Prediction and prediction error in autism: A meta-analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging results
Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
BACKGROUND: In autism spectrum condition (ASC), altered predictions (priors) or prediction errors have been hypothesized to increase the influence of bottom-up sensory input, relative to top-down prior knowledge. Such alterations could account for several autistic features, but their empirical basis is unclear. In neurotypical individuals (NT), multiple neuroimaging meta-analyses have aimed to outline domain-general ‘prediction networks’ of the brain. However, there has not been a similar meta-analysis in autism.METHODS: We searched the literature for functional magnetic resonance imaging and magnetoencephalography studies with autistic participants. The contrasts that explicitly or implicitly involved the processing of priors/predictions and prediction errors were selected. Contrasts were divided into those that reported stronger activation in the ASC group compared to the NT group, and vice versa. We then tested the convergence of differences between the groups in two activation likelihood estimation meta-analyses.RESULTS: Activation differences in eight contrasts reporting stronger activation in ASC compared to NT (139 ASC; 150 NT) did not result in significant convergence. Activation differences in 13 contrasts reporting stronger activation in NT compared to ASC (261 ASC; 289 NT) converged in a cluster in the medial frontal gyrus/cingulate gyrus. Additionally, we identified 38 contrasts without significant group differences.CONCLUSION: We found converging activation differences (from contrasts reporting stronger activation in NT compared to ASC) in an area associated with error monitoring and uncertainty estimation. Our results are generally consistent with notions of altered priors/predictions or prediction errors in autism, pointing to differences at high levels of the information-processing hierarchy. However, we recommend a cautious interpretation, given the limited number of available contrasts and the high proportion of null results.
