Content uploaded by Bhismadev Chakrabarti
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bhismadev Chakrabarti
Content may be subject to copyright.
Talent in autism: hyper-systemizing,
hyper-attention to detail and sensory
hypersensitivity
Simon Baron-Cohen*, Emma Ashwin, Chris Ashwin, Teresa Tavassoli
and Bhismadev Chakrabarti
Autism Research Centre, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Douglas House,
18b Trumpington Road, Cambridge CB2 8AH, UK
We argue that hyper-systemizing predisposes individuals to show talent, and review evidence that hyper-
systemizing is part of the cognitive style of people with autism spectrum conditions (ASC). We then
clarify the hyper-systemizing theory, contrasting it to the weak central coherence (WCC) and executive
dysfunction (ED) theories. The ED theory has difficulty explaining the existence of talent in ASC. While
both hyper-systemizing and WCC theories postulate excellent attention to detail,byitselfexcellent
attention to detail will not produce talent. By contrast, the hyper-systemizing theory argues that the
excellent attention to detail is directed towards detecting ‘if p, then q’ rules (or [input–operation–output]
reasoning). Such law-based pattern recognition systems can produce talent in systemizable domains.
Finally, we argue that the excellent attention to detail in ASC is itself a consequence of sensory
hypersensitivity. We review an experiment from our laboratory demonstrating sensory hypersensitivity
detection thresholds in vision. We conclude that the origins of the association between autism and talent
begin at the sensory level, include excellent attention to detail and end with hyper-systemizing.
Keywords: autism; Asperger syndrome; savant
1. INTRODUCTION
Savantism is found more commonly in autism spec-
trum conditions (ASC) than in any other neurological
group (see Howlin 2009), and the majority of those
with savantism have an ASC (Hermelin 2002). This
‘comorbidity’ (or to use the more neutral term ‘co-
occurrence’, since comorbidity is a strange term to use
when one of the characteristics is not a disability) shows
us that these two profiles are associated well above
chance. This forces us to ask: why the link between
talent and autism?
In this paper, we argue that while savantism (defined
as prodigious talent) is only seen in a subgroup of
people with ASC, a universal feature of the autistic
brain is excellent attention to detail (Shah & Frith 1993;
Jolliffe & Baron-Cohen 1997;O’Riordan et al. 2001).
Furthermore, we argue that excellent attention to detail
exists in ASC because of evolutionary forces positively
selecting brains for strong systemizing, a highly adaptive
human ability (Baron-Cohen 2008).
Strong systemizing requires excellent attention to
detail, and in our view the latter is in the service of the
former. Attention occurs at an early level of cognition,
whilesystemizingisafairlyhigh-levelaspectof
cognition. Next, we argue that one can trace excellent
attention to detail to its basis in sensory hypersensitivity
in ASC. Finally, in this paper, we review an experiment
from our laboratory in vision, which points to
sensory hypersensitivity in ASC, and briefly describe
our research programme exploring this in other
modalities (olfaction, hearing and touch). But first,
what is systemizing?
2. SYSTEMIZING
Talent in autism comes in many forms, but a common
characteristic is that the individual becomes an expert
in recognizing repeating patterns in stimuli. We call this
systemizing, defined as the drive to analyse or construct
systems. These might be any kind of system. What
defines a system is that it follows rules, and when we
systemize we are trying to identify the rules that govern
the system, in order to predict how that system will
behave (Baron-Cohen 2006). These are some of the
major kinds of system:
—collectible systems (e.g. distinguishing between types
of stones or wood);
—mechanical systems (e.g. a video recorder or a
window lock);
—numerical systems (e.g. a train timetable or a
calendar);
—abstract systems (e.g. the syntax of a language or
musical notation);
—natural systems (e.g. the weather patterns or tidal
wave patterns);
—social systems (e.g. a management hierarchy or a
dance routine with a dance partner); and
—motoric systems (e.g. throwing a Frisbee or bouncing
on a trampoline).
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2009) 364, 1377–1383
doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0337
One contribution of 18 to a Discussion Meeting Issue ‘Autism
and talent’.
*Author for correspondence (sb205@cam.ac.uk).
1377 This journal is q2009 The Royal Society
In all these cases, one systemizes by noting
regularities (or structure) and rules. The rules tend to
be derived by noting if p and q are associated in a
systematic way. The general formulation of what
happens during systemizing is one looks for laws of
the form ‘if p, then q’. If it is Friday, then we eat fish. If
we multiply 3 by itself, then we get 9. If we turn the
switch to the down position, then the light comes on.
When we think about the kinds of domains in which
savants typically excel, it is those domains that are
highly systemizable.
Examples might be from numbers (e.g. spotting if a
number is a prime number), calendrical calculation
(e.g. telling which day of the week a given date will fall),
drawing (e.g. analysing space into geometric shapes
and the laws of perspective, and perfecting an artistic
technique), music (e.g. analysing the sequence of notes
in a melody, or the lawful regularities or structure in a
piece), memory (e.g. recalling long sequences of digits
or lists of information) or even learning foreign
languages (e.g. learning vocabulary or the laws of
grammar). In each of these domains, there is the
opportunity to repeat behaviour in order to check if one
gets the very same outcome every time. Multiplying 3
by itself always delivers 9, the key change in this specific
musical piece always occurs in the 13th bar, throwing
the ball at this particular angle and with this particular
force always results in it landing in the hoop.
3. SYSTEMIZING THE RUBIK’S CUBE
Let us take a cardinal example of savantism: a non-
conversational child with autism who can solve the
Rubik’s Cube ‘problem’ in 1 min and 7 s. This is a nice
example because it illustrates several things. First, that
the child’s non-verbal ability with the Rubik’s Cube is
at a much higher level than either his communication or
social skills, or indeed what one would expect of his
age. Second, it prompts us to ask: what are the
processes involved in solving the Rubik’s Cube? At a
minimum, it involves analysing or memorizing the
sequence of moves to produce the correct outcome. It
is a series of ‘if p, then q’ steps. This child with autism
appeared to have ‘discovered’ the layer-by-layer
method to solve the 3!3!3 Rubik’s Cube problem,
which at best takes a minimum of 22 moves. (Note that
he was not as fast as the current 2008 World Champion
Erik Akkersdijk who in the Czech Open championship
solved the Rubik’s Cube in 7.08 s!).
4. SYSTEMIZING IN AUTISM SPECTRUM
CONDITIONS
What is the evidence for intact or even unusually strong
systemizing in ASC? First, such children perform above
the level that one would expect on a physics test
(Baron-Cohen et al. 2001). Children with Asperger’s
syndrome as young as 8–11 years old scored higher
than a comparison group who were older (typical
teenagers). Second, using the Systemizing Quotient
(SQ), people with high-functioning autism or AS score
higher on the SQ compared with general population
controls (Baron-Cohen et al. 2003). Third, children
with classic autism perform better than controls on the
picture-sequencing test where the stories can be
sequenced using physical-causal concepts (Baron-
Cohen et al. 1986). They also score above average on
a test of how to figure out how a Polaroid camera works,
even though they have difficulties figuring out people’s
thoughts and feelings (Baron-Cohen et al. 1985;Perner
et al. 1989). The Polaroid camera test was used as a
mechanical equivalent to the false belief test, since, in
the former, all one has to do is infer what will be
represented in a photograph given the ‘line of sight’
between the camera and an object, whereas, in the
latter, one has to infer what belief (i.e. mental
representation) a person will hold given what they
saw and therefore know about.
Strong systemizing is a way of explaining the non-
social features of autism: narrow interests; repetitive
behaviour; and resistance to change/need for sameness.
This is because when one systemizes, it is best to keep
everything constant, and to only vary one thing at a
time. That way, one can see what might be causing
what, and with repetition one can verify that one gets
the very same pattern or sequence (if p, then q) every
time, rendering the world predictable. One issue is
whether hyper-systemizing only applies to the high-
functioning individuals with ASC. While their obses-
sions (with computers or maths, for example) could be
seen in terms of strong systemizing (Baron-Cohen et al.
1999), when we think of a child with low-functioning
autism, many of the classic behaviours can be seen as a
reflection of their strong systemizing. Some examples
are listed in box 1.
5. SYSTEMIZING AND WEAK CENTRAL
COHERENCE
As with the weak central coherence ( WCC) theory
(Frith 1989; and discussed in this issue, Happe
´& Vital
2009), the hyper-systemizing theory is about a different
cognitive style (Happe
´1996). Similar to that theory, it
also posits excellent attention to detail (in perception and
memory), since when one systemizes one has to pay
attention to the tiny details. This is because each tiny
detail in a system might have a functional role leading
to new information of the form ‘if p, then q’. Excellent
attention to detail in autism has been repeatedly
demonstrated (Shah & Frith 1983,1993;Jolliffe &
Baron-Cohen 2001;O’Riordan et al. 2001;Mottron
et al. 2003).
One difference between these two theories is that the
WCC theory sees people with ASC as drawn to detailed
information (sometimes called a local processing bias)
either for negative reasons (an inability to integrate was
postulated in the original version of this theory) or
because of stronger local processing (in the later version
of this theory). By contrast, the hyper-systemizing theory
sees this same quality (excellent attention to detail) as
being highly purposeful: it exists in order to understand a
system. Attention to detail is occurring for positive
reasons: in the service of achieving an ultimate under-
standing of a system (however small and specific that
system might be).
We can return to the Rubik’s Cube problem to see
the difference between these two theories more clearly.
At one level, the Rubik’s Cube is a three-dimensional
Block DesignTest but where the cubes are all connected.
1378 S. Baron-Cohen et al. Talent in autism
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2009)
Recall that the Block Design Test is the subtest on
Weschler IQ tests on whichpeople with autism performat
their best (Shah & Frith 1993;Happe
´1996). The Rubik’s
Cube contains 21 movable connected cubes (since the
five central cubes do not move) with different coloured
faces in the 3!3!3 version. According to the WCC
theory, the reason why people with autism show superior
performance on the Block Design Test is that their good
local processing enables them to ‘see’ each individual
cube even if the design to be copied is not ‘pre-
segmented’ (Shah & Frith 1983). It is clear how good
local processing would lead to faster ‘analysis’ of the
whole (design) into constituent parts (the individual
cubes), but to solve the Rubik’s Cube (or the Block
Design problem), more than just good local processing
is needed. A strength in ‘if p, then q’-type reasoning is
also required. On the classic Block Design subtest, one
needs to mentally or manually rotate the cube to produce
the relevant output. That is, one needs to perform an
operation on the input to produce the relevant output.
The same is true (but with more cubes and therefore
more complexity) in the Rubik’s Cube problem: ‘If the
red cube with the green side is positioned on the top
layer on the right side and I rotate the top layer
anticlockwise by 90 degrees, then this will complete the
top layer as all one colour’.
In earlier formulations ofsystemizing,thekey
cognitive process was held to be in terms of [input–
operation–output] processing (Baron-Cohen 2006). In
mathematics, if the inputZ3, and the operationZ
cubing, then the outputZ27. In the Rubik’s Cube
notional example above, the inputZ[the red cube with
the green side is positioned on the top layer on the right
side], the operationZ[rotate the top layer anticlockwise
by 90 degrees] and the outputZ[complete the top layer
as all one colour]. Note that WCC makes no mention
of the key part of this that is noting the consequences of an
operation. Simply seeing the parts in greater detail
would not by itself lead to understand the operations (the
moves) needed to solve the Rubik’s Cube.
Another difference between the WCC theory and
the hyper-systemizing theory is that the latter (but not
the former) predicts that over time, the person may
achieve an excellent understanding of a whole system,
given the opportunity to observe and control all the
variables (all the ‘if p, then q’ rules) in that system.
WCC would predict that even given all the time in the
world, the individual will be forever lost in the detail.
The existence of talented mathematicians with AS such
as Richard Borcherds is proof that such individuals can
integrate the details into a true understanding of the
system (Baron-Cohen 2003). In the rule ‘if p, then q’,
the terms ‘if ’ and ‘then’ are how the details become
integrated, albeit one small step at a time. The idea at
the neurological level that ASC involves an abundance
of local short-range connectivity (Belmonte et al. 2004)
may explain this cognitive style of identifying one
specific link between two details.
6. HYPER-SYSTEMIZING: IMPLICATIONS FOR
EDUCATION
Teachers, whether of children with autism or adults
with Asperger’s syndrome, need to take into account
that hyper-systemizing will affect not only how people
with ASC learn but also how they should be assessed.
IQ test items, essays and exam questions designed for
individuals who are ‘neurotypical’ may lead to the
person with ASC scoring zero when their knowledge is
Box 1. Systemizing in classic autism and/or Asperger’s syndrome.
type of systemizing classic autism Asperger’s syndrome
sensory systemizing tapping surfaces or letting sand run
through one’s fingers
insisting on the same foods each day
motoric systemizing spinning round and round,
or rocking back and forth
learning knitting patterns or a
tennis technique
collectible systemizing collecting leaves or football stickers making lists and catalogues
numerical systemizing obsessions with calendars or
train timetables
solving maths problems
motion systemizing watching washing machines
spin round and round
analysing exactly when a specific event
occurs in a repeating cycle
spatial systemizing obsessions with routes developing drawing techniques
environmental systemizing insisting on toy bricks being lined
up in an invariant order
insisting that nothing is moved
from its usual position in the room
social systemizing saying the first half of a phrase or
sentence and waiting for the other
person to complete it
insisting on playing the same game
whenever a child comes to play
natural systemizing asking over and over again what
the weather will be today
learning the Latin names of every plant
and their optimal growing conditions
mechanical systemizing learning to operate the VCR fixing bicycles or taking apart gadgets
and reassembling them
vocal/auditory/verbal
systemizing
echoing sounds collecting words and word meanings
systemizing action
sequences
watching the same video over
and over again
analysing dance techniques
Talent in autism S. Baron-Cohen et al. 1379
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2009)
actually greater, deeper and more extensive than that of
most people. What can appear as a slow processing
style may be because of the massively greater quantity
of information that is being processed.
A man with Asperger’s syndrome reported recently
that ‘I see all information in terms of links. All
information has a link to something and I pay attention
to these links. If I am asked a question in an exam I have
great difficulty in completing my answer within the
allocated 45 min for that essay, because every fact I
include has thousands of links to other facts, and I feel
my answer would be incorrect if I didn’t report all of the
linked facts. The examiner thinks he or she has set a
nice circumscribed question to answer, but for some-
one with autism or Asperger’s syndrome, no topic is
circumscribed. There is ever more detail with ever
more interesting links between the details’.
When asked about the concept of apple, for
example, he could not give a short summary answer
such as ‘an apple is a piece of fruit’ (i.e. referring to the
prototypical level ‘apple’ as linked to the superordinate
level ‘fruit’) but had to continue by also trying to link it
to the 7500 different species of apple (the subordinate-
level concepts), listing many of each type and the
differences in terms of the history of each species, how
they are cultivated, what they taste and look like, etc.
When asked about the concept of beetle, he could not
just give a summary answer such as ‘a beetle is an
insect’ but had to mention as many of the 350 000
species of beetle that he knew existed.
This cognitive style is understandable in terms of
the hyper-systemizing theory because a concept is a
system. A concept is a way of using an ‘if p, then q’ rule
to define what to include as members of a category
(e.g. if it has scales and gills, then it is a fish).
Furthermore, concepts exist within a classification
system, which are rules for how categories are related
to one another. So, the question ‘what is a beetle?’ is
trivial for a neurotypical individual who simply answers
in terms of a crude, imprecise and fuzzy category: ‘it is
an insect’. It may, however, require a very long,
exhaustive answer from someone with ASC: beetles
are members of the category of animal (kingdom),
arthropods (phylum), insects (class), pterygota (sub-
class), neoptera (infraclass), endopterygota (super-
order), coleoptera (order), and could be in one of
four suborders (adephaga, archostemata, mycophaga
and polyphaga), each of which has an infraorder, a
superfamily and a family. Even the previous sentence
would for this man with Asperger’s syndrome be a gross
violation of the true answer to the question because so
much important factual information has been left out.
But for the hyper-systemizer, getting these details
correct matters, because the concept—and the classi-
fication system linking concepts—is asystemfor
predicting how this specific entity (this specific beetle)
will behave or will differ from all other entities.
7. HYPER-SYSTEMIZING THEORY VERSUS
EXECUTIVE DYSFUNCTION THEORY
The executive dysfunction (ED) theory ( Rumsey &
Hamberger 1988;Ozonoff et al. 1991;Russell 1997)is
the other major theory that has attempted to explain
the non-social features of ASC, and particularly the
repetitive behaviour and narrow interests that charac-
terize ASC. According to this theory, aspects of
executive function (action control) involved in flexible
switching of attention and planning are impaired,
leading to perseveration. The ED theory, similar to
the WCC theory, has difficulty in explaining instances
of good understanding of a whole system, such as
calendrical calculation, since within the well-defined
system (calendar) attention can switch very flexibly.
The ED theory also predicts perseveration (so-called
‘obsessions’) but does not explain why in autism and
Asperger’s syndrome these should centre on systems
(Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright 1999). Finally, the ED
theory simply re-describes repetitive behaviour as an
instance of ED without seeing what might be positive
about the behaviour.
So, when the low-functioning person with classic
autism has shaken a piece of string thousands of times
close to his eyes, while the ED theory sees this as
perseveration arising from some neural dysfunction
which would normally enable the individual to shift
attention, the hyper-systemizing theory sees the same
behaviour as a sign that the individual ‘understands’
the physics (i.e. recognizes the patterns) behind the
movement of that piece of string. He may be able to
make it move in exactly the same way every time. Or to
take another example, when he makes a long, rapid
sequence of sounds, he may ‘know’ exactly that
acoustic pattern, and get some pleasure from the
confirmation that the sequence is the same every
time. Much as a mathematician might feel an ultimate
sense of pleasure that the ‘golden ratio’ (that (aCb)/
aZa/b) and that this always comes out as 1.61803399,
so the child—even with low-functioning autism—who
produces the same outcome every time with their
repetitive behaviour, appears to derive some emotional
pleasure at the predictability of the world. This may be
what is clinically described as ‘stimming’ ( Wing 1997).
Autism was originally described as involving ‘resistance
to change’ and ‘need for sameness’ ( Kanner 1943),
and here we see that important clinical observation
may be the hallmark of strong systemizing. It will be
important for future neuroimaging studies to test if
the reward systems in the brain (e.g. the dopaminergic
or cannabinoid systems) are active during such
repetitive behaviour.
If we return to the Rubik’s Cube example, the ED
theory would predict that an inability to ‘plan’ should
make solving a Rubik’s Cube impossible for a
savant with autism. By contrast, as we saw earlier, the
hyper-systemizing theory has no difficulty in explaining
such talent.
8. SENSORY HYPERSENSITIVITY
Rather than assuming that the strong systemizing in ASC
is ultimately reducible to excellent attention to detail, in
this sectionwe pursue the idea that the excellent attention
to detail is itself reducible to sensory hypersensitivity.
Mottron & Burack (2001) postulated the ‘enhanced
perceptual functioning’ model of ASC, characterized by
superior low-level perceptual processing. To what extent
is this a feature of basic sensory physiology?
1380 S. Baron-Cohen et al. Talent in autism
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2009)
Studies using questionnaires such as the sensory
profile have revealed sensory abnormalities in over 90
per cent of children with ASC (Leekam et al. 2001;
Kern et al. 2006;Tomchek & Dunn 2007). In vision,
Bertone et al. (2003) found that individuals with ASC
are more accurate at detecting the orientation of first-
order gratings (simple, luminance-defined) but less
accurate at identifying second-order gratings (complex,
texture-defined). In the auditory modality, superior
pitch processing has been found in ASC ( Mottron et al.
1999;Bonnel et al. 2003;Heaton et al. 2008). In a case
study, Mottron et al.(1999)reported exceptional
absolute judgement and production of pitch. Bonnel
et al. (2003) found superior pitch discrimination and
processing abilities in individuals with high-functioning
autism. O’Riordan & Passetti (2006) also reported
superior auditory discrimination ability in children
with ASC, and Ja¨ rvinen-Pasley et al. (2002) showed
superior perceptual processing of speech in children
with autism.
In the tactile modality, Blakemore et al. (2006)
showed hypersensitivity to vibrotactile stimulation to a
frequency of 200 Hz but not for 30 Hz. In addition, the
ASC group rated suprathreshold tactile stimulation as
significantly more tickly and intense than did the
control group. Tommerdahl et al. (2007) reported
participants with ASC outperformed controls in tactile
acuity after short adaptation to a vibrotactile stimulus
period of 0.5 s. (Note that this hypersensitivity is not
always observed. On a tactile discrimination task,
O’Riordan & Passetti (2006) found no differences in
children with autism compared with controls.) Cascio
et al. (2008) investigated tactile sensation and reported
increased sensitivity to vibrations and thermal pain in
ASC, while detection to light touch and warmth/cold
was similar in both groups.
Only two previous studies have been reported
investigating olfaction in ASC, and unlike the research
into the other senses which consistently find hyper-
sensitivity, both of these studies reported deficits in
identifying odours despite intact odour detection
(Suzuki et al. 2003;Bennetto et al. 2007). Looking
more closely at the two previous studies into olfaction
in ASC, both required participants to explicitly identify
the odour from a choice of responses, and methodology
likely to involve both executive function and memory.
For example, the study by Bennetto and colleagues
required participants to decide which of four possible
responses an odour matched. A simpler task might
provide a purer test of low-level olfactory discrimi-
nation in ASC.
In the final section of this paper, we summarize an
experiment from our laboratory looking at vision in
ASC, in terms of basic sensory detection thresholds
(acuity). Ongoing studies from our laboratory are also
testing sensory detection thresholds in other modalities
(touch, audition and olfaction). Full details of these
experiments are reported elsewhere (Ashwin et al.
2009,submitted;Tavassoli et al. submitted).
Participants were administered the Freiburg Visual
Acuity and Contrast Test, a standardized optometric
test that uses the Landholt-C optotype (Bertone et al.
2003). The gaps in the C-shape range from 0.4 to
25 mm and appear in one of four positions: up; down;
left; or right. Participants sat at a fixed distance of
60 cm from the computer screen and identified the
location of the ‘missing’ part of the C-shaped stimulus
by selecting one of four arrow keys on the keyboard.
Participants had 3 s to respond on each of the 150
trials. The results generated a Snellen decimal, where a
value of 1.0 represents ‘normal’ 20 : 20 vision ( Heaton
et al. 2008). A score of 20 : 10 is regarded as excellent
vision, and means an object normally detected at 10
feet can be detected at 20 feet. Thus, Snellen values
above 1.0 represent increasingly accurate vision, and
values below 1.0 represent worse vision. The ASC
group scored a mean acuity measure of 2.79 (s.d.ZG
0.37), which was significantly better than the control
group mean of 1.44 (s.d.ZG0.26), t(40)Z4.63;
p!0.001. The Snellen score of 2.79 for the ASC
group represents acuity 2.79 times better than normal,
and translates to vision of 20 : 7. This approaches the
range reported for birds of prey.
Results from this and other experiments demon-
strated greater sensory perception in ASC across
multiple modalities. In the context of the earlier
discussion of hyper-systemizing and excellent attention
to detail, we surmise that these sensory differences in
functioning may be affecting information processing at
an early stage (in terms of both sensation/cognition and
development) in ways that could both cause distress
but also predispose to unusual talent. These results of
hypersensitivity confirm previous findings and mirror
anecdotal reports of individuals with ASC (Grandin
1996). For example, Temple Grandin writes that
‘overly sensitive skin can be a big problem.Shampoo-
ing actually hurt my skin.To be lightly touched
appeared to make my nervous system whimper, as if
the nerve ends were curling up’. In terms of increased
sensitivity to certain types of auditory stimuli (high
frequencies), there are anecdotal reports that individ-
uals with autism tend to avoid certain sounds. Grandin
states ‘I can shut out my hearing and withdraw from
most noise, but certain frequencies cannot be shut
out.High pitched, shrill noises are the worst’.
Mottron et al. (1999) reported the case of a woman
with autism who was hypersensitive to frequencies from
1 to 5 kHz at 13 years of age, and to 4 kHz at 18 years.
Enhanced sensitivity may be specific to certain
stimuli in all modalities. In vision, Ber tone et al.
(2003) pointed out the importance of specific stimuli
in investigating visual differences in ASC. In touch,
Blakemore et al. (2006) reported hypersensitivity for
higher frequency (200 Hz) vibrotactile stimulation, but
not for lower (30 Hz). Pinpointing the precise stimuli in
which enhanced sensitivity occur in ASC will be
important for future research. To our knowledge, the
highest frequency that has been used to investigate
hearing in ASC is 8 kHz (Bonnel et al. 2003). Our
ongoing study investigates very high frequencies, up to
18 kHz (Tavassoli et al. submitted). The reported
hypersensitivity through frequencies above 16 kHz is
especially important since some environmental
sounds operate at or above this range of frequencies.
Grandin reported ‘Some of the sounds that are most
disturbing to autistic children are the high-pitched,
shrill noises made by electrical drills, blenders, saws,
and vacuum cleaners’.
Talent in autism S. Baron-Cohen et al. 1381
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2009)
Hypersensitivity could result from a processing
difference at various sensory levels including the
density or sensitivity of sensory receptors, inhibitory
and exhibitory neurotransmitter imbalance or speed of
neural processing. Belmonte et al. (2004) suggested
local range neural overconnectivity in posterior, sensory
parts of the cerebral cortex is responsible for the
sensory ‘magnification’ in people with ASC. While our
laboratory and others have tested sensory profiles in
ASC using functional magnetic resonance imaging
(fMRI) (Gomot et al.2006,2008), the combination of
imaging and genetic approaches to study sensory
perception in fMRI may lead towards a more complete
picture. We conclude that the search for the association
between autism and talent should start with the sensory
hypersensitivity, which gives rise to the excellent
attention to detail, and which is a prerequisite for
hyper-systemizing.
T.T. was supported by the Pinsent Darwin Trust and Autism
Speaks UK during the period of this work. E.A., C.A., B.C.
and S.B.-C. were supported by the MRC UK. Parts of this
paper are reproduced with permission from Ashwin et al.
(2008) and Baron-Cohen (2008).
REFERENCES
Ashwin,E.,Ashwin,C.,Rhydderch,D.,Howells,J.&Baron-
Cohen, S. 2009 Eagle-eyed visual acuity: an experimental
investigation of enhanced perception in autism. Biol.
Psychiatry 65, 17–21. (doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.06.012)
Ashwin, C., Ashwin, E., Tavassoli, T., Howells, J.,
Rhydderch, D. & Baron-Cohen, S. Submitted. Olfactory
hypersensitivity in autism spectrum conditions.
Baron-Cohen, S. 2003 The essential difference: men, women and
the extreme male brain. London, UK: Penguin.
Baron-Cohen, S. 2006 The hyper-systemizing, assortative
mating theory of autism. Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol.
Biol. Psychiatry 30, 865 –872. (doi:10.1016/j.pnpbp.
2006.01.010)
Baron-Cohen, S. 2008 Autism, hypersystemizing, and
truth. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 61, 64–75. (doi:10.1080/
17470210701508749)
Baron-Cohen, S. & Wheelwright, S. 1999 ‘Obsessions’ in
children with autism or Asperger syndrome. Content
analysis in terms of core domains of cognition. Br.
J. Psychiatry 175, 484–490. (doi:10.1192/bjp.175.5.484)
Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M. & Frith, U. 1985 Does the
autistic child have a ‘theory of mind’? Cognition 21, 37– 46.
(doi:10.1016/0010-0277(85)90022-8)
Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M. & Frith, U. 1986
Mechanical, behavioural and intentional understanding
of picture stories in autistic children. Br. J. Dev. Psychol.
4, 113–125.
Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Stone, V. & Rutherford,
M. 1999 A mathematician, a physicist, and a computer
scientist with Asperger syndrome: performance on folk
psychology and folk physics test. Neurocase 5, 475 –483.
(doi:10.1080/13554799908402743)
Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Scahill, V., Lawson, J. &
Spong, A. 2001 Are intuitive physics and intuitive
psychology independent? J. Dev. Learn. Disord. 5, 47–78.
Baron-Cohen, S., Richler, J., Bisarya, D., Gurunathan, N. &
Wheelwright, S. 2003 The systemising quotient: an
investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high-
functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Phil.
Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 358, 361– 374. (doi:10.1098/rstb.
2002.1206)
Belmonte, M. K., Allen, G., Beckel-Mitchener, A.,
Boulanger, L. M., Carper, R. A. & Webb, S. J. 2004
Autism and abnormal development of brain connectivity.
J. Neurosci. 24, 9228–9231. (doi:10.1523/jneurosci.3340-
04.2004)
Bennetto, L., Kuschner, E. S. & Hyman, S. L. 2007 Olfaction
and taste processing in autism. Biol. Psychiatry 62,
1015–1021. (doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.04.019)
Bertone, A., Mottron, L., Jelenic, P. & Faubert, J. 2003 Motion
perception in autism: a ‘complex’ issue. J. Cogn. Neurosci.
15, 218–225. (doi:10.1162/089892903321208150)
Blakemore, S. J., Tavassoli, T., Calo, S., Thomas, R. M.,
Catmur, C., Frith, U. & Haggard, P. 2006 Tactile
sensitivity in Asperger syndrome. Brain Cogn. 61, 5–13.
(doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2005.12.013)
Bonnel, A., Mottron, L., Peretz, I., Trudel, M., Gallun, E. &
Bonnel, A.-M. 2003 Enhanced pitch sensitivity in
individuals with autism: a signal detection analysis.
J. Cogn. Neurosci. 15, 226–235. (doi:10.1162/0898929
03321208169)
Cascio, C., McGlone, F., Folger, S., Tannan, V., Baranek, G.,
Pelphrey, K. A. & Essick, G. 2008 Tactile perception in
adults with autism: a multidimensional psychophysical
study. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 38, 127–137. (doi:10.1007/
s10803-007-0370-8)
Frith, U. 1989 Autism: explaining the enigma. Oxford, UK:
Basil Blackwell.
Gomot, M., Bernard, F. A., Davis, M. H., Belmonte, M. K.,
Ashwin, C., Bullmore, E. T. & Baron-Cohen, S. 2006
Change detection in children with autism: an auditory
event-related fMRI study. Neuroimage 29, 475 – 495.
(doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.07.027)
Gomot, M.,Belmonte, M. K., Bullmore, E. T., Bernard, F. A. &
Baron-Cohen, S. 2008 Brain hyper-reactivity to auditory
novel targets in children with high-functioning autism. Brain
131,2479–2488.(doi:10.1093/brain/awn172)
Grandin, T. 1996 My experiences with visual thinking,
sensory problems and communication difficulties. The
Center for the Study of Autism. See http://www.autism.org/.
Happe
´, F. 1996 Autism. London, UK: UCL Press.
Happe
´, F. & Vital, P. 2009 What aspects of autism predispose
to talent? Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 364, 1369 –1375. (doi:10.
1098/rstb.2008.0332)
Heaton, P., Davis, R. E. & Happe
´, F. G. 2008 Research
note: exceptional absolute pitch perception for
spoken words in an able adult with autism. Neuropsycho-
logia 46, 2095 –2098. (doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.
2008.02.006)
Hermelin, B. 2002 Bright splinters of the mind: a personal story
of research with autistic savants. London, UK: Jessica
Kingsley.
Howlin, P., Goode, S., Hutton, J. & Rutter, M. 2009 Savant
skills in autism: psychometric approaches and parental
reports. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 364, 1359–1367. (doi:10.
1098/rstb.2008.0328)
Ja¨ rvinen-Pasley, A., Wallace, G. L., Ramus, F., Happe
´,F.&
Heaton, P. 2002 Enhanced perceptual processing of
speech in autism. Dev. Sci. 11, 109–121. (doi:10.1111/
j.1467-7687.2007.00644.x)
Jolliffe, T. & Baron-Cohen, S. 1997 Are people with autism or
Asperger’s syndrome faster than normal on the Embedded
Figures Task? J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 38, 527–534.
(doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01539.x)
Jolliffe, T. & Baron-Cohen, S. 2001 A test of central
coherence theory: can adults with high functioning autism
or Asperger syndrome integrate fragments of an object.
Cogn. Neuropsychiatry 6, 193 –216. (doi:10.1080/1354680
0042000124)
Kanner, L. 1943 Autistic disturbance of affective contact.
Nerv. Child 2, 217–250.
1382 S. Baron-Cohen et al. Talent in autism
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2009)
Kern, J. K., Trivedi, M. H., Garver, C. R., Grannemann,
B. D., Andrews, A. A., Savla, J. S., Johnson, D. G., Mehta,
J. A. & Schroeder, J. L. 2006 The pattern of sensory
processing abnormalities in autism. Autism 10, 480– 494.
(doi:10.1177/1362361306066564)
Leekam, S. R., Neito, C., Libby, S. J., Wing, L. & Gould, J.
2001 Describing the sensory abnormalities of children and
adults with autism. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 37, 894– 910.
(doi:10.1007/s10803-006-0218-7)
Mottron, L. & Burack, J. A. 2001 Enhanced perceptual
functioning in the development of autism. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Mottron, L., Burack, J. A., Stauder, J. E. & Robaey, P. 1999
Perceptual processing among high-functioning persons
with autism. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 40, 203–211.
(doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00433)
Mottron, L., Burack, J. A., Iarocci, G., Belleville, S. & Enns,
J. T. 2003 Locally orientated perception with intact global
processing among adolescents with high-functioning
autism: evidence from multiple paradigms. J. Child
Psychol. Psychiatry 44, 904– 913. (doi:10.1111/1469-
7610.00174)
O’Riordan, M. & Passetti, F. 2006 Discrimination in
autism within different sensory modalities. J. Aut ism
Dev. Disord. 36, 665–675. (doi:10.1007/s10803-006-
0106-1)
O’Riordan, M., Plaisted, K., Driver, J. & Baron-Cohen, S.
2001 Superior visual search in autism. J. Exp. Psychol.
Hum. Percept. Perform. 27, 719–730. (doi:10.1037/0096-
1523.27.3.719)
Ozonoff, S., Pennington, B. & Rogers, S. 1991 Executive
function deficits in high-functioning autistic children:
relationship to theory of mind. J. Child Psychol.
Psychiatry 32, 1081–1106. (doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.
1991.tb00351.x)
Perner, J., Frith, U., Leslie, A. M. & Leekam, S. 1989
Exploration of the autistic child’s theory of mind: knowl-
edge, belief, and communication. Child Dev. 60, 689 –700.
(doi:10.2307/1130734)
Rumsey, J. & Hamberger, S. 1988 Neuropsychological
findings in high functioning men with infantile autism,
residual state. J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol. 10, 201–221.
(doi:10.1080/01688638808408236)
Russell, J. 1997 How executive disorders can bring about an
inadequate theory of mind. In Autism as an executive
disorder (ed. J. Russell), pp. 256–304. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Shah, A. & Frith, U. 1983 An islet of ability in autism:
a research note. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 24, 613 –620.
(doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1983.tb00137.x)
Shah, A. & Frith, U. 1993 Why do autistic individuals show
superior performance on the block design test? J. Child
Psychol. Psychiatry 34, 1351–1364. (doi:10.1111/j.1469-
7610.1993.tb02095.x)
Suzuki, Y., Critchley, H. D., Rowe, A., Howlin, P. & Murphy,
D. G. 2003 Impaired olfactory identification in Asperger’s
syndrome. J. Neuropsychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 15, 105 –107.
(doi:10.1176/appi.neuropsych.15.1.105)
Tavassoli, T., Ashwin, E., Ashwin, C., Chakrabarti, B. &
Baron-Cohen, S. Submitted. Multimodal hypersensitivity
in individuals with autism spectrum conditions.
Tomchek, S. D. & Dunn, W. 2007 Sensory processing
in children with and without autism: a comparative
study using the short sensory profile. Am. J. Occup. Ther.
61, 190–200.
Tommerdahl, M., Tannan, V., Cascio, C. J., Baranek, G. T. &
Whitsel, B. L. 2007 Vibrotactile adaptation fails to enhance
spatial localization in adults with autism. Brain Res. 1154,
116–123. (doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2007.04.032)
Wing, L. 1997 The autistic spectrum. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Talent in autism S. Baron-Cohen et al. 1383
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2009)
A preview of this full-text is provided by The Royal Society.
Content available from Philosophical Transactions B
This content is subject to copyright.
