1. + People or Trains? Visual Preference for Social versus Non- Social Information in Genetic Syndromes and Neurodevelopmental Disorders Hayley Crawford, Joanna Moss, Natasha Elliot, Giles Anderson, Chris Oliver & Joseph McCleery

2. + Social Information Processing Social development is critically dependent on attending to social stimuli (Dawson et al., 1998) Differences in attending to social stimuli in people with different social profiles (Riby and Hancock, 2008; 2009)

3. + Social Information Processing Eye-tracking How long someone looks at stimuli: information processing First thing someone looks at: attentional priority Study 1: ASD Study 2: Fragile X, Cornelia de Lange, Rubinstein-Taybi syndromes

4. + Social Information Processing in ASD People with ASD spend less time than TD individuals viewing people and faces in static pictures of social interactions (Kirchner et al., 2010; Riby & Hancock, 2008 & 2009) Autism spectrum disorder Social communication & social interaction Restricted, repetitive patterns of behaviour, interests or activities

5. + Social Information Processing in ASD Direct side-by-side comparison: Toddlers with ASD do not allocate as much attention to social stimuli as TD toddlers (Pierce et al., 2011) (Klin et al., 2009) Some studies show typical looking times, but… No preference at first fixation (Fletcher-Watson et al., 2009) Increased time taken to fixate (Freeth et al., 2010) Static side-by-side photographs

6. + Study 1 Research Questions: Do children with ASD spontaneously allocate less attention to naturalistic dynamic social and non-social scenes? Does the ‘directedness’ of the stimuli affect visual preference? Two videos were presented side-by-side for 8000ms One video was social, the other was non-social The actor/object in both videos were either directed towards, or moved past the participant

7. + Example videos

8. + Participants ASD (n=16)SEN (n=16)P CA mean (SD)13.33 (.62)13.06 (.90).323 Male : Female15 : 1 1.000 Verbal ability mean standard score 71.94 (18.55)77.75 (15.17).340 Recruited and tested at local special educational needs secondary school

9. + Dwell Time Proportion No main effect of participant: No difference in looking time to social or non-social Main effect of direction: both groups look more at social directed vs. social non-directed A priori t-tests: Participants with ASD look less at social directed than participants with SEN (p =.037) No difference in social non- directed

10. + Time to Fixate No main effect of participant: No difference time taken to fixate on social or non-social Main effect of direction: both groups look quicker to social directed vs. social non-directed A priori t-tests: No difference in speed to fixate on social directed or non- directed.

11. + Study 1 Children with ASD look less at social directed stimuli than children with SEN but fixate on the stimuli at the same speed Research Questions: Do children with ASD spontaneously allocate less attention to naturalistic dynamic social and non-social scenes? No Does the ‘directedness’ of the stimuli affect this? Yes

12. + Discussion Similarities in attentional priority, differences in attentional maintenance Supports previous literature (Pierce et al., 2011; Klin et al., 2009) Extends previous literature More natural Only when social information particularly salient (directed)

13. + Study 2 Genetic syndromes associated with intellectual disability and unique social profiles Fragile X Syndrome (FXS) 1:4,000 males 1:8,000 females Social withdrawal and anxiety Increased prevalence of ASD Social interest

14. + Study 2 Genetic syndromes associated with intellectual disability and unique social profiles Fragile X Syndrome (FXS) Cornelia de Lange Syndrome (CdLS) 1:4,000 males 1:8,000 females 1: 40,000 live births Social withdrawal and anxiety Increased prevalence of ASD Social interest

15. + Study 2 Genetic syndromes associated with intellectual disability and unique social profiles Fragile X Syndrome (FXS) Cornelia de Lange Syndrome (CdLS) Rubinstein-Taybi Syndrome (RTS) 1:4,000 males 1:8,000 females 1: 40,000 live births1: 100,000-125,000 live births Social withdrawal and anxiety Intact social skills relative to ability Increased prevalence of ASD Increased prevalence of ASD (repetitive behaviour) Social interest

16. + Social Information Processing in FXS, CdLS & RTS Limited literature Fragile X Syndrome (FXS) No difference in looking to social information (Williams et al., 2013) Reduced eye looking

17. + Social Information Processing in FXS, CdLS & RTS Limited literature Fragile X Syndrome (FXS) Cornelia de Lange Syndrome (CdLS) No difference in looking to social information (Williams et al., 2013) Reduced eye lookingTypical eye looking

18. + Social Information Processing in FXS, CdLS & RTS Limited literature Fragile X Syndrome (FXS) Cornelia de Lange Syndrome (CdLS) Rubinstein-Taybi Syndrome (RTS) No difference in looking to social information (Williams et al., 2013) Reduced eye lookingTypical eye looking

19. + Research Questions Research Questions: Do children with FXS, RTS and CdLS spontaneously allocate similar attention to naturalistic dynamic social and non-social scenes? Does the ‘directedness’ of the stimuli affect visual preference? Same method as Study 1

20. + Participants FXS (n=15) CdLS (n=14) RTS (n=19) p CA mean (SD)24.21 (8.61)18.21 (5.59)20.94 (11.94).303 Male : female15 : 06 : 85 : 14<.001 Adaptive behaviour std. score mean (SD) 47.80 (14.64)51.29 (17.42)47.89 (15.95).798 SCQ mean total score (DS) 17.81 (5.73)19.60 (6.56)17.71 (6.27).663

21. + Dwell Time No main effect of participant: No difference in looking time to social or non-social Main effect of direction: All groups look more at social directed vs. social non-directed

22. + Time to Fixate Significant direction x participant group interaction Difference in how ‘directedness affects speed to fixate to videos CdLS fixate to social directed videos slower than FXS & RTS FXS: fixate on social directed and non-directed at similar speed CdLS: fixate on social non- directed quicker than directed RTS: fixate on social directed quicker than non-directed

23. + Summary of results Participants with FXS: look at social directed and non- directed for same time, fixate at same speed Participants with CdLS: look at social directed and non- directed for same time, fixate on social non-directed quicker than directed Participants with RTS: look at social directed and non- directed for same time, fixate on social directed quicker than non-directed Participants with CdLS take longer to fixate on social directed than both other groups NB: TD participants

24. + Discussion Research Questions: Do children with FXS, RTS and CdLS spontaneously allocate similar attention to naturalistic dynamic social and non-social scenes? Yes – dwell time Does the ‘directedness’ of the stimuli affect visual preference? Yes

25. + Fragile X Syndrome (FXS) Cornelia de Lange Syndrome (CdLS) Rubinstein- Taybi Syndrome (RTS) Social information processing Social withdrawal and anxiety Intact social skills relative to ability Differences in time to fixate on social stimuli Social interest Similar dwell time to social stimuli

26. + General Discussion Coarse measure of dwell time highlighted differences in those with and without typical social development (Study 1) Nuanced measure of time taken to fixate on stimuli highlighted differences in those with more subtle differences in their social presentation (Study 2) Previous studies show social processing differences in groups at polar ends of a sociability spectrum (ASD, WS; Riby and colleagues, 2008 & 2009)

27. + Thank you for listening