Integration of Autonomic Cues during Decision Making: Electrodermal Response by Young High Functioning Children with ASD While Gambling

Background: To date, there have been no published investigations of electrodermal response (EDR) during the Children’s Gambling Task, and investigation of EDR among individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) has focused primarily on older children and adults. EDR during the gambling task has been sensitive to brain damage in the amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex among adults (Bechara et al., 1996, 1999; Tranel et al., 2002), thus this approach provides a way to assess for early differences in neurodevelopment of children with ASD.

Objectives: To test whether young, high-functioning children with ASD respond differently to feedback (wins/losses) compared with age and IQ-matched controls. And, to test whether children with ASD are able to use autonomic information to guide their subsequent decision-making behavior between a risky and safe deck.

Methods: Subjects were 21 6 and 7-year-olds with ASD and 21 age and IQ-matched controls. Diagnosis was confirmed with the ADOS, ADI-R and DSM-IV-TR. All children in both groups had cognitive ability in the average to above average range (measured by the Differential Ability Scales). EDR data were collected during a 2-minute baseline period and while children completed the Children’s Gambling Task (Kerr & Zelazo, 2004). Each trial included three 3-second events: anticipation of the card selection, response to positive feedback, and response to negative feedback. The dependent variable was the amplitude of the largest fluctuation in EDR for each of the 3 second event-related periods that were measured.

Results: There were no significant group differences in the amplitude of EDR during baseline. Overall, groups did not differ in the amplitude of their responses during the win or loss conditions. Nor, did they differ in their pattern of responding across the win and loss conditions, when a repeated measures ANOVA was used to test the interaction of group by feedback condition. Because the number of losses varied from card to card, children sometimes lost no treats and sometimes lost 1, 4, 5, or 6 treats. Responses to actual losses – when 1 or more treats were taken away – were examined separately and differed by group, t(21.1) = 2.24, p = .04. Children with ASD had significantly larger fluctuations in response to losses than controls, M=0.835 versus M= 0.484. EDR during the anticipatory period was then examined, and there were no group differences in overall amplitude or for risky or safe decks during the anticipatory period.  Last, there were no significant correlations with advantageous selections on the Children’s Gambling Task and EDR when groups were examined together or separately. 

Conclusions: Children with ASD responded differently to negative feedback. Second, although children with ASD and controls had similar EDR in anticipation of the decks, anticipation was not related to advantageous selections for either group. These findings are more consistent with differences in amygdala than ventromedial prefrontal function at this age.