Institutes
Refine
Language
- English (2) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Institute
- Medizin (2)
Background Reward processing has been proposed to underpin atypical social behavior, a core feature of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). However, previous neuroimaging studies have yielded inconsistent results regarding the specificity of atypicalities for social rewards in ASD. Utilizing a large sample, we aimed to assess altered reward processing in response to reward type (social, monetary) and reward phase (anticipation, delivery) in ASD.
Methods Functional magnetic resonance imaging during social and monetary reward anticipation and delivery was performed in 212 individuals with ASD (7.6-30.5 years) and 181 typically developing (TD) participants (7.6-30.8 years).
Results Across social and monetary reward anticipation, whole-brain analyses (p<0.05, family-wise error-corrected) showed hypoactivation of the right ventral striatum (VS) in ASD. Further, region of interest (ROI) analysis across both reward types yielded hypoactivation in ASD in both the left and right VS. Across delivery of social and monetary reward, hyperactivation of the VS in individuals with ASD did not survive correction for multiple comparisons. Reward type by diagnostic group interactions, and a dimensional analysis of autism trait scores were not significant during anticipation or delivery. Levels of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms did not affect reward processing in ASD.
Conclusions Our results do not support current theories linking atypical social interaction in ASD to specific alterations in processing of social rewards. Instead, they point towards a generalized hypoactivity of VS in ASD during anticipation of both social and monetary rewards. We suggest that this indicates attenuated subjective reward value in ASD independent of social content and ADHD symptoms.
Background: Misconceptions about ADHD stigmatize affected people, reduce credibility of providers, and prevent/delay treatment. To challenge misconceptions, we curated findings with strong evidence base. Methods: We reviewed studies with more than 2000 participants or meta-analyses from five or more studies or 2000 or more participants. We excluded meta-analyses that did not assess publication bias, except for meta-analyses of prevalence. For network meta-analyses we required comparison adjusted funnel plots. We excluded treatment studies with waiting-list or treatment as usual controls. From this literature, we extracted evidence-based assertions about the disorder. Results: We generated 208 empirically supported statements about ADHD. The status of the included statements as empirically supported is approved by 80 authors from 27 countries and 6 continents. The contents of the manuscript are endorsed by 366 people who have read this document and agree with its contents. Conclusions: Many findings in ADHD are supported by meta-analysis. These allow for firm statements about the nature, course, outcome causes, and treatments for disorders that are useful for reducing misconceptions and stigma.