So to understand the brain excitation/inhibition, we must embrace the heterogeneity of autism and continue investigating these dynamic, task-dependent neural responses.

Bonus! We also show how crucial it is to look at the heterogeneity in the autistic group - some AUT individuals may show a massive passive-to-active change and others may not show it at all.

What does it mean? We think that the autistic brain may use a compensatory inhibitory process to handle task demands. So the atypicality in autism is not about what the brain is like, but how it responds under demanding conditions.

We found a key dynamic difference: NT adults showed no significant change in E/I balance between passive and active tasks. However, AUT participants showed significantly steeper slopes (increased inhibition) when engaging in the active task compared to passive viewing.

We studied the brain's balance of excitation and inhibition in #autistic (AUT) and #neurotypical (NT) adults using EEG, where a steeper '1/f slope'=higher inhibition. Since past studies at rest were mixed, we tested how this balance changes in an active, goal-directed task.

Full link here: www.autistica.org.uk/blog/trump-c...

You can view the (free) author accepted manuscript here: lenamatyjek.com/publications/

That’s why we also stress including autistic voices in research. Who better to define what a meaningful social interaction looks like than those who experience them? Let's build more inclusive and accurate science. #Autism #Neurodiversity #DoubleEmpathyProblem

A crucial insight from our work is that understanding social interactions requires shifting perspective. Moving beyond individual “deficits” (especially in behaviours unrelated to outcomes) and focusing on relational dynamics gives a fuller, fairer picture of social experience.

Our takeaway: **different doesn’t mean deficient**. For example: while neurotypicals more eye contact may mean more connections with the other person, some autistic people may avoid eye contact but still form positive, meaningful connections with their interaction partners.

Crucially - not many studies related the behaviours to the interaction outcomes! Just because autistic people do something differently, it does not necessarily mean that it leads to less successful interactions, at least with other autistic individuals.

On the other hand, studies looking into behavioural differences show mixed results: we found both similarities (e.g., general turn-taking) and differences (e.g., reduced mutual gaze and backchanneling in autistic interactions) in social behaviours between the neurotypes.

Most support for the DEP (autistic individuals preferring interactions with other autistic rather than neurotypical peers) comes from studies that examine subjective ratings — for example, perceived rapport, sense of connection, or willingness to meet again.

We reviewed 25 studies looking into interaction between autistic, non-autistic, or mix-neurotype dyads and we systematically mapped social behaviours (like turn-taking or mutual gaze) and interaction outcomes (like established rapport).

Historically, social challenges in #autism have often been framed as “deficits” in autistic individuals. But what if (at least) some difficulties arise from differences in communication styles between neurotypes (autism vs neurotypical)? You may know this idea as the Double Empathy Problem (DEP).

Yes! My next bigger idea is to help create a Catalonia-based participatory autism group, so that the community can co-create knowledge rather than just participate in it locally. Atm, I’m looking for funding, options, and interested representatives… let me know if you have ideas to share! :)

Thats exactly the thing! :)