4.5 Article

Defining the cognitive phenotype of autism

Journal

BRAIN RESEARCH
Volume 1380, Issue -, Pages 10-21

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2010.10.075

Keywords

Phenotype; Cognition; Behaviour; Autism; Subgroup

Categories

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council [G0400065]
  2. Clothworkers' Foundation
  3. Pears Foundation
  4. MRC [G0400065, G0500870] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Medical Research Council [G0400065, G9817803B, G0500870] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although much progress has been made in determining the cognitive profile of strengths and weaknesses that characterise individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs), there remain a number of outstanding questions. These include how universal strengths and deficits are; whether cognitive subgroups exist; and how cognition is associated with core autistic behaviours, as well as associated psychopathology. Several methodological factors have contributed to these limitations in our knowledge, including: small sample sizes, a focus on single domains of cognition, and an absence of comprehensive behavioural phenotypic information. To attempt to overcome some of these limitations, we assessed a wide range of cognitive domains in a large sample (N=100) of 14- to 16-year-old adolescents with ASDs who had been rigorously behaviourally characterised. In this review, we will use examples of some initial findings in the domains of perceptual processing, emotion processing and memory, both to outline different approaches we have taken to data analysis and to highlight the considerable challenges to better defining the cognitive phenotype(s) of ASDs. Enhanced knowledge of the cognitive phenotype may contribute to our understanding of the complex links between genes, brain and behaviour, as well as inform approaches to remediation. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available