Feedback Related Negativity Amplitude is Greatest Following Deceptive Feedback in Autistic Adolescents

• Published in: Journal of autism and developmental disorders Vol. 54; no. 9; pp. 3376 - 3386
• Main Authors: Riek, Nathan T., Susam, Busra T., Hudac, Caitlin M., Conner, Caitlin M., Akcakaya, Murat, Yun, Jane, White, Susan W., Mazefsky, Carla A., Gable, Philip A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Springer US 01.09.2024; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adolescents; Autism; Autistic adolescents; Autistic Disorder - physiopathology; Autistic Disorder - psychology; Behavioral Science and Psychology; Child; Child and School Psychology; Deception; Electroencephalography; Emotional regulation; Emotions; Emotions - physiology; Event-related potentials; Evoked Potentials - physiology; Feedback; Feedback (Response); Feedback, Psychological - physiology; Female; Frustration; Humans; Male; Measurement; Neurosciences; Original Paper; Pediatrics; Psychological distress; Psychology; Public Health; Reaction time; Reaction Time - physiology; Reactivity; Teenagers; Young Adult; Emotional reactivity; Affective Posner task; Feedback related negativity; Autistic adolescents
• ISSN: 0162-3257; 1573-3432; 1573-3432
• DOI: 10.1007/s10803-023-06038-y

The purpose of this study is to investigate if feedback related negativity (FRN) can capture instantaneous elevated emotional reactivity in autistic adolescents. A measurement of elevated reactivity could allow clinicians to better support autistic individuals without the need for self-reporting or verbal conveyance. The study investigated reactivity in 46 autistic adolescents (ages 12–21 years) completing the Affective Posner Task which utilizes deceptive feedback to elicit distress presented as frustration. The FRN event-related potential (ERP) served as an instantaneous quantitative neural measurement of emotional reactivity. We compared deceptive and distressing feedback to both truthful but distressing feedback and truthful and non-distressing feedback using the FRN, response times in the successive trial, and Emotion Dysregulation Inventory (EDI) reactivity scores. Results revealed that FRN values were most negative to deceptive feedback as compared to truthful non-distressing feedback. Furthermore, distressing feedback led to faster response times in the successive trial on average. Lastly, participants with higher EDI reactivity scores had more negative FRN values for non-distressing truthful feedback compared to participants with lower reactivity scores. The FRN amplitude showed changes based on both frustration and reactivity. The findings of this investigation support using the FRN to better understand emotion regulation processes for autistic adolescents in future work. Furthermore, the change in FRN based on reactivity suggests the possible need to subgroup autistic adolescents based on reactivity and adjust interventions accordingly.