• Replies 9 replies
  • Subscribers 79 subscribers
  • Views 2748 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

A test for autism?

electra

I read today that researchers at Carnegie Mellon University have devised a test for autism that they say is 97% accurate. It involves giving someone am MRI scan and asking them to think about the meanings of words they are given, such as 'hug' or 'cuddle'. The posterior cingulate area of an autistic person's brain is supposed to show significantly less activity than that of an NT person when thinking about such words.

What do autistic people think of this? Is a test a good thing?

Parents

  • We've been here before, with UK researchers showing relaxing scenes and asking questions of people while being scanned.

    It was published in PLOS-1 an on-line blog journal, that carries papers on all kinds of subject from geology to bird migration, but not noted for autism studies.The test group was 17 adults, so the 97% claim is a bit tautological, the nearest whole adult being 6% not 3% as implied in the 97 (for 16.5 adults it worked).

    The subjects had to think about 16 social interactions and they measured brain patterns. How the subjects interpreted the words affected brain reactions which could be measured on the MRI - hardly direct. They are planning to use the research to analyse "other psychiatric disorders" (which should make us pause - is autism a psychiatric disorder?). Carnegie Mellon at Pittsburg does have a reputation for this kind of work, but it is a research centre justifying its income by playing games. I wish stuff like this was published with more scientific circumspection. It is primarily aimed at attracting more investment in Carnegie Mellon.

    As has lately been pointed out 97% of research funds is being spent on this sort of research, less than 3% of available funds on helping people live with autism. 

    There should be some ethics applied to this stuff. To me it looks exceedingly unethical.

Reply

  • We've been here before, with UK researchers showing relaxing scenes and asking questions of people while being scanned.

    It was published in PLOS-1 an on-line blog journal, that carries papers on all kinds of subject from geology to bird migration, but not noted for autism studies.The test group was 17 adults, so the 97% claim is a bit tautological, the nearest whole adult being 6% not 3% as implied in the 97 (for 16.5 adults it worked).

    The subjects had to think about 16 social interactions and they measured brain patterns. How the subjects interpreted the words affected brain reactions which could be measured on the MRI - hardly direct. They are planning to use the research to analyse "other psychiatric disorders" (which should make us pause - is autism a psychiatric disorder?). Carnegie Mellon at Pittsburg does have a reputation for this kind of work, but it is a research centre justifying its income by playing games. I wish stuff like this was published with more scientific circumspection. It is primarily aimed at attracting more investment in Carnegie Mellon.

    As has lately been pointed out 97% of research funds is being spent on this sort of research, less than 3% of available funds on helping people live with autism. 

    There should be some ethics applied to this stuff. To me it looks exceedingly unethical.

Children
No Data