Simon Baron-Choen.

(Reading the mind in the

eyes)
Revised version
Background: General
• What is Autism and Asperges?

• Asperger syndrome, or Asperger’s, is a previously used

diagnosis on the autism spectrum. In 2013, it became part of
one umbrella diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5
(DSM-5).

• Autistic people generally display delayed development in

spoken language
Background: General
Sex differences in autism

1 in 189 females

Why?
Several theories exist to explain the sex-
1 in 49 males based discrepancy, such as a genetic
protective effect, the extreme male
brain theory and phenotypic differences
in the presentation between sexes.
Background: Simon Baron-Choen
• Simon Baron-Cohen is the
leading expert in autism research
• (1985) Sally-Anne test: autistic
children have delayed
development of a theory of mind
(ToM)

• (1997) “Eyes Task” for adults

Sacha Baron-Cohen and Simon

Baron-Choen are first cousins.
Background: Sally-Anne test
• A first-order false belief task

• ‘normal’ children CA of 4, 90%+ pass

• autistic children MA of 5, 80% fail

• ToM = other people have thoughts

and feelings

• ToM doesn’t develop normally in

autistic children. Therefore: No ‘mind
reading’
Aims:
• To test a group of adults with AS or HFA on the revised version of the eyes
test. This was in order to check if the deficits in this group that had been
found in the original study could be replicated.

• To test if in a sample of normal adults, an inverse (negative) correlation

would be found between performance on the (revised) Eyes Test and the
Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ).

• To test whether females scored better on the Eyes Test than males.
But wait!:
• Before we start to look at the 2001 study, we need to take a quick look at
some information from the original study from 1997.

• Why the new test?

• The 1997 Eyes Task succeeded in discriminating adults with Asperger’s
Syndrome (AS) and high-functioning autism (HFA) from controls but suffered
from psychometric problems.
• The 2001 task rectifies these problems
1997 test:
• Here are the results from the 1997 test:

Participants Score /25 SD

Normal ♂ 25 ♂ 18.8 2.5
Normal ♀ 25 ♀ 21.8 1.8
Tourette’s 8♂ 2♀ 20.4 2.6
AS/HFA 13♂ 3♀ 16.3 2.9

• There are significant differences:

• ♂ vs. ♀
• AS/HFA vs. normal
• AS/HFA vs. Tourette’s
1997 test:
• There were 8 psychometric problems identified

Problem 1: Forced choice format p=0.5. Significant range too narrow, only 17+
1997 out of 25 is above chance (binomial test).

Solution: More questions. Increased the number of questions from 25 to 36

2001 expanded the number of answer options. 2 to 4 (p=0.25).

Problem 2: Parents of AS children AS/HFA adults. Narrow range can’t 1997

distinguish “broader phenotype” vs. condition itself.

Solution: As above. This increases the range of scores to be able to distinguish

2001 between someone with the “lesser variant”/ “broader phenotype”
1997 test:
• There were 8 psychometric problems identified

Problem 3: Ceiling effects – consistently high scores bias results

1997 out of 25 is above chance (binomial test).

Solution: 13+ out of 36 would be above chance.

2001 Range of 13-36 in which to reveal differences.

Problem 4: Test used complex and basic emotions. Basic are too obvious:
1997 happy, sad, angry, afraid, disgusted (Ekman & Friesman, 1971).
Complex emotions involve attribution of belief or intention, e.g.
arrogant, apologetic, ashamed.
Solution: Test used only complex emotions.
2001
1997 test:
• There were 8 psychometric problems identified

Problem 5: Some items linked to gaze direction, e.g. “noticing”, “ignoring”.

1997
Solution: Items eliminated.
2001

Problem 6: More ♀ faces than ♂.

1997
Solution: Equal: 18♀ 18♂
2001
1997 test:
• There were 8 psychometric problems identified

Problem 7: target and foil were semantic opposites. Too easy.

1997
Solution: 3 foils have similar emotional valence.
2001

Problem 8: Comprehension problems?

1997
Solution: Provided a glossary.
2001
2001 test:
• All the psychometric problems were addressed.

• Now lets go back to the 2001 test.

Research method:
• The experiment was conducted in a laboratory.

• Natural Experiment (as the IV is naturally occurring) and a

Questionnaire.
Sample:
• Group 1 comprised adults with AS or HFA (, all male). They were
recruited via adverts in the U.K. National Autistic Society magazine,
or equivalent support groups. They took an IQ test, the results
showed a mean of and a SD of

• Group 2 comprised normal adults () drawn from adult community

and education classes in Exeter, or from public library users in
Cambridge. They had a broad mix of daytime occupations ranging
from unemployment through manual and clerical workers, to
professionals.
Sample:
• Group 3 comprised normal adult students (, 53 male, 50 female) all
studying for undergraduate degrees in Cambridge University (71 in
science, 32 in other subjects). They were assumed to have a high
IQ.

• Group 4 comprised randomly selected individuals in the general

population (N) who were IQ matched with Group 1 (mean, SD).
Groups 1 and 4 did not differ significantly or IQ, or on age.
Procedure:
• Subjects in all four groups were tested on the revised adult
Eyes Test. This was individually administered in a quiet room
in Cambridge or Exeter.

• Subjects in the AS/HFA group were also asked to judge the

gender of each person in each photo, as a control task, given
anticipated impairments on mental state recognition.

• Subjects in Groups 1, 3, and 4 completed the AQ.

Procedure:
• Subjects were asked at the outset to read through the
glossary and indicate any word meanings they were unsure
of. They were then encouraged to read these particular
meanings and were told that they could return to this
glossary at any point during the testing.
Predictions:
• The AS/HFA group would score significantly lower on the mental state
judgements on the Eyes Test, but be unimpaired on the gender control
judgements.
• The AS/HFA group would score significantly higher in the AQ.

• Females in the ‘‘normal’’ groups (2 and 3) would score higher than

males on the Eyes Test.

• Males in the ‘‘normal’’ group (3) would score higher than females on
the AQ.
• Scores on the AQ and the Eyes Test would be inversely correlated.
Results:
Results:
• Participant in the four groups did not differ in the number of words
in the glossary that they were unsure of, and in all participants, the
number of words checked did not exceed two.

• The AS/HFA group performed significantly worse than the other the
groups in the eyes test.

• In general, females scored better than males.

• The AS/HFA group scored higher on the AQ than other groups.

• The distribution of scored for the eyes test formed a normal bell
curve.
Conclusion:
• The revised version of the eyes test could still discriminate between
AS/HFA adults and controls from different sections of society as it
replicated previous finding. The new test appeared to overcome the
initial problems.
Evaluation:

GRAVE
Evaluation:

GRAVE Generalisability

This study has good generalisability, as the sample was reasonably

large, and the test included people with AS or HFA (which is the
target sample).
However, all the people with AS or HFA were male.
Evaluation:

GRAVE Reliability

This study’s reliability is good as they used a standardised procedure

(available online) for testing the participants which can easily be
reproduced. Extraneous variables are controlled by the use of an IQ test.
There is evidence to suggest that the test can be translated and used for
first language speakers in other languages. (Test-retest reliability of the ‘Reading the Mind in
the Eyes’ test: a one-year follow-up study. Enrique G Fernández-Abascal, Rosario Cabello, Pablo Fernández-
Berrocal & Simon Baron-Cohen)
Evaluation:

GRAVE Application

The application to be able to diagnose a person with AS or HFA easily and

effectively, could be used by a professional or lay person as everything
needed is provided online.
Evaluation:

GRAVE Validity

Validity is reasonable in this study as the construct validity is good, the IQ

test and AQ test do measure what they are supposed to.
The Eyes test does seem to be able to discriminate between those with
AS or HFA and those that do not.
Ecological validity is a problem as the test uses static expressions to elicit
understanding, in real life this would not be the case. Also, the procedure
was in a laboratory environment.
Evaluation:

GRAVE Ethics

Ethics are very strong.

The only possible ethical consideration would be protection. The tests may
have caused stress in the patients that could have altered test results.
Evaluation: Other considerations
Sample:
Is it possible that the sample was biased?
Group 2 were all selected from adult community and education classes.
Group 3 were all from Cambridge University.

IQ test:
Why not test the students from Cambridge University?
Why do the AS/HFA group have higher than average IQ?
Why did group 4 comprised of randomly selected individuals in the
general population have much higher IQ scores than you would expect
from random selection?
Kahoot!
Play a Kahoot game on the Andrade study:
https://create.kahoot.it/share/baron-cohen-reading-the-mind-in-the-e
yes/5cc33dd8-b8ac-4104-b9be-85525d2281b9
 More resources for CIE A/S
Psychology (9990) can be found at:
www.mrgregoryonline.com
Research methods Biological
Issues and debates Cognitive
Approaches Learning
Statistics Social