↓ Skip to main content

Impaired Learning of Social Compared to Monetary Rewards in Autism

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
181 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Impaired Learning of Social Compared to Monetary Rewards in Autism
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2012.00143
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alice Lin, Antonio Rangel, Ralph Adolphs

Abstract

A leading hypothesis to explain the social dysfunction in people with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) is that they exhibit a deficit in reward processing and motivation specific to social stimuli. However, there have been few direct tests of this hypothesis to date. Here we used an instrumental reward learning task that contrasted learning with social rewards (pictures of positive and negative faces) against learning with monetary reward (winning and losing money). The two tasks were structurally identical except for the type of reward, permitting direct comparisons. We tested 10 high-functioning people with ASD (7M, 3F) and 10 healthy controls who were matched on gender, age, and education. We found no significant differences between the two groups in terms of overall ability behaviorally to discriminate positive from negative slot machines, reaction-times, and valence ratings, However, there was a specific impairment in the ASD group in learning to choose social rewards, compared to monetary rewards: they had a significantly lower cumulative number of choices of the most rewarding social slot machine, and had a significantly slower initial learning rate for the socially rewarding slot machine, compared to the controls. The findings show a deficit in reward learning in ASD that is greater for social rewards than for monetary rewards, and support the hypothesis of a disproportionate impairment in social reward processing in ASD.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 3 2%
Germany 2 1%
Netherlands 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Canada 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 168 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 50 28%
Researcher 31 17%
Student > Master 24 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 12%
Professor 9 5%
Other 29 16%
Unknown 16 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 89 49%
Neuroscience 19 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 5%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Other 14 8%
Unknown 29 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 October 2012.
All research outputs
#23,010,126
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#10,320
of 11,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,709
of 251,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#139
of 154 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,659 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 251,300 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 154 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.