Searching for the Onset of Autism

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Early behavioral intervention has shown some promise as a way to help children with autism. But it’s difficult to see the hallmarks of autism before two years of age with today’s diagnostic criteria. Could we find other methods?

Seeking to answer that question is Jed Elison at the California Institute of Technology, who is working with Ralph Adolphs at Caltech and Joe Piven at the University of North Carolina among other colleagues around the U.S. and Canada. Elison provided some preliminary findings at the Neuromagic 2012 conference held from May 7 to 10, 2012 on San Simón, the Island of Thought, near Vigo, Spain.

Today’s criteria, from the psychiatric bible called the DSM-IV, include attributes of social impairments, communication deficits, and repetitive patterns of behavior and restricted interests (either in intensity or content). “There’s a biological reality,” said Elison, “that you can’t capture perfectly with a classification system like this.” Nevertheless, there’s “no question that the classification system serves a very important role in identifying kids who require specialized clinical services" Recognizing the condition early can help. “There’s some evidence that early intervention alleviates” some of the behavioral challenges for these children, he added.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Elison and collaborative partners of the Infant Brain Imaging Study Network are recruiting families who have a child with autism and an infant sibling under six months of age. Because autism has a genetic component, they employ what they call the "high-risk-sibling" strategy to prospectively characterize the earliest markers of autism. They conduct longitudinal studies with the younger siblings—making an assessment of these infants at six months, 12 months and 24 months. Ideally, they will define the onset of symptoms and its developmental course.

In addition to assessing behavior, the researchers are also examining brain development, specifically the development of white matter microstructure, using diffusion tensor imaging. White matter includes part of the neuron called the axon that is responsible for transmitting electrical signals throughout the brain. "Cognitive and social-cognitive development requires efficient information processing, which consequently requires efficient signal transmission" said Elison. White matter is not developing the same in infants who go on develop autism, and a recent study suggests that these differences may appear as early as six months.

What about behavioral differences? The researchers are also very interested in subtle attentional and visual-orienting patterns that may be different very early in life. These behaviors are very important for subsequent social-cognitive development and might be amenable to targeted intervention.

Elison highlighted that many of the scientific themes relevant to magic or sleights of hand, including attentional orienting and joint attention, making eye contact, perceiving biological motion, and theory of mind (that is, making inferences about the mental or emotional state of another individual) are especially important themes for autism researchers. "Deficits in any of these areas could make individuals with autism less susceptible to magic," said Elison.

Drawing a connection to the theme of the conference in his conclusion, Elison questioned whether susceptibility to magic or sleights of hand might also vary with development. Several of the attending magicians pointed out that performers must tailor their approach for different audiences and that very young children present unique challenges, because they may still engage in "magical thinking"—believing in unseen causes—and because their cultural knowledge and social-cognitive skills aren’t yet fully formed.

Mariette DiChristina, Steering Group chair, is dean and professor of the practice in journalism at the Boston University College of Communication. She was formerly editor in chief of Scientific American and executive vice president, Magazines, for Springer Nature.

More by Mariette DiChristina

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe