediction error signals in the gyral surface of the anterior cingulate cortex,” reports a group difference in ACCg responses to social prediction errors. Typically developing participants showed an ACCg response when another person received an unexpected reward, whereas the ASD group did not show that distinction. (LLM, conf=0.94)
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Under the aberrant precision account of ASD it is problems with high-level learning about volatility, and the ratified neuromodulatory changes, that is hypothesised to underlie the difficulties faced by people on the spectrum 4–6.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Discussion
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [4] Lawson, R.P., Rees, G. & Friston, K.J. An aberrant precision account of autism. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8, 302 (2014). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The ‘Related accounts of autism’ section links aberrant precision to perceptual learning, hierarchical modeling of volatility, and possible compensatory neuromodulatory changes at higher levels (page unavailable). But it describes those learning and neuromodulatory changes as secondary consequences of an imbalance in precision, not as the primary causes of autistic difficulties; the Conclusions identify that imbalance as the proposed explanation. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [5] Friston, K.J., Lawson, R. & Frith, C.D. On hyperpriors and hypopriors: comment on Pellicano and Burr. Trends Cogn. Sci. 17, 1 (2013). source
- Partly supportedcites [6] Lawson, R.P., Friston, K.J. & Rees, G. A more precise look at context in autism. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112, E5226 (2015). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “A more precise look at context in autism” (page not specified), the paper links adaptive perception and action to estimating environmental volatility and says neuromodulators putatively track it. It also proposes that aberrant precision-weighting could produce context-insensitive perception and action, but does not specifically say that impaired high-level volatility learning and neuromodulatory changes together underlie autistic people's difficulties; it calls the mechanisms empirical questions. (LLM, conf=0.83)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Notably, however, there were no group differences in simple behaviour reported on this task.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Discussion
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [45] Manning, C., Kilner, J., Neil, L., Karaminis, T. & Pellicano, E. Children on the autism spectrum update their behaviour in response to a volatile environment. Dev. Sci. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/desc.12435 (2016). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report no significant differences between autistic and typically developing children in how well the behavioural models fit their choices, and no group difference in learning rates. But they also report one group difference: more children than adults were fit by the win-stay lose-shift model. The unqualified claim of no group differences therefore overstates the findings (Results; page unavailable in our copy). (LLM, conf=0.82)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“A recent pharmacological study employing the HGF, indicates that noradrenaline antagonism selectively impairs volatility learning13, which accords with the raised pupillometric response to surprise about volatility reported in the adults with ASD here (Figure 5b).”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Discussion
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [13] Marshall, L. et al. Pharmacological fingerprints of contextual uncertainty. PLoS Biol. 14, e1002575 (2016). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section ('The Influence of NA and ACh in Perceptual Uncertainty Computations'; page unavailable) reports that noradrenaline antagonism changed volatility updating without changing the tonic learning rate about probabilistic contexts. But it reports faster, more variable volatility updating—not a demonstrated impairment—and notes that the effect did not survive one correction for multiple comparisons. The cited paper does not report the ASD pupillometry finding; the citing authors present that comparison as their own. (LLM, conf=0.85)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The distinct but complementary results provided by the ground truth and computational levels of analysis in our study underwrite the utility of computational approaches in better understanding neuro-developmental and psychiatric conditions with the aim of influencing clinical practice 47–49.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Conclusion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [47] Haker, H., Schneebeli, M. & Stephan, K.E. Can Bayesian theories of autism spectrum disorder help improve clinical practice? Front. Psychiatry 7, 107 (2016). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Haker, Schneebeli, and Stephan’s “Can Bayesian Theories of Autism Spectrum Disorder Help Improve Clinical Practice?” supports the claim’s central point: a cited-paper snippet (score 0.498) proposes computational models as clinically applicable assays for psychiatric disorders, and another (score 0.451) describes using modeling to improve ASD diagnosis and care. The paper does not, however, report its own separate ground-truth and computational analyses; that part of the wording overstates what the source establishes. The prior weak-match verdict is not evidence of a contrary argument. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Partly supportedcites [48] Corlett, P.R. & Fletcher, P.C. Computational psychiatry: a Rosetta Stone linking the brain to mental illness. Lancet Psychiatry 1, 399–402 (2014). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper’s opening and concluding discussions (page numbers not provided) argue that computational psychiatry links levels of analysis, helps explain mental illness, and offers a path toward clinical use. It does not specifically address neurodevelopmental conditions. The ground-truth and computational results are identified as findings of the citing authors’ own study, not findings attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Supportedcites [49] Teufel, C. & Fletcher, P.C. The promises and pitfalls of applying computational models to neurological and psychiatric disorders. Brain 139, 2600–2608 (2016). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Teufel and Fletcher’s paper supports the claim’s general point: a paper-scoped snippet (score 0.54) says computational models may deepen understanding of psychiatric and neurological disorders and aid diagnosis and treatment. It also describes models as a way to synthesize disparate evidence. The paper does not appear to report the specific ‘ground-truth and computational analyses’ mentioned in the citing sentence, so the citation supports the broader interpretation rather than those particular findings. The prior disputed verdict is not warranted; the cited text makes no contrary argument. (LLM, conf=0.81)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Crucially, only the expectedness*group interaction was significant in this analysis (F(2,94)=4.47, P=0.014; Figure 2a). The noise*group (F(2,94)=0.06, P=0.94), noise*expectedness (F(4,188)=0.47, P=0.76) and expectedness*noise*group interactions were not significant (F(4,188)=1.31, P=0.28).”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Behaviour
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Follow up independent-samples t-tests revealed that the ASD group did not update α2 as much as NT adults (t(47)=-2.37, P=0.02) whereas they updated α3 more than NT adults(t(47)=3.16, P=0.03; Figure 4c).”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Computational Modelling
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additional analyses revealed that the volatility learning rate (α3), and the probability learning rate (α2) are not encoded in the pupil response in either group (Figure S9).”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Pupillometry
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This analysis revealed no main effect of α type (F(1,47)=2.61, P=0.11), no main effect of group (F(1,47)=2.01, P=0.16, and no group* α type interaction (F(1,47)=2.54, P=0.12), suggesting that, in general, both groups were able to learn the this task equally well.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Computational Modelling
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This model was significant overall (F(3,48)=5.58, P=0.002) and the only significant predictor of UE-E RT difference was group (t=-2.87, P=0.008). Mean RT (t=-1.08. P=0.28) and mean errors (t=1.06, P=0.29) were not significant predictors.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Behaviour
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subtracting % errors to UE from those to E outcomes provides a low-level index of surprise which is only significantly greater than zero in the NT group (ASD, t(23)=1.11, P=0.28; NT, t(24)=3.65, P=0.001) and attenuated in the ASD group relative to the NT group (t(33.4)=2.83, P=0.007; Figure 2d).”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Behaviour
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This suggests that for both groups increasing sensory noise results in slower RT (Figure S1) but adults with ASD only show reduced modulation of RT as a function of learned expectations.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Behaviour
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Control analyses indicated that there were no group differences in response time or accuracy across the face and house stimuli (Figure S5).”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Behaviour
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, control analyses revealed that there were no group differences in fixation compliance across conditions (Figure S11) or the relationship between pupil size and simple behaviour such as trial-wise RT (Figure S12).”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Pupillometry
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A third regression model, in a reduced sample size (see Online Methods), additionally included sensory sensitivity scores (ASQ) as a predictor of UE-E RT. This model was not significant (F(4,21)=1.28, P=0.32) and the only predictor approaching significance was, again, communication scores (t=-1.89, P=0.076).”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Behaviour
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Applying multiple regression across every trial and every time point in the pupil time trace, we found a sustained positive relationship between pupil size and precision-weighted PE’s (ε3) in the ASD participants (Figure 5b), which significantly differed from the NT group and zero.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Pupillometry
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This demonstrated no group differences in tonic pupil size in this sample (t(23)=.36, P=0.72).”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Pupillometry
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This analysis revealed a trend towards a main effect of group (F(1,47)=0.26, P=0.061), a significant main effect of α type (F(1,47)=6.07, P=0.017) and crucially an α type* group interaction (F(1,47)=9.80), P=0.003).”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Computational Modelling
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In each case the model was significant (Δα2 : F(2,48)=68.94, P<0.001, R2 =0.75; Δα3 : F(2,48)=102.53, P<0.001, R2 =0.82).”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Computational Modelling
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Wald statistic demonstrated that outcome uncertainty (β2, P=0.043), phasic volatility (β4, P=0.006) tonic volatility at the 3rd level (ω3, P=0.024) and baseline log RT (β0, P=0.007) made a significant contribution to prediction (Figure 4b).”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Computational Modelling
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A second regression model that also contained baseline RT as a predictor narrowly missed overall significance (F(6,23)=2.41, P=0.07), and communication scores were once again the only significant predictor (t=-2.81, P=0.012).”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Behaviour
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A binary logistic regression model predicting group status (ASD=1, NT=0), with all eight model parameters as predictors was significant (X2= 26.83, P=.001) and prediction success overall was 81.6% (76% ASD, 88% NT), with cross-validated prediction success of 68%.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Computational Modelling
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This model was significant (F(3,23)=3.28, P=0.04) and communication score was the only significant predictor (t=-2.57, P=0.018; Figure 3). IQ (t=1.45, P=0.16) and social reciprocal interaction scores (t=0.95, P=0.35) were not significant predictors.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Behaviour
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was a significant main effect of expectedness (F(1.5,70.5)=11.71, P<0.001) and a significant group*expectedness interaction (F(2,94)=6.34, P=0.003) indicating that NT group made more errors on unexpected, relative to expected trials, whereas the ASD group did not (Figure 2c).”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Behaviour
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main effect of noise was not significant in this analysis (F(1.7,78.8)=0.08, P=0.92) and neither was the noise*group (F(2,94)=0.29, P=0.75), noise*expectedness (F(4,188)=0.76, P=0.55) and expectedness*noise*group interactions (F(4,188)=1.28, P=0.28).”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Behaviour
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subtracting RTs to UE from those to E outcomes provides a low-level index of “surprise” which is significantly greater than zero in both groups (ASD, t(23)=4.66, P<0.001; NT, t(24)=7.25, P<0.001) but attenuated in the ASD group relative to the NT group (t(47)=3.51, P=0.001; Figure 2b).”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Behaviour
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“AQ score was significantly higher in the in the high AQ group (mean=27, SD=6.4, range=18-45), relative to the low AQ group (mean=11.5, SD=3.4, range=5-17; t (55) = 11.28, P<0.001).”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Online Methods > Participants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A hierarchical Bayesian model of learning suggests that in ASD a tendency to over-learn about volatility in the face of environmental change drives a corresponding reduction in learning about probabilistically aberrant events – putatively rendering them less surprising.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Abstract
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“NA is believed to change cortical gain in response to surprise, specifically; salient events indicating that global context has changed cf. “unexpected uncertainty” 15,25.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [15] Yu, A. & Dayan, P. Expected and unexpected uncertainty: ACh and NE in the neocortex. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 15, 173–180 (2003).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [25] Yu, A.J. Change is in the eye of the beholder. Nat. Neurosci. 15, 933–935 (2012). source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, this notion of surprise is conditioned upon adequate learning of the ground truth, and our computational analysis indicates that ASD and NT participants show a dissociation in how they estimate volatility and adapt their learning rates in response to the changeability of the environment”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Pupillometry
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Results were unchanged when the identical analysis was carried out on log reaction times (Table S1).”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Behaviour
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Not only does this bolster confidence in our clinical finding but additionally supports generalisation of this result to the broader autism spectrum in the wider population.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Behaviour
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In a state where uncertainty about one’s beliefs is high (e.g. in volatile conditions), top-down prior expectations should be suppressed, relative to new bottom-up sensory evidence, in order to promote new learning about the current environmental context15.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [15] Yu, A. & Dayan, P. Expected and unexpected uncertainty: ACh and NE in the neocortex. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 15, 173–180 (2003).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This fits with our finding that the ASD participants, who tend towards a smaller Δα2 (Figure 4c), show reduced behavioural ‘surprise’ (Figure 2b) and also larger ‘metavolitility’ estimates (Figure 4b).”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Computational Modelling
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ω3 can be understood as capturing ‘metavolatility’ (i.e., the tonic volatility of the phasic volatility, with higher values in the ASD group implying a belief in a world where instability itself is instable (Figure S8).”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Computational Modelling
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This suggests less distinction between UE and E outcomes in ASD, though this is conditioned upon adequate learning of the ground truth.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Behaviour
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In general, these findings point towards problems representing and responding to environmental change in ASD, specifically, an increased tendency to expect the unexpected.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Computational Modelling
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Knowing whether to disregard an unexpected outcome or take it seriously (i.e. whether to adopt a high or low learning rate about cue-outcome probabilities) depends on the precision of your beliefs about environmental change (i.e. whether you adopt a high or low learning rate about volatility).”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Results were very similar when the identical analysis was carried out on log error rates (Table S1).”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Behaviour
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If the NA system is signalling more high-level surprise in ASD then this may imply atypical cortical gain during sensory processing, resulting in a state where one is disproportionately receptive to sensory inputs.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Pupil size is an index of noradrenaline release from the locus coeruleus.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This study offers novel insight into the behavioural, algorithmic and physiological mechanisms that underlie learning about, and responses to, environmental change in ASD.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Data collection and analysis were not performed blind to the conditions of the experiment.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Online Methods > Procedure
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“An additional 57 NTs were studied as part of a replication of our key behavioural result (25 male, 32 female; mean age: 27.1, age range: 19–50) and additionally completed the Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ) questionnaire; a 50-item self-report measure of autistic traits 32,55.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Online Methods > Participants
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [32] Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Skinner, R., Martin, J. & Clubley, E. The autism-spectrum quotient (AQ): evidence from Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism, males and females, scientists and mathematicians. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 31, 5–17 (2001). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [55] Woodbury-Smith, M.R., Robinson, J., Wheelwright, S. & Baron-Cohen, S. Screening adults for Asperger Syndrome using the AQ: a preliminary study of its diagnostic validity in clinical practice. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 35, 331–335 (2005). source
plainn = 57- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results of this study imply that adults with autism show a tendency to over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment, at the expense of learning to build stable expectations that lead to adaptive surprise.”
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · hedged
“In other words, adults with autism may be mildly surprised by the pineapple and the socks.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Conclusion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · hedged
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This indicated that a total sample size of 48 participants would be necessary to have at least 90% power to detect an F-test effect size of 0.25.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Online Methods > Sample Size
hedgedn = 48- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (2nd edition) 54 assessment was completed by a qualified administrator to assess symptom severity in the ASD participants.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Online Methods > Participants
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [54] Lord, C. et al. The autism diagnostic observation schedule-generic: a standard measure of social and communication deficits associated with the spectrum of autism. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 30, 205–223 (2000). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Given that initial effect sizes are often inflated 61 and that we sought power to detect a difference between two groups, we doubled this estimate and aimed to test ~28 participants in each group with some attrition expected.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Online Methods > Sample Size
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [61] Ioannidis, J.P. Why most discovered true associations are inflated. Epidemiology 19, 640–648 (2008). source
hedgedn = 28- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was no significant difference in the mean number of included trials between the groups (mean good trials ASD=298; NT=261; t(23)=0.803, P=0.43).”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Online Methods > Statistics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To ensure that participants’ responses were not biased by learned expectations about the relative frequencies of the visual stimuli, the task was designed such that the marginal probabilities of faces and houses were identical at any point in time (Figure 1) and each block contained equal numbers of randomly intermixed high and low tone trials.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Online Methods > Procedure
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“All three of these neuromodulators are likely candidates in the neurobiological mechanisms underlying responses to environmental change in ASD.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [15] Yu, A. & Dayan, P. Expected and unexpected uncertainty: ACh and NE in the neocortex. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 15, 173–180 (2003).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Post-hoc power calculations indicate that with 11 ASD participants included in the actual analysis, we had 86% power to detect the mean positive β (slope=0.72) that we observed in these participants (α = 0.05; 2-tailed).”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Online Methods > Sample Size
hedgedn = 11- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This left 24 participants in the ASD group (18 males; mean age: 35.5, age range: 20-61) and 25 in the NT group (16 males; mean age: 36, age range: 19-62).”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Online Methods > Participants
plainn = 24- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Calibration of the eye tracker was unsuccessful in all participants wearing glasses and the eye tracker suffered a fatal technical failure before testing was completed, therefore eye tracking data are only available for 14 NT’s and 11 ASD’s.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Online Methods > Pupillometry
plaindirectn = 11- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The available eye-tracking data from 14 NT and 11 ASD participants are representative of the full samples.
In the paper
“The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS 3rd edition UK) had previously been administered to assess IQ 53 and participants were matched on full-scale scores (ASD mean: 117; range: 80-142; NT mean: 120, range: 99-145; t(47)=-0.93, P=0.36)”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Online Methods > Participants
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [53] Wechsler, D. & Hsiao-pin, C. WASI-II: Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (Pearson, 2011). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No randomisation was used to assign subjects or conditions.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Online Methods > Participants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“ASD participants had previously been diagnosed by an independent clinician, according to the DSM-IV51 or ICD-10 criteria52 [19 Asperger Syndrome, 3 Autistic Disorder, 1 High Functioning Autism, 1 Atypical Autism].”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Online Methods > Participants
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [51] American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual–Text Revision (DSM-IV-TRim, 2000) (American Psychiatric Association, 2000).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [52] World Health Organization. International classification of diseases (ICD-10) (World Health Organization, 2012).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This analysis indicated that we would need a minimum of 14 participants to achieve 95% power to detect a similar (α = 0.05; 2-tailed) effect in the NT group.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Online Methods > Sample Size
hedgedn = 14- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From a Bayesian perspective, the simplest way in which persistent overweighting of all sensory inputs (relative to prior expectations) might occur would be a generally larger outcome α – reflecting chronic and inflexible overweighting of recent, relative to past, sensory history.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the analysis of RT’s, too fast and too slow (<100 or >1000ms) responses were excluded and, including missing responses, there was no significant difference between the groups in the overall percentage of missing data (1.9% ASD, 2.3% NT, t(47)=0.45, p=0.65).”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Online Methods > Statistics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Following data examination, participants with more than 20% overall errors or mean reaction times (RT’s) > 2 standard deviations from their respective group mean RT were excluded from subsequent analysis to ensure the validity of the Bayesian modelling.”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Online Methods > Participants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ASD and NT groups were matched on age (t(47)=0.54, P=0.87).”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Online Methods > Participants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Pupil size is an index of noradrenaline release from the locus coeruleus.
“under the assumption that pupil size is an index of NA release from the locus coruleus (LC) 40”
The paper relies on this without support.
No studies to date have quantified the learning dynamics by which sensory expectations are formed in ASD.
“but no studies to date have actually quantified the learning dynamics by which sensory expectations are formed in ASD.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Prior computational models of decision-making did not fit individual differences in volatility learning.
“these models did not fit individual differences in volatility learning.”
The paper relies on this without support.
No studies have applied hierarchical learning models to understand learning about uncertainty in ASD.
“but no studies have applied these models to understand learning about uncertainty in ASD.”
The paper relies on this without support.
No studies have examined phasic noradrenaline function in the context of learning about uncertainty in ASD.
“but no studies have examined phasic NA function in the context of learning about uncertainty in ASD.”
The paper relies on this without support.
ADOS-2 communication scores predominantly weight on stereotyped and repetitive speech and conversational reciprocity, which necessitate reflexive behavioural responses to change.
“Communication, as measured by the ADOS-2, weights predominantly on stereotyped and repetitive speech and conversational reciprocity which arguably necessitate reflexive behavioural responses to change.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The data distributions were assumed to be normal without formal testing.
“Data distributions were assumed to be normal but this was not formally tested.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The available eye-tracking data from 14 NT and 11 ASD participants are representative of the full samples.
“therefore eye tracking data are only available for 14 NT’s and 11 ASD’s.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“While both groups learned the task equally well overall, adults with ASD seemed to overestimate environmental volatility and produced responses more strongly governed by outcome surprise [1].”
From Predicting emotional valence in autism: a preregistered study in the Bayesian Brain framework (2026) · cites this paper as [1]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“These results align with previous observations that sensorimotor processing is insensitive to varying levels of environmental uncertainty in autism [32,42,79].”
From Testing predictive coding theories of autism spectrum disorder using models of active inference (2023) · cites this paper as [32]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“using a model of hierarchical Bayesian inference [139], researchers could link autism to a propensity to overestimate the volatility (i.e., changeability and thereby unpredictability) of the environment [8]”
From How Do Expectations Shape Perception? (2018) · cites this paper as [8]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“we used the same trial structure as well as the same probabilities and volatility manipulation.”
From Predicting emotional valence in autism: a preregistered study in the Bayesian Brain framework (2026) · cites this paper as [1]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Sapey-Triomphe and colleagues [14, 15] also used a probabilistic associative learning task but found no differences in the levels of tonic volatility parameters extracted with the HGF between autistic and non-autistic adults, at odds with Lawson et al. [1].”
From Predicting emotional valence in autism: a preregistered study in the Bayesian Brain framework (2026) · cites this paper as [1]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Nonetheless, some evidence for group differences does exist [9], [16], experiment [1]”
From Predicting emotional valence in autism: a preregistered study in the Bayesian Brain framework (2026) · cites this paper as [1]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The pupil sizes revealed increased encoding of surprise in pupillary responses.”
From Predicting emotional valence in autism: a preregistered study in the Bayesian Brain framework (2026) · cites this paper as [1]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In contrast to Lawson et al. [32], we found no evidence that autistic individuals perceived the volatility of their environment differently from their neurotypical counterparts.”
From Testing predictive coding theories of autism spectrum disorder using models of active inference (2023) · cites this paper as Lawson et al. [32]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Specifically, our analysis suggests that autism research must account for differences in the context-sensitive modulation of prediction error in the brain (e.g., [31,32]).”
From Testing predictive coding theories of autism spectrum disorder using models of active inference (2023) · cites this paper as [32]
Statistics that don’t add up
Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“t(47)=3.16, P=0.03”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Computational Modelling
Reported p = .03 · recomputed p = .003
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“t(47)=0.54, P=0.87”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Online Methods > Participants
Reported p = .87 · recomputed p = .592
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“F(1,47)=0.26, P=0.061”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Computational Modelling
Reported p = .061 · recomputed p = .613
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“t(33.4)=2.83, P=0.007”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Behaviour
Reported p = .007 · recomputed p = .008
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- Doesn’t add upt(33.4) = 2.83reported p = .007 · recomputed p = .008
“t(33.4)=2.83, p = .007”
- Doesn’t add upF(1, 47) = 0.26reported p = .061 · recomputed p = .613
“F(1,47)=0.26, p = .061”
- Doesn’t add upt(47) = 3.16reported p = .03 · recomputed p = .003
“t(47)=3.16, p = .03”
- Doesn’t add upt(47) = 0.54reported p = .87 · recomputed p = .592
“t(47)=0.54, p = .87”
- ConsistentF(2, 94) = 25.48reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(2,94)=25.48, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(2, 94) = 13.6reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(2,94)=13.60, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 47) = 4.83reported p = .03 · recomputed p = .033
“F(1,47)=4.83, p = .03”
- ConsistentF(2, 94) = 4.47reported p = .014 · recomputed p = .014
“F(2,94)=4.47, p = .014”
- ConsistentF(2, 94) = 0.06reported p = .94 · recomputed p = .942
“F(2,94)=0.06, p = .94”
- ConsistentF(4, 188) = 0.47reported p = .76 · recomputed p = .758
“F(4,188)=0.47, p = .76”
- ConsistentF(4, 188) = 1.31reported p = .28 · recomputed p = .268
“F(4,188)=1.31, p = .28”
The paper states a sphericity correction
- Consistentt(23) = 4.66reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(23)=4.66, p < .001”
- Consistentt(24) = 7.25reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(24)=7.25, p < .001”
- Consistentt(47) = 3.51reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(47)=3.51, p = .001”
- ConsistentF(3, 48) = 5.58reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002
“F(3,48)=5.58, p = .002”
- ConsistentF(1.5, 70.5) = 11.71reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1.5,70.5)=11.71, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(2, 94) = 6.34reported p = .003 · recomputed p = .003
“F(2,94)=6.34, p = .003”
- ConsistentF(1.7, 78.8) = 0.08reported p = .92 · recomputed p = .923
“F(1.7,78.8)=0.08, p = .92”
- ConsistentF(2, 94) = 0.29reported p = .75 · recomputed p = .749
“F(2,94)=0.29, p = .75”
- ConsistentF(4, 188) = 0.76reported p = .55 · recomputed p = .553
“F(4,188)=0.76, p = .55”
- ConsistentF(4, 188) = 1.28reported p = .28 · recomputed p = .279
“F(4,188)=1.28, p = .28”
- Consistentt(23) = 1.11reported p = .28 · recomputed p = .278
“t(23)=1.11, p = .28”
- Consistentt(24) = 3.65reported p = .001 · recomputed p = .001
“t(24)=3.65, p = .001”
- ConsistentF(3, 23) = 3.28reported p = .04 · recomputed p = .039
“F(3,23)=3.28, p = .04”
- ConsistentF(6, 23) = 2.41reported p = .07 · recomputed p = .059
“F(6,23)=2.41, p = .07”
The paper states a sphericity correction
- ConsistentF(4, 21) = 1.28reported p = .32 · recomputed p = .309
“F(4,21)=1.28, p = .32”
The paper states a sphericity correction
- ConsistentF(1, 47) = 6.07reported p = .017 · recomputed p = .017
“F(1,47)=6.07, p = .017”
- Consistentt(47) = -2.37reported p = .02 · recomputed p = .022
“t(47)=-2.37, p = .02”
- ConsistentF(1, 47) = 2.61reported p = .11 · recomputed p = .113
“F(1,47)=2.61, p = .11”
- ConsistentF(1, 47) = 2.01reported p = .16 · recomputed p = .163
“F(1,47)=2.01, p = .16”
- ConsistentF(1, 47) = 2.54reported p = .12 · recomputed p = .118
“F(1,47)=2.54, p = .12”
- ConsistentF(2, 48) = 68.94reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(2,48)=68.94, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(2, 48) = 102.53reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(2,48)=102.53, p < .001”
- Consistentt(23) = 0.36reported p = .72 · recomputed p = .722
“t(23)=.36, p = .72”
- Consistentt(47) = -0.93reported p = .36 · recomputed p = .357
“t(47)=-0.93, p = .36”
- Consistentt(55) = 11.28reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t (55) = 11.28, p < .001”
- Consistentt(47) = 0.45reported p = .65 · recomputed p = .655
“t(47)=0.45, p = .65”
- Consistentt(23) = 0.803reported p = .43 · recomputed p = .430
“t(23)=0.803, p = .43”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Computational Modelling
“switching from stable (highlighted in violet on Figure 1) to volatile (highlighted in green on Figure 1) periods of the task”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Online Methods > Statistics
“a period of 72 trials (highlighted in green on Figure 1) in which the probabilistic association between tones and outcomes remained fixed, followed by a period of 72 trials (highlighted in violet on Figure 1) in which the outcome probabilities switched three times”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Behaviour
“Subtracting % errors to UE from those to E outcomes provides a low-level index of surprise which is only significantly greater than zero in the NT group”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Behaviour
“NT group made more errors on unexpected, relative to expected trials, whereas the ASD group did not”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Behaviour
“This model was not significant (F(4,21)=1.28, P=0.32)”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Online Methods > Statistics
“Sensory scores were only available for 21/24 ASD participants, therefore this analysis was conducted on a reduced sample size.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Behaviour
“Subtracting RTs to UE from those to E outcomes provides a low-level index of “surprise” which is significantly greater than zero in both groups”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Behaviour
“To ensure that the group difference in UE-E RT persists over and above participants mean ‘baseline’ RT and error rates”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Computational Modelling
“they updated α3 more than NT adults(t(47)=3.16, P=0.03; Figure 4c)”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Computational Modelling
“the ASD group did not update α2 as much as NT adults (t(47)=-2.37, P=0.02)”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Behaviour
“This model was significant overall (F(3,48)=5.58, P=0.002)”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results
“adults with ASD (n=24) and age and IQ matched neurotypical adults (NT’s; n=25)”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Computational Modelling
“Δα2 : F(2,48)=68.94, P<0.001, R2 =0.75; Δα3 : F(2,48)=102.53, P<0.001, R2 =0.82”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results
“adults with ASD (n=24) and age and IQ matched neurotypical adults (NT’s; n=25)”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Results > Computational Modelling
“prediction success overall was 81.6% (76% ASD, 88% NT)”
§ Adults with autism over-estimate the volatility of the sensory environment > Online Methods > Participants
“This left 24 participants in the ASD group (18 males; mean age: 35.5, age range: 20-61)”
Cited works that were retracted
Works this paper cites that were later retracted, from the retraction notices publishers deposit. Major when the notice came out before this paper was published.
A note, not an issue: for example, a cited work that was retracted only after this paper was published, which its authors could not have known.
In the paper
“Sevgi, M., Diaconescu, A.O., Tittgemeyer, M. & Schilbach, L. Social Bayes: using Bayesian modeling to study autistic trait–related differences in social cognition. Biol. Psychiatry 80, 112–119 (2016).”
Cited work 10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.11.025 · retracted 2019-09-23 · notice 10.1016/j.biopsych.2019.08.017 · this paper published 2017-07-31
Citations
Cites
1 retracted
Sevgi, M., Diaconescu, A. O., Tittgemeyer, M., & Schilbach, L. (2015) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.11.025 · Cited by 94
RetractedHosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000) · doi:10.1002/0471722146 · Cited by 20,302
Lord, C., Risi, S., Lambrecht, L., Cook, E. H., Leventhal, B. L., DiLavore, P. C., Pickles, A., & Rutter, M. (2000) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1023/a:1005592401947 · Cited by 7,520
Rescorla, R. A. (1972) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 7,268
Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Skinner, R., Martin, J., & Clubley, E. (2001) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1023/a:1005653411471 · Cited by 6,450
Aston-Jones, G., & Cohen, J. D. (2005) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.28.061604.135709 · Cited by 4,472
Berridge, C. W., & Waterhouse, B. D. (2003) · Brain Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0165-0173(03)00143-7 · Cited by 2,529
Learning the value of information in an uncertain world
Behrens, T. E. J., Woolrich, M. W., Walton, M. E., & Rushworth, M. F. S. (2007) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn1954 · Cited by 2,053
Which terms should be used to describe autism? Perspectives from the UK autism community
Kenny, L., Hattersley, C., Molins, B., Buckley, C., Povey, C., & Pellicano, E. (2016) · Autism · doi:10.1177/1362361315588200 · Cited by 1,941 · cited 7×
“This analysis revealed no main effect of α type (F(1,47)=2.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialDiffusion decision model: Current issues and history
Ratcliff, R., Smith, P. L., Brown, S. D., & McKoon, G. (2016) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2016.01.007 · Cited by 1,630
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Robertson, C. E., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2017) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn.2017.112 · Cited by 1,157
How Do Expectations Shape Perception?
de Lange, F. P., Heilbron, M., & Kok, P. (2018) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2018.06.002 · Cited by 975
“, changeability and thereby unpredictability) of the environment [8], and link schizophrenia to an overly strong reliance on perceptual priors [9].”
BackgroundPredictive Processing: A Canonical Cortical Computation
Keller, G. B., & Mrsic-Flogel, T. D. (2018) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2018.10.003 · Cited by 836
Annual Research Review: The transdiagnostic revolution in neurodevelopmental disorders
Astle, D. E., Holmes, J., Kievit, R., & Gathercole, S. E. (2022) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/jcpp.13481 · Cited by 384
The Perceptual Prediction Paradox
Press, C., Kok, P., & Yon, D. (2019) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2019.11.003 · Cited by 285
Metadata
- Authors
- Lawson, R. P., Mathys, C., & Rees, G.
- Affiliations
- Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
- Scuola Internazionale Superiore di Studi Avanzati (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Lawson, Rebecca P
- Venue
- Nature Neuroscience
- Published
- 2017-07-31
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1293-1299
- ISSN
- 1097-6256 (ISSN-L)
- 1546-1726
- PMC
- PMC5578436
- OpenAlex
- W2740651538
- Cited by
- 470
- References
- 66
- Citations by year
- 2026: 48 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 51 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 46 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 8
- FWCI
- 22.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Nature Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- SDL (submittedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
- Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
- Apollo
- Funders
- Wellcome Trust (100227, 100227/Z/12/Z)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- autism spectrum disorder, environmental volatility, surprise, prior expectations, Bayesian hierarchical model, norepinephrine, pupillometry, neural gain, environmental change, symptom severity
- MeSH terms
- Acoustic Stimulation, Adult, Association Learning, Autistic Disorder, Environment, Eye Movements, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Photic Stimulation, Reaction Time, Sensory Thresholds, Young Adult
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
