Comparison of Human Experts and AI in Predicting Autism from Facial Behavior.

Advances in computational behavior analysis via artificial intelligence (AI) promise to improve mental healthcare services by providing clinicians with tools to assist diagnosis or measurement of treatment outcomes. This potential has spurred an increasing number of studies in which automated pipelines predict diagnoses of mental health conditions. However, a fundamental question remains unanswered: How do the predictions of the AI algorithms correspond and compare with the predictions of humans? This is a critical question if AI technology is to be used as an assistive tool, because the utility of an AI algorithm would be negligible if it provides little information beyond what clinicians can readily infer. In this paper, we compare the performance of 19 human raters (8 autism experts and 11 non-experts) and that of an AI algorithm in terms of predicting autism diagnosis from short (3-minute) videos of N = 42 participants in a naturalistic conversation. Results show that the AI algorithm achieves an average accuracy of 80.5%, which is comparable to that of clinicians with expertise in autism (83.1%) and clinical research staff without specialized expertise (78.3%). Critically, diagnoses that were inaccurately predicted by most humans (experts and non-experts, alike) were typically correctly predicted by AI. Our results highlight the potential of AI as an assistive tool that can augment clinician diagnostic decision-making.

Predicting Autism from Head Movement Patterns during Naturalistic Social Interactions.

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental condition characterized in part by difficulties in verbal and nonverbal social communication. Evidence indicates that autistic people, compared to neurotypical peers, exhibit differences in head movements, a key form of nonverbal communication. Despite the crucial role of head movements in social communication, research on this nonverbal cue is relatively scarce compared to other forms of nonverbal communication, such as facial expressions and gestures. There is a need for scalable, reliable, and accurate instruments for measuring head movements directly within the context of social interactions. In this study, we used computer vision and machine learning to examine the head movement patterns of neurotypical and autistic individuals during naturalistic, face-to-face conversations, at both the individual (monadic) and interpersonal (dyadic) levels. Our model predicts diagnostic status using dyadic head movement data with an accuracy of 80%, highlighting the value of head movement as a marker of social communication. The monadic data pipeline had lower accuracy (69.2%) compared to the dyadic approach, emphasizing the importance of studying back-and-forth social communication cues within a true social context. The proposed classifier is not intended for diagnostic purposes, and future research should replicate our findings in larger, more representative samples.

Head Movement Patterns during Face-to-Face Conversations Vary with Age.

Advances in computational behavior analysis have the potential to increase our understanding of behavioral patterns and developmental trajectories in neurotypical individuals, as well as in individuals with mental health conditions marked by motor, social, and emotional difficulties. This study focuses on investigating how head movement patterns during face-to-face conversations vary with age from childhood through adulthood. We rely on computer vision techniques due to their suitability for analysis of social behaviors in naturalistic settings, since video data capture can be unobtrusively embedded within conversations between two social partners. The methods in this work include unsupervised learning for movement pattern clustering, and supervised classification and regression as a function of age. The results demonstrate that 3-minute video recordings of head movements during conversations show patterns that distinguish between participants that are younger vs. older than 12 years with 78% accuracy. Additionally, we extract relevant patterns of head movement upon which the age distinction was determined by our models.