It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
We tested the potential for Gazefinder eye-tracking to support early autism identification, including feasible use with infants, and preliminary concurrent validity of trial-level gaze data against clinical assessment scores. We embedded the ~ 2-min ‘Scene 1S4’ protocol within a comprehensive clinical assessment for 54 consecutively-referred, clinically-indicated infants (prematurity-corrected age 9–14 months). Alongside % tracking rate as a broad indicator of feasible assessment/data capture, we report infant gaze data to pre-specified regions of interest (ROI) across four trial types and associations with scores on established clinical/behavioural tools. Most infants tolerated Gazefinder eye-tracking well, returning high overall % tracking rate. As a group, infants directed more gaze towards social vs. non-social (or more vs. less socially-salient) ROIs within trials. Behavioural autism features were correlated with increased gaze towards non-social/geometry (vs. social/people) scenes. No associations were found for gaze directed to ROIs within other stimulus types. Notably, there were no associations between developmental/cognitive ability or adaptive behaviour with gaze towards any ROI. Gazefinder assessment seems highly feasible with clinically-indicated infants, and the people vs. geometry stimuli show concurrent predictive validity for behavioural autism features. Aggregating data across the ~ 2-min autism identification protocol might plausibly offer greater utility than stimulus-level analysis alone.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 La Trobe University, Department of Psychology, Counselling and Therapy, School of Psychology and Public Health, Melbourne, Australia (GRID:grid.1018.8) (ISNI:0000 0001 2342 0938)
2 Griffith University, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Gold Coast, Australia (GRID:grid.1022.1) (ISNI:0000 0004 0437 5432); University of Western Australia, Telethon Kids Institute, Perth, Australia (GRID:grid.1012.2) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7910)
3 University of Western Australia, Telethon Kids Institute, Perth, Australia (GRID:grid.1012.2) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7910)
4 La Trobe University, Department of Psychology, Counselling and Therapy, School of Psychology and Public Health, Melbourne, Australia (GRID:grid.1018.8) (ISNI:0000 0001 2342 0938); La Trobe University, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, Melbourne, Australia (GRID:grid.1018.8) (ISNI:0000 0001 2342 0938)