Cited by 19Action Observation and SynchronizationAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchChild and Animal Learning Development

Predictive action perception from explicit intention information in autism

Open access
Hudson, Matthew, Nicholson, Toby, Kharko, Anna, McKenzie, Rebecca, Bach, Patric·2021·Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Social difficulties in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) may originate from a reduced top-down modulation of sensory information that prevents the spontaneous attribution of intentions to observed behaviour. However, although people with autism are able to explicitly reason about others' mental states, the effect of abstract intention information on perceptual processes has remained untested. ASD participants (n = 23) and a neurotypical (NT) control group (n = 23) observed a hand either reaching for an object or withdrawing from it. Prior to action onset, the participant either instructed the actor to "Take it" or "Leave it", or heard the actor state "I'll take it" or "I'll leave it", which provided an explicit intention that was equally likely to be congruent or incongruent with the subsequent action. The hand disappeared before completion of the action, and participants reported the last seen position of the tip of the index finger by touching the screen. NT participants exhibited a predictive bias in response to action direction (reaches perceived nearer the object, withdrawals perceived farther away), and in response to prior knowledge of the actor's intentions (nearer the object after "Take it", farther away after "Leave it"). However, ASD participants exhibited a predictive perceptual bias only in response to the explicit intentions, but not in response to the motion of the action itself. Perception in ASD is not immune from top-down modulation. However, the information must be explicitly presented independently from the stimulus itself, and not inferred from cues inherent in the stimulus.

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

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

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/s13423-021-01941-w

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Claims other papers make about this one

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

  • Individuals with autism spectrum disorder had intact social perception.

    “but intact social perception, that is the ability to identify and utilize social cues to make judgments about social roles, rules, relationships, context, or other characteristics of other people (Hudson et al., 2021).”

    From Predictive coding in neuropsychiatric disorders: a systematic transdiagnostic review. (2025) · cites this paper as Hudson et al., 2021

    The Discussion reports intact use of explicit intention statements to shape action perception in participants with ASD, but no perceptual shift in response to goals implied by observed movements. The Conclusion likewise limits top-down modulation to information explicitly provided. These passages do not support the unqualified claim that social perception, broadly defined, was intact; page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • People with autism spectrum disorder were able to make predictions about other people's goals only when the goal was explicit, whereas they showed prediction deficits when the goal was implicit.

    “Specifically, people with ASD were able to make predictions about other people ' s goals only when the goal was explicit, whereas they showed prediction deficits when the goal was implicit (Hudson et al., 2021).”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 59 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hudson, M., Nicholson, T., Kharko, A., McKenzie, R., & Bach, P.
Affiliations
  • National College of Ireland (IE)
  • University of Plymouth (GB)
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
Corresponding author
Hudson, Matthew
Venue
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
Published
2021-05-23
Volume
28
Issue
5
Pages
1556-1566
ISSN
  • 1069-9384 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-5320
OpenAlex
W3086018351
Cited by
19
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4
FWCI
2.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NORMA (acceptedVersion)
  • PEARL (University of Plymouth) (submittedVersion)
  • Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • TRAP@NCI (National College of Ireland) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council (ES/J019178/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
Keywords
autism spectrum disorder, action perception, top-down modulation, intention attribution, social cognition, theory of mind, perceptual inference
MeSH terms
Autism Spectrum Disorder, Autistic Disorder, Hand, Humans, Social Perception, Intention

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