Cited by 34Autism Spectrum Disorder ResearchGenetics and Neurodevelopmental DisordersFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies

Increased response variability in autistic brains?

Coskun, Mehmet Akif, Varghese, Larry, Reddoch, Stacy, Castillo, Eduardo M., Pearson, Deborah A., Loveland, Katherine A., Papanicolaou, Andrew C., Sheth, Bhavin R.·2009·Neuroreport

Abstract

One of the key ideas regarding atypical connectivity in autistic brains is the hypothesis of noisier networks. The systems level version of this hypothesis predicts reduced reliability or increased variability in the evoked responses of individuals with autism. Using magnetoencephalography, we examined the response of individuals with autism spectrum disorder versus matched typically developing persons to passive tactile stimulation of the thumb and index finger of the dominant (right) hand. A number of different analyses failed to show higher variability in the evoked response to the thumb or to the index finger in the autism group as compared with typicals. Our results argue against the hypothesis that the brain networks in autism are noisier than normal.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/wnr.0b013e32833246b5

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

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

Claims other papers make about this one

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

  • Recent work suggests autism spectrum disorder differences may be associated with reliability of behavioral performance and evoked neural responses, not only activation differences.

    “more recent work has also investigated the possibility that differences in ASD may not be necessarily found in only differences in activation, but also may be associated with differences in the reliability of behavioral performance (Geurts et al., 2008) or evoked neural responses (Coskun et al., 2009; Dinstein et al., 2012; Haigh et al., 2014; Milne, 2011).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 29 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Coskun, M. A., Varghese, L., Reddoch, S., Castillo, E. M., Pearson, D. A., Loveland, K. A., Papanicolaou, A. C., & Sheth, B. R.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (US)
  • University of Houston (US)
Corresponding author
Sheth, Bhavin R.
Venue
Neuroreport
Published
2009-11-25
Volume
20
Issue
17
Pages
1543-1548
ISSN
0959-4965 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2099265506
Cited by
34
References
29
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuroreport (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Autism Speaks (AS1362)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
Keywords
autism spectrum disorder, response variability, evoked potentials, neural reliability, somatosensory evoked potentials
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Autistic Disorder, Brain, Evoked Potentials, Humans, Nerve Net, Neuropsychological Tests, Perception, Physical Stimulation, Predictive Value of Tests, Sensitivity and Specificity, Magnetoencephalography, 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.

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