EST-2
Analysis of valence accuracy on the picture with context, following a correct answer on the picture without context, revealed fewer correct responses (CR) and longer response times (RT) in the shift compared to the non shift condition (CR : \(\beta\) = -2.9, 95% CI [-3.45, -2.34], p < 0.001; RT : \(\beta\) = 158, 95% CI [137, 178], p < 0.001), and in the social compared to the non-social condition (CR : \(\beta\) = -0.66, 95% CI [-1.2, -0.13], p = 0.016; RT : \(\beta\) = 61, 95% CI [12, 111], p = 0.016). Autistic participants were less accurate (\(\beta\) = 0.3, 95% CI [0.06, 0.54], p = 0.013) and slower (\(\beta\) = -90, 95% CI [-110, -69], p < 0.001) than non-autistic participants. Additionaly, RT were longer for negative than positive stimuli (\(\beta\) = -66, 95% CI [-85, -47], p < 0.001) and for females than males (\(\beta\) = 19, 95% CI [2, 37], p = 0.031).
The main effects on RT were qualified by significant two-way and three-way interaction effects, which are presented on Fig. 2 and in the following. First, the interaction effect between group and shift (\(\beta\) = -27, 95% CI [-43, -10], p = 0.001) revealed that the difference between shift and non shift condition was larger in autism (\(\beta\) = -171, 95% CI [-199, -144]) than in NA individuals (\(\beta\) = -144, 95% CI [-174, -114]). Then, the interaction effect between the group and the social nature of the stimuli (\(\beta\) = -55, 95% CI [-74, -36], p < 0.001) indicated that the difference in RT between social and non-social stimuli was also larger in autism (\(\beta\) = -89, 95% CI [-153, -24]) than in NA (\(\beta\) = -34, 95% CI [-102, 34]). Finally, the interaction between the shift and the social nature of the stimuli (\(\beta\) = 103, 95% CI [85, 121], p < 0.001) revealed that the RT difference between social and non-social stimuli was larger in the shift (\(\beta\) = -113, 95% CI [-181, -44]) than in the non-shift condition (\(\beta\) = -10, 95% CI [-73, 54]). However, these three interactions were qualified by a three-way interaction between the group, the shift and the social nature of the stimuli (\(\beta\) = -42, 95% CI [-59, -25], p < 0.001) indicating that the larger difference between the shift and the non shift condition in autism compared to NA was more pronounced in the social condition compared to the non-social condition (shift vs. no shift in ASD and non-social: \(\beta\) = -109, 95% CI [-147, -72] ; ASD and social: \(\beta\) = -233, 95% CI [-267, -199] ; NA and non-social : \(\beta\) = -103, 95% CI [-145, -62]; NA and social : \(\beta\) = -185, 95% CI [-221, -150] ).
In addition, a significant interaction between group and emotion (\(\beta\) = -28, 95% CI [-50, -6], 95% CI [-50, -6], p = 0.012) showed that the difference in RT between negative and positive stimuli was more pronounced in NA participants(\(\beta\) = 80, 95% CI [50, 110]) than in autistic individuals (\(\beta\) = 52, 95% CI [25, 79]). This interaction was qualified by a three-way interaction between group, sex and emotion (\(\beta\) = 24, 95% CI [0, 49], p 0.05), indicating that this slower response time for negative than positive stimuli in NA was more pronounced in males ( positive vs. negative stimuli in NA males : \(\beta\) = 95, 95% CI [58, 133], autistic males: \(\beta\) = 55, 95% CI [18, 93], NA females: \(\beta\) = 65, 95% CI [22, 108], autistic females : \(\beta\) = 49, 95% CI [14, 84] ).
Finally, there was an interaction between shift and sex (\(\beta\) = 34, 95% CI [13, 55], p = 0.002), indicating that the difference in RT between the shift and the non shift condition was smaller in males (\(\beta\) = -141, 95% CI [-171, -111]) than females (\(\beta\) = -175, 95% CI [-204, -145]). However, this interaction, along with the aforementioned interaction between group and shift, was further qualified by a three-way interaction involving group, shift, and sex (\(\beta\) = 56, 95% CI [39, 73], p < 0.001). This revealed that the diminished difference in RT between the shift and non-shift conditions in males compared to females was more pronounced in the non-autistic group than in the autistic group ( shift vs. no shift in ASD Females: \(\beta\) = -174, 95% CI [-212, -136] ; ASD Males : \(\beta\) = -168, 95% CI [-206, -131] ; NA females : \(\beta\) = -175, 95% CI [-213, -137] ; NA males : \(\beta\) = -113, 95% CI [-153, -74]).
Meanwhile, we also observed an interaction effect between group, sex and the social nature of the stimuli on CR (\(\beta\) = -0.06, 95% CI [-1, 1], p = 0.852). This indicates a greater discrepancy in CR between social and non-social stimuli in autism compared to NA, which was more pronounced in females (social vs. not social in autistic females : \(\beta\) = 1.09, 95% CI [0, 2]; autistic males : \(\beta\) = 0.56, 95% CI [0, 1] ; NA females : \(\beta\) = 0.46, 95% CI [0, 1] ; NA Males : \(\beta\) = 0.54, 95% CI [0, 1]). This interaction is represented in Fig. 3.