I propose a new theory for ASD (Autism and Asperger's)

Post Reply New Topic

All current theories for the mechanism of ASD explain some, but not all, the manifestations usually observed in people with Autism or Asperger's. I think that these varied characteristics can not be explained by the dysfunction of just one cognitive module, but by something that pervades the entire brain: a different cognitive style. It's what I try to represent in the next figure. The upper level corresponds to the different groups of symptoms and conditions observed. The second level includes the principal current theories, with red arrows indicating the symptoms explained by each one (as you can see, there are some characteristics not explained by anyone). In the third level there is my hypothesis, that explains everything explained and not explained by the current theories. The cognitive style specified in my hypothesis is due to some characteristics of the brain (4th level) produced by a combination of genetic and epigenetic causes (5th level).



If you are interested, you'll find all the information (including the complete article and a short introductory video) at http://pairal.net/asperger/dhe.php.

I'm not sure how this differs from just making another word for "syndrome", though. Like, they're kind of saying "all of this is one thing", but the definition of "hypoentropic dynamics" is a bit vague. The idea that autistic brains don't have enough chaos--that we're different because things are too deterministic and the range of possible outcomes from any given state is too narrow--may be a good idea; but I just don't see how it could be tested. If they want to make a good theory, they have to make it testable--this still seems to be in the realm of philosophy to me. Yes, the mind is a complex system. We know that. The autistic mind is a complex system, too. Trying to measure how complex a system actually is, and how its state of order or disorder is changing, is hard enough when you're applying chaos theory to the weather; and weather is just a bunch of random molecules being driven by differences in heat and pressure.

If they come up with an objective way to test this idea, then they'll be ready to do some science on it. But if they just keep speculating without any kind of proposal as to how to test this, then I'm going to kick them to the philosophy department with the rest of the dreamers.

To Callista:

I accept that there is a long way until testing this hypothesis, but I also would like to point out two things:

The word syndrome refers to the group of symptoms characteristic of a specific disorder, so it is simply a description of the disorder (1st level in my figure). My hypothesis try to explain why all this symptoms are produced (3rd level), and does so better than any of the current theories (as explained in the article you can find in my web).

About testing this theory, there are already at least two studies that have measured a lower entropy in ASD people:
- Bosl W, Tierney A, Tager-Flusberg H, Nelson C. EEG complexity as a biomarker for autism spectrum disorder risk. BMC Med 2011; 9(1): 18.
- Catarino A, Churches O, Baron-Cohen S, Andrade A, Ring H. Atypical EEG complexity in autism spectrum conditions: A multiscale entropy analysis. Clin Neurophysiol 2011 Jun 3. [In press].

Hi Ramon,

No offense, but I'm unclear as to the purpose of your posting. It doesn't invite discussion, and doesn't really explain your theory to uninitiated readers, which leaves me to believe that the purpose is to get us to look at your website. As far as I can tell, you've already published your theories, so there's no point in discussion. Maybe you want questions about it? Maybe you're reaching out to a broader audience?

I'm just a bit confused is all.

Hi weeOne,

The purpose of my post is to see what you think about it. In this sense, it is completely open to discussion (and I'd like to hear your points of view). The initial idea of the theory came to me by introspection, and I'm sure many of you have your own ideas.

About explaining the theory, it's what I've made in the article (in a long and hard way) and in the video (in a short and easy way). (Article: http://pairal.net/asperger/HED-Cererols.pdf; video: https://vimeo.com/49102022). I've tried to do my best, but I'm open to your questions.

About having published it, I have only published it in my personal web, not in any medical journal or anything like this.

It's more of a philosophical study than a concrete theory or explanation, though it does make sense logically and factors in most of the prevailing theories.

Im amazed, well done. Its interesting how you tried to string together all the different factors. I think Im gonna save the image to my computer.

Yes, well done and well researched. Good work on the video also.

Thanks for all your comments.

Just wanted to disagree with the concept that it is a "philosophical" study. First, the arguments I use in the article are all scientifical, not philosophical. They may seem so because I've tried to explain them without using many technical terms or complicated maths. Second, philosophical questions can not be measured with instruments, but entropy can be measured (and it is measured).

Very interesting. The image you used as a metaphor kind of echoes the way I experience my own thinking & attention compared to how it seems to me other people think (greater "depth", and therefore difficulty shifting from one to another). I usually have the feeling of being in a certain groove, mentally, locked on to a task, having my attention pulled strongly back in the same direction, while it seems other peoples' attention and thinking skips around more easily. I didn't see where you connected the social issues to your theory, but from a standpoint of changing mental states it makes sense, since putting oneself in someone else's place or reading between the lines in a conversation requires rapid shifts in focus. That is actually what feels difficult about it to me - I can easily imagine what one other person is thinking at one moment but jumping back and forth between what several people are thinking, saying and doing over time is too much.

Hi Nonperson,

Same thing happens to me. I can have a conversation with one person, but if there are more than one, I begin to be lost. I find difficult to follow all of them. NT construct naturally the internal images of all the people, and of their relationsship with each other. I must do this conscioussly, which is slower. When talking to one people, there is only one link. With 2 people, I must keep thinking about 2 people plus their relationship (3 links). This number increases very fast with more people. I've tried to represent it with this figure:

I can relate to this as well. I'm always silent in groups of people but enjoy talking with one person about something I find interesting.
Your proposed theory is a good unifying theory and I can see how it could have practical applications in working with and understanding autistic people.

Not only I find difficult to interact socially with a group of people, but also I find difficult to undersand what they are saying if there are other conversations or sounds in the room, or if there are cross conversations between different people.

It seems that we aspies need a higher ratio speech/noise to be able to understand the words (between 2 and 3.5 dB more, according to the article “Speech-in-noise perception in high-functioning individuals with autism or Asperger's syndrome” by Alcántara et al., published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, Volume 45, Number 6, September 2004, pp. 1107-1114.

I can concur with this. I worked as a sound engineer and could pickup the slightest dissonance or resonance etc., but put me in a room of people and I can't understand a word, it becomes a blur and I can only focus on the background noises. Even music playing quietly is enough for me to go speech deaf.
Good work by the way!

Just an idea from a layman, but could it not be possible that the systemizing cabability developed to a very high degree could explain some of a savants abilities (which is fed currently by the 'no theory' box)?

Hi Si_82,

You are right saying that extreme systemizing capability can explain some of savant abilities. But what I wanted to emphasize in that last part of the phenotype was the fact that the same mechanism that explained savantism had to explain also the low IQ observed in many cases of classic (or Kanner) autism.