Intellau_Celistic
5'3 KHHV Mentalcel
-
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2021
- Posts
- 166,468
Autism spectrum conditions (henceforth autism) are a set of neurodevelopmental conditions involving difficulties in reciprocal social interaction and communication, alongside the presence of unusually narrow interests and repetitive behaviors.1 People with autism also have difficulties with adjusting to unexpected change and many also show sensory hypersensitivity. Underlying the behavioral phenotype of autism is a complex and heterogeneous array of developmental, genomic, neurobiological, and cognitive differences.2-5 Although by definition individuals with autism suffer from disabilities in social and communication domains, they also possess a different way of processing information and learning that may not lead to disability, but may be an example of “neurodiversity” and result in talent.6,7 A subset of individuals with autism show savantism—abilities restricted to specific domains that are both superior to the individual's other skills and superior to the majority of the population. In this article, we discuss the “hypersystemizing” theory of autism as a potential explanation between the link between autism and talent. First proposed in 2003 ,8 this theory posits that in autism, the systemizing mechanism (SM) is tuned to above-average levels. The SM processes information in a highly specific form: input-operation-output relations. Here, we extend this theory by examining the possible brain basis underlying component processes in the SM and discuss future directions and predictions made by the theory.
The hypersystemizing theory of autism postulated the existence of the systemizing mechanism (SM) in the human mind,8 representing relationships between three types of data: input-operation-output. This is very different to association learning, seen across multiple species, where the brain is not focused on tracking how an operation changes input-output relationships. The SM focuses on one detail (the input), then observes what happens to the input when it is manipulated by just one factor (the operation), while holding all other factors constant, and then logs the result of the transformation of the input by the operation (the output). When these three elements (input, operation, and output) line up, humans see a lawful, potentially causal pattern. If these same three steps are repeated over and over again and the same causal pattern is observed, the human mind infers a rule or a law that is true. Thus, the function of the SM is to identify laws, rules, and/or regularities that govern a system, so as to understand how that system works and predict what it will do. (Figure 1A) shows the basic cognitive architecture of the SM. Looking more closely at the cognitive processes within the SM, we propose that the three key steps of input-operation out put actually involve at least eight steps, with the critical three highlighted in yellow and the part labeled “feedback” highlighted in green in Figure 1B.
In System B, we tweaked the input from System A, and in System C, we tweaked the operation from System A. Both of these small variations led to a different outcome (output). When we systemize, we are looking for such invariant patterns in the data, and we do this because it gives us control over one domain (whether a natural or a “man-made” event or object) in the world. In addition, it allows us to predict and understand how that domain works.
There are two ways to systemize anything. The first is when you simply look at something (eg, a wave in the ocean) and observe an operation happening—you literally see something changing or “operating” on the input (eg, the height of a wave increases) to deliver the output (eg, the wave travels further). The observational approach to systemizing is indispensable, especially if the system you're trying to understand is too big (like the changing size of waves in the ocean) or too distant (like the changing shape of the moon) for a person to manipulate. The observational method lies at the heart of classification, since when we classify both natural or “man-made” entities (apples, birds, cars, planes, etc.), we are assembling all the pieces in the system using rules in order to understand, for example, that “IF a bird has a black head AND a red belly, THEN it is a bullfinch,” or “IF it is a Black Renault Laguna AND has the registration plate number AUE7YJ, THEN it is Nicholas' car,” or “IF an apple has an all-green skin AND tastes tart (AND has a hard feel, AND a crisp bite), THEN it's a Granny Smith.” Each type of bird or apple has a set of characteristics that can be arranged logically to enable the systemizer to identify what's special about each apple and to understand how each apple differs from every other one. By systemizing the natural world, systemizers can derive knowledge about WHERE and WHEN to plant flowers in the garden. Here's a WHERE example in two contrasting systems:
A second useful view is in terms of attention and how this can modify and enhance function of primary sensory cortices.14,15 Attention to detail and a cognitive style associated with a local processing bias is enhanced in autism.16-19 Therefore, in addition to enhanced responsivity in the neural circuitry handling basic sensory and perceptual processing, it is likely that heavily biased attentional processes that promote a local detail-oriented focus could further amplify processing in such sensory and perceptual circuitry. In autism, attention and orienting to the nonsocial world is biased at very earlyages,20 and this could have marked effects on how neural circuits are sculpted. It will be important to examine how neural circuits involved in attention and low-level sensory and perceptual processes interact over the life span. In particular, we need to investigate how early biases in the way someone samples information from the environment may shape how such circuits are organized and lead to enhanced abilities relevant to systemizing.