Atypical event-related potentials revealed during the passive parts of a Go-NoGo task in autism spectrum disorder: a case-control study.

The study was a small case-control comparison, not a treatment trial, so it cannot show that therapy changes these brain responses. The passive brain-response finding was an unexpected secondary analysis, and the authors say the task was complex and the result needs replication in independent samples with a simpler paradigm. No formal power analysis was possible, and the sample size was based on previous studies rather than a calculation. ASD diagnoses were not re-assessed for the study; they were based on prior clinical diagnosis and parent questionnaire. The control group was not IQ-tested; matching relied on school recruitment and parent reports of no learning or psychiatric problems. Everyday executive function was measured only by parent report. Some participants were adults, and the same parent-report questionnaire was used. The ASD group included comorbid ADHD, epilepsy and medication use. When participants with ADHD were removed, the main ERP differences did not materially change. The sensitivity and specificity values were exploratory and were not validated in a separate sample. The sample was 12 to 21 years old and had no intellectual disability, so it may not apply to younger children, adults, or people with intellectual disability.

Funded by The Liaison Committee for education, research and innovation in Central Norway, Norges Forskningsråd and Stiftelsen Kristian Gerhard Jebsen. The supplied text lists funders but gives no author conflict statements.

Do not read the N1 latency and P3a differences as a clinical diagnostic test or a therapy target. The cut-offs were exploratory, the finding came from a secondary analysis, and the authors say it needs replication in independent samples with a simpler task.