Jump to content

User:Sgeureka/Neurotypical

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Computer Science

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8992921/ Our findings also raised the issue of how we can truly group people by neurotype in such studies. Participants self-reported their diagnostic status, yet there were several participants in the NT group whose experiences appeared to align with autistic and ND participants and who expressed doubt at their NT status. This issue has wider implications for any work, which attempts to make comparisons centered around neurotype, where we assume that people who do not have a diagnosis are “NT” (and rely on their self-report). Often, there are questions around online research as to how we can confirm the neurodivergent status of our participants (i.e., do we include screening measures alongside self-report); however, there is little focus on this issue in the opposite direction, how we confirm that a participant truly is “NT.” We do not have a solution to this problem, but think it worthy of acknowledgement.

Look up allistic in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Non-autistic individuals, in autism or psychology research also called typically developing (TD) or neurotypical (NT), and in autism circles called allistic, are people not affected by autism. Having been studied in the form of non-autistic control groups in autism research for decades, the phenotype has begun to be the focus of research, now with autistics as the control group.[1] Or it has been studied in exclusion of autistic individuals.[2] The term allistic is preferred over neurotypical (short for "neurologically typical") to unambiguously mean "not autistic",[3][4] as it excludes people with other neurodivergent diagnoses such as ADHD, dyslexia, or any form of neurocognitive or mental disorder.

As of 2023, 35 out of 36 children (97 percent) lack a diagnosis of autism and may therefore be regarded as non-autistic. With numbers of autism rising fast, the actual share of allistics in society is believed to be much lower. In 2019, research proposed a neurotypical prototype in contrast to individuals with autism or an autistic personality.[5]

Broader Autism Phenotype

[edit]

Viewed from an Autistic perspective

[edit]

Research

[edit]

Findings

[edit]

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.586171/full?fbclid=IwAR0sY5yeKggjzytwZ1ZBHkdBT5CasBAcRAgPF43qli0FmjXZePufcsSQpkQ :

Non-verbal and verbal communicative behaviors, including facial expressions, eye contact, postural mirroring, and tone play an important role in building rapport in people presumed to be neurotypical (Tickle-Degnen and Rosenthal, 1990); while not exhibiting these behaviors is related to poorer rapport (Richmond and McCroskey, 1995; Grahe and Bernieri, 1999; Hove and Risen, 2009). As difficulties with processing and expressing verbal and non-verbal social cues amongst autistic individuals have been well documented (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2019; Sasson et al., 2020), we might expect this to subsequently impact upon their development of rapport with others.

Applying a deficit model framework to paired interactions, autistic people should have the same difficulties interacting with autistic and non-autistic people (due to impairments in social communication) but difficulties would be compounded when two autistic people interact. A hypothesis based on this framework would predict that rapport between two non-autistic people would be highest, rapport between two autistic people would be lowest, and rapport between an autistic person and a non-autistic person would sit between these extremes.

Increasingly, deficit-based paradigms are challenged by ideas grounded in the social model of disability, which proposes that autistic difficulties emerge as a result of systemic barriers in society (Kapp et al., 2013).

Empirical support for the Double Empathy Problem is based on two strands of research. One area of research has explored non-autistic people’s difficulties in interacting with autistic people. Non-autistic people are less accurate at deciphering the facial expression of autistic people (Sheppard et al., 2016) and struggle to interpret autistic people’s mental states (Edey et al., 2016). Struggling to read autistic social cues is related to non-autistic people liking autistic people less (Alkhaldi et al., 2019), and non-autistic people are less willing to interact with autistic people (Sasson et al., 2017). Non-autistic people are also less likely to want to spend time or interact with autistic people than with non-autistic people (Morrison et al., 2020). These biases against autistic individuals are formed quickly by non-autistic people, and do not change with increased exposure (Sasson et al., 2017). Non-autistic people overestimate how egocentric autistic family members are (Heasman and Gillespie, 2018), while also overestimating the helpfulness of their own behaviors toward autistic people (Heasman and Gillespie, 2019b). Taken together, this body of research provides evidence that autistic social difficulties may be in part due to the perceptions of, and judgments made by, non-autistic people.

Though autistic people may perceive other autistic people as being more awkward, less attractive, and less socially warm than non-autistic people, autistic people still express interest in future interactions with other autistic people (DeBrabander et al., 2019; Morrison et al., 2020), suggesting that autistic people base their social judgments on fundamentally different criteria to non-autistic people.

Results showed that non-autistic pairs experienced higher self-rated rapport than autistic pairs, and both autistic and non-autistic pairs, and mixed pairs experienced lower rapport than both autistic pairs and non-autistic pairs. Regardless of individual neurotype, rapport is lower within mixed pairs compared with single neurotype pairs.

Additionally, examining the effect of the social context (i.e., whether in a matched or mixed-neurotype pair), showed that both autistic and non-autistic participants experienced lower rapport in mixed pairs. A lack of interaction with rater neurotype indicates that the lower rapport experienced in the mixed pairs is not driven by participants of a particular neurotype: both autistic and non-autistic participants had lower rapport within mixed pairs than in single neurotype pairs. However, given the small number of participants in each group when analyzing the data in this way (n = 12 each of autistic and non-autistic people in the mixed group), low statistical power may have contributed to the lack of a significant effect.

An exploratory comparison between participants’ own judgments of rapport and an observer’s ratings, suggests autistic participants’ self-rating of rapport are more in line with others’ ratings of rapport. There was a greater discrepancy between non-autistic participants’ estimates of their rapport with a partner compared with observers’ rating of the same social interaction.

More broadly, these findings fit with the wider psychological literature on in-group/out-group effects (e.g., Tajfel, 1979). Social identity theory suggests that inter-group behaviors are based on perceived group status differences. Thus, if someone identifies as being part of the same group as someone else (in the case of this research – autistic people with other autistic people, or non-autistic with other non-autistic people) they may be more motivated to achieve positive results (i.e., high self-rated rapport) (Tajfel et al., 1979). In contrast, perceiving someone as being of a different group to you (in the case of this study where diagnostic status was known within mixed pairs), participants may be less motivated to have positive interactions and high self-rated rapport. Though the effect of neurotype group identity on social behavior has not been explored, when neurotypical children are assigned to different arbitrary groups (e.g., green team, blue team), they show reduced imitation of those in their outgroup, just as autistic children show reduced imitation of neurotypical children (van Schaik and Hunnius, 2016). This presents the possibility that reduced social engagement exhibited by some autistic people may be explained by a lack of identification with people from other groups (i.e., non-autistic people).

A further finding is that autistic pairs’ self-rated rapport was significantly lower than non-autistic pairs self-rated rapport. There are several reasons why this may be the case. First, autistic pairs may experience lower rapport than non-autistic pairs due to differences in processing social information. Interpersonal interactions are a rich source of social information, and it is possible autistic individuals may be placing greater emphasis on some information more than others, or have their rapport limited by the volume of interactional processing going on (Murray et al., 2005). Second, due to well-documented autistic differences in social cognition (e.g., Sasson et al., 2020) autistic people may underestimate their rapport due to negative self-perception of their social skills (Hull et al., 2017) or lower self-perceived social competence (Jamison and Schuttler, 2015). Poor self-perception may also be the consequence of having a history of negative social interactions with individuals. Future research could ask autistic individuals to assess their overall level of social competence to see if this predicts self-rated rapport on a specific dyadic interaction. Third, autistic people could make rapport judgments on dimensions not assessed by the scale used in this study. Autistic people may have a distinctive way of interacting and building rapport with others (Heasman and Gillespie, 2019a), and may make social judgments using non-traditional criteria (Morrison et al., 2020), and thus their self-rated rapport may not be well assessed by the dimensions included in this scale. Finally, autistic people may be less impacted by social desirability bias than non-autistic people (Kirchner et al., 2012), who may inflate their self-rated rapport scores to be viewed positively by the experimenter (Krumpal, 2013).

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1745691620958010 :

If differences in interaction styles are viewed as impairments for autistic people, we must also consider these differences with nonautistic people as examples of impairments that may exacerbate difficulties in social interactions for autistic people.

The social-cognition assessments used in research are currently based on nonautistic social interactions and norms (Morrison et al., 2019). Although emerging research shows that autistic people can interact as efficiently as nonautistic people (although their interaction styles may not conform to nonautistic norms), this directly contradicts findings from social-cognitive-deficit accounts. It is therefore unsurprising that autistic people often perform significantly more poorly than nonautistic people on frequently used social-cognition measures. Furthermore, it is increasingly evident that performance of autistic people on measures of nonautistic social cognition are unlikely to accurately predict a person’s real-world functional and social skills (Sasson, Morrison, Kelsven, & Pinkham, 2020).

  • Non-autistics share information among themselves as effectively as autists do among themselves, but do so less effectively with non-autistics.[6]
  • Medido por los estándares autistas, el cerebro "típico" se distrae con facilidad, es obsesivamente sociable y adolece de un déficit de atención al detaille y a la rutina. De ahí, que las personas en el espectro experimenten el munto neuritípico como un lagar de una impredictibilidad y un caos implacables que functiona a un volumen de ruido desmedido y replete de personas com poco respeto por el espacio personal.[7]
  • We found that participants with ASD were equally likely—and in complex cases of deception even more likely—to deceive and detect deception, and learned deception at a faster rate. However, participants with ASD initially deceived less frequently, and were slower at detecting deception. These results suggest that people with ASD readily engage in deception but may do so through conscious and effortful reasoning about other people’s perspective.[8] Mental-age-matched children with developmental delay and typically developing (TD) children were significantly better at lying to deceive the puppet than children with ASD.[9]
  • Compared with HC, individuals with ASD were much more likely to reject the opportunity to earn ill gotten money by supporting a bad cause than were HCs. Computational modeling revealed that this resulted from heavily weighing benefits for themselves and the bad cause, suggesting that ASD participants apply a rule of refusing to serve a bad cause because they evaluate the negative consequences of their actions more severely.[10]
  • Dinah Murray and colleagues (2005) posit that a monotropic mind has fewer interests aroused at any given time, withh each one being allocated attention at a high concentration this attention allocation strategy tends to apply to autistic people. In contrast, non-autistic individuals are hypothesised to be polytropic: they allocate attention at varying intensity levels to cover a broader range of interests, which may be coaroused at any given time.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).
  • Regardless of diagnostic group, all participants provided more negative judgments of autistic than neurotypical adolescents in the videos. These data indicate that, without being explicitly informed of a shared diagnosis, adolescents with autism spectrum disorder form negative first impressions of autistic adolescents that are similar to, or lower than, those formed by neurotypical peers.[11] Findings indicated that autistic raters shared the TD tendency to evaluate autistic adults less favorably than TD adults, but these judgments did not reduce their social interest for interacting with autistic adults as they did for TD raters. Furthermore, informing raters of the diagnostic status of autistic adults did not improve first impressions for autistic raters as they did for TD raters, suggesting that autistic raters either already inferred their autism status when no diagnosis was provided or their impression formation is less affected by awareness of a person's diagnosis.[12]

Allistic vs. neurotypical

[edit]

[13][14]

The term "neurotypical" (an abbreviation of neurologically typical, sometimes NT) is a neologism that originated in the neurodiversity movement to label "people who do not have autistic-type brains", clarifying that this would exclude "autistic cousins" who are recognizably “autistic-like”[15] but not necessarily autistic.[16] Early uses of "NT" were often satirical, as in the Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical,[17][18] but with time it came to be widely used unironically.[19] It turned into a widely-used label for anyone who has a typical neurotype and fits into the norm of thinking patterns. Thus, neurotypicals were anyone without diagnoses of autistic, ADHD, dyslexia, anxiety, or any other condition that would be considered neurodivergent.[20][21][22] Since then, the term has been adopted by both the neurodiversity movement and in the scientific community,[23][24] although the National Autistic Society of the United Kingdom warned that the term "may not be applicable in, for example, the popular press."[25]

People with any form of neurocognitive or mental disorder, whether congenital or acquired, have also sometimes been excluded from the neurotypical label, particularly in academic studies for specific disorders that use neurotypical control groups.[26] In this sense, the term is now contrasted to neurodivergent, an umbrella term used to describe people with atypical mental and behavioral traits, such as mood,[27] anxiety, dissociative, psychotic, personality,[28] and eating disorders.[29] Under the neurodiversity framework, these conditions are often referred to as "neurodivergencies", in an effort to move away from the medical model of disability (sometimes referred to in the neurodiversity community as the "pathology paradigm"[30]).

"Critiques of the Neurodiversity Movement", a 2020 review, raised two concerns regarding the term "neurotypical":

  • Many people who do not have an autism diagnosis have autistic traits (known by researchers as the "broad autism phenotype"), so there is no clear bimodal distribution separating people with and without autism. In reality there are not two distinct populations, one "neurotypical" and one "neurodivergent".[31]: 288 
  • "Neurotypical" was a dubious construct, because there is nobody who could be considered truly neurotypical, and there is no such standard for the human brain.[31]: 290 

Rest

[edit]

Research updates

[edit]

Autism strengths

[edit]

ORCID Icon Pages 589-603 Received 14 Aug 2021 Accepted 21 Oct 2021 Published online: 08 Nov 2021 Cite this article https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2021.1998589 CrossMark Logo

Social, Mental health

[edit]

Attention, focus and reasoning

[edit]

Autistic burnout

[edit]

Samuel RC Arnold https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2900-223X [email protected], Julianne M Higgins https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4198-7684, […], and Julian N Trollor https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7685-2977+3View all authors and affiliations Volume 27, Issue 7 https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361322114741

Samuel RC Arnold https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2900-223X [email protected], Julianne M Higgins https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4198-7684, […], and Julian N Trollor https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7685-2977+3View all authors and affiliations Volume 27, Issue 7 https://doi.org/10.1177/136236132211474

To sort

[edit]

create shared understanding

However, beginning with a stated "double empathy problem" between autistics and non-autistics in 2012,[citation needed] researchers have increasingly called to reframe autistic social deficits as interaction and communicative challenges between the two groups.[32][33] Autistics were found to be met with less willingness for interaction by non-autistics, based on thin slice judgments.[34]

While there is much work to be done to explore these issues across multiple disciplines, the concept of the double empathy problem has the potential to aid a reframing of autism itself from a social communication disorder to a description of a broad range of developmental differences and embodied experiences and how they play out in specific social and cultural contexts. If this were so, it would lead to a radical change to current diagnostic criteria.[35]

; https://osf.io/ft73y/ Development and Validation of a Novel Self-Report Measure of Monotropism in Autistic and Non-Autistic People
  • The Monotropism Questionnaire; Valeria Garau Aja Louise Murray Richard Woods Nick Chown Sonny Hallett Fergus Murray Rebecca Wood Sue Fletcher-Watson

References

[edit]
  • Russell, Ginny (2020). "Critiques of the Neurodiversity Movement" (PDF). In Kapp, Steven (ed.). Autistic community and the neurodiversity movement: stories from the frontline. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 287–303. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0_21. ISBN 978-981-13-8437-0. OCLC 1127055276. S2CID 210483688.
  1. ^ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284719134_How_Easy_is_it_to_Read_the_Minds_of_People_with_Autism_Spectrum_Disorder
  2. ^ https://molecularautism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2040-2392-6-2
  3. ^ "Allistic". Cambridge English Dictionary. Archived from the original on November 30, 2022. Retrieved April 18, 2022.
  4. ^ Cashin A, Sci DA (August 2006). "Two terms--one meaning: the conundrum of contemporary nomenclature in autism". Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing. 19 (3): 137–144. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6171.2006.00061.x. PMID 16913963.
  5. ^ https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.767075
  6. ^ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1362361320919286
  7. ^ Una tribu propia, capítulo 12
  8. ^ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10803-020-04525-0
  9. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3482107/
  10. ^ https://www.jneurosci.org/content/41/8/1699
  11. ^ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1362361318788071
  12. ^ https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/aut.2019.0018
  13. ^ Hare, D. J.; Jones, S.; Evershed, K. (November 2006). "A comparative study of circadian rhythm functioning and sleep in people with Asperger syndrome". Autism. 10 (6): 565–575. doi:10.1177/1362361306068509. PMID 17088273. S2CID 21545034.
  14. ^ O'Connor, K.; Hamm, J. P.; Kirk, I. J. (October 2005). "The neurophysiological correlates of face processing in adults and children with Asperger's syndrome". Brain and Cognition. 59 (1): 82–95. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2005.05.004. PMID 16009478. S2CID 29490793.
  15. ^ "Language and abbreviations". 2008-06-06. Archived from the original on 6 June 2008. Retrieved 2022-04-19.
  16. ^ Arnold, Laurence (2017-10-07). "A brief history of "Neurodiversity" as a concept and perhaps a movement". Autonomy, the Critical Journal of Interdisciplinary Autism Studies. 1 (5). ISSN 2051-5189.
  17. ^ Tisoncik, Laura A. (2020), Kapp, Steven K. (ed.), "Autistics.Org and Finding Our Voices as an Activist Movement", Autistic Community and the Neurodiversity Movement: Stories from the Frontline, Singapore: Springer, pp. 65–76, doi:10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0_5, ISBN 978-981-13-8437-0, S2CID 210502958, retrieved 2022-04-19
  18. ^ Blume, Harvey (1998-09-30). "Neurodiversity". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2022-04-19.
  19. ^ Walker, Nick (August 2021). Neuroqueer heresies: notes on the neurodiversity paradigm, autistic empowerment, and postnormal possibilities. pp. 33–46. ISBN 978-1-945955-26-6. OCLC 1287945422.
  20. ^ "Advice | He's been diagnosed with autism. Is it too late to keep his job?". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Archived from the original on March 14, 2023. Retrieved March 30, 2023.
  21. ^ "Neurotypical". Cambridge English Dictionary. Archived from the original on February 21, 2023. Retrieved May 23, 2022.
  22. ^ Walker N (2021). Neuroqueer Heresies. Autonomous Press. p. 40. ISBN 978-1-945955-26-6.
  23. ^ Hare DJ, Jones S, Evershed K (November 2006). "A comparative study of circadian rhythm functioning and sleep in people with Asperger syndrome". Autism. 10 (6): 565–575. doi:10.1177/1362361306068509. PMID 17088273. S2CID 21545034.
  24. ^ O'Connor K, Hamm JP, Kirk IJ (October 2005). "The neurophysiological correlates of face processing in adults and children with Asperger's syndrome". Brain and Cognition. 59 (1): 82–95. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2005.05.004. PMID 16009478. S2CID 29490793.
  25. ^ "How to talk about autism". www.autism.org.uk. Archived from the original on March 7, 2022. Retrieved April 18, 2022.
  26. ^ McNaughton R, Pieper C, Sakai O, Rollins JV, Zhang X, Kennedy DN, et al. (August 2022). "Quantitative MRI Characterization of the Extremely Preterm Brain at Adolescence: Atypical versus Neurotypical Developmental Pathways". Radiology. 304 (2): 419–428. doi:10.1148/radiol.210385. PMC 9340244. PMID 35471112.
  27. ^ Adams D, Kaliss N, Missner A, Valentine MM (2021). "The Interplay of Nicotine and Social Stress Mediate Dopaminergic Neuron Firing in the Ventral Tegmental Area – Nucleus Accumbens Pathway, Contributing to Stress and Depressive Mood Disorder". Georgetown Scientific Research Journal: 70–83. doi:10.48091/SUVN5250. S2CID 234261007. Archived from the original on March 30, 2023. Retrieved September 19, 2022.
  28. ^ Homan P, Reddan MC, Brosch T, Koenigsberg HW, Schiller D (November 2017). "Aberrant link between empathy and social attribution style in borderline personality disorder". Journal of Psychiatric Research. 94: 163–171. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2017.07.012. PMID 28735169. Archived from the original on December 6, 2021. Retrieved April 6, 2023.
  29. ^ Corsi E, Cardi V, Sowden S, Coll MP, Cascino G, Ricca V, et al. (August 2021). "Socio-cognitive processing in people with eating disorders: Computerized tests of mentalizing, empathy and imitation skills". The International Journal of Eating Disorders. 54 (8): 1509–1518. doi:10.1002/eat.23556. PMC 8453969. PMID 34056730.
  30. ^ Simpson, Ellen; Dalal, Samantha; Semaan, Bryan (2023-04-14). ""Hey, Can You Add Captions?": The Critical Infrastructuring Practices of Neurodiverse People on TikTok". Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. 7 (CSCW1): 1–27. doi:10.1145/3579490. ISSN 2573-0142. S2CID 254591329.
  31. ^ a b Russell G (2020). "Critiques of the Neurodiversity Movement" (PDF). In Kapp S (ed.). Autistic Community and the Neurodiversity Movement. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 287–303. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0_21. ISBN 978-981-13-8437-0. OCLC 1127055276. S2CID 210483688. Archived (PDF) from the original on October 28, 2021. Retrieved May 13, 2022.
  32. ^ Cite error: The named reference 10.1177 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  33. ^ Crompton, Catherine (May 20, 2020). "Autistic peer-to-peer information transfer is highly effective". Sage Journals. 24 (7). doi:10.1177. Retrieved 2023-11-18. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help)
  34. ^ Sasson N. J., Faso D. J., Nugent J., Lovell S., Kennedy D. P., Grossman R. B. (2017). Neurotypical peers are less willing to interact with those with autism based on thin slice judgments. Scientific Reports, 7, 40700.
  35. ^ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13623613221129123
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Sgeureka/Neurotypical&oldid=1227187580"