Gaming for Autism to Mold Executive Skills Project

Not Applicable

Completed

Conditions: Autism Spectrum Disorders

Interventions: Behavioral: Computerized executive control training

Registration Number: NCT02361762

Lead Sponsor: Boston Children's Hospital

Brief Summary: The goal of the project is to better understand executive control-how children manage complex or conflicting information in the service of a goal. This skill has been linked to social and academic functioning in typically developing children. Executive control is often reduced in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), but it has not been a focus of treatment. This project will have the goal of determining whether computer-training tasks developed to enhance the executive control skills of preschoolers and school-aged children without autism are appropriate for children with ASD. The investigators do not yet know if this training is beneficial for children with ASD. In addition, because executive control has been found to relate to social knowledge and problem solving, the investigators will collect information with this type of task to measure possible effects of training.

Detailed Description: Participation will include two phone calls to determine if the study is a good fit and collect some preliminary information, five visits to Boston Children's Hospital (3 before training and 2 about 6-8 weeks later), caregiver questionnaires, and an optional teacher questionnaire packet. The visits will include activities designed to assess verbal and nonverbal thinking ability; social skills and general interests; and specific tasks related to cognitive and social problem solving. In addition, EEG measurement of brain function will be made. EEG is a non-invasive recording of brain activity. Children will be randomly assigned (i.e., like flipping a coin) to receive training or to a non-training group. The training group will complete tasks designed to improve executive control presented over the course of 5-10 1-hour sessions. All tasks are game-like and are presented on a computer with child friendly graphics. A staff member will work with each child as he/she completes the training activities. Children assigned to the non-training group will be invited to participate in training at the end of the study if it is shown to improve executive control.

Recruitment & Eligibility

Status: COMPLETED

Sex: All

Target Recruitment: 70

Inclusion Criteria

Children should be 7 to 11 years of age
Children must have a parent/guardian who is available and willing to provide informed consent and to respond to screening phone calls
Children should have an existing diagnosis of an autism spectrum disorder, which will be confirmed using research measures and criteria
Children must have general cognitive ability in the average range or above (above 80 using the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence-2 Full Scale IQ)
Caregivers and children must be fluent in English

Exclusion Criteria

Children must not have a seizure disorder or be taking medication that alters EEG processes (e.g. anti-seizure medications)
Children must not have medical disorders or injuries affecting the brain or spinal cord
Children may not have experienced significant prenatal exposure to substances such as tobacco, alcohol or street drugs
Children may not have significant sensory or motor impairment that would limit the ability to participate in table top or EEG testing, or make responding during computer activities difficult

Study & Design

Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL

Study Design: PARALLEL

Arm && Interventions

Group	Intervention	Description
Training	Computerized executive control training	Computerized executive control training

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Event-related Potentials Assessed During Child Attention Network Flanker Task	Baseline (Pre Training/Waitlist Phase) and at 11-12 Weeks (Post Training/Waitlist Phase)	Conflict Processing-Event Related Potential (ERP) Brain Response (N2 mean amplitude) Data were compared for congruent and incongruent conditions at each time point (baseline and post testing). Each trial of the task began with a beep for 150ms paired with a fixation cross for 450ms at the center of the screen. Then, a target and flankers were presented for 2000ms. Congruent trials (50%) consisted of a central target animal flanked by two animals on each side with the same orientation and size as the target. Incongruent trials (50%) were identical except that the target and flankers faced opposite directions. Children pressed a button indicating the direction the target animal faced (50% left, 50% right) and received visual and auditory feedback upon responding.
Change Task - Stop Signal Reaction Time	Baseline (Pre Training/Waitlist Phase) and at 11-12 Weeks (Post Training/Waitlist Phase)	Conflict Processing-Behavior (Post-testing controlling for Baseline) Children indicate the location of a picture by pressing the left and right arrow buttons for 75% of the trials (i.e., the dominant task). For the remaining 25% of trials, a stop signal appears and a Change response (i.e., space bar) was required. Stop signals occurred equally at 50, 200, 350, and 500 ms before the anticipated response based on the child's reaction time. The SSRT estimates the latency of inhibitory responding to the stop signal. Lower scores indicate more rapid inhibition.
Stroop Task (Difference in Percentage of Correct Responses for Congruent Minus Incongruent Trials)	Baseline (Pre Training/Waitlist Phase) and at 11-12 Weeks (Post Training/Waitlist Phase)	Conflict Processing-Behavior (Post-testing controlling for Baseline) Trials were presented in three conditions: (1) congruent trials (25%); (2) incongruent trials (25%); and (3) neutral trials (50%). The difference between percent correct for congruent and incongruent conditions was the dependent variable, such that larger differences indicated more difficulty with conflicting information. Lower scores at Post-testing indicate improved ability to suppress interfering/conflicting information.
BRIEF Parent Survey (Global Executive Composite)	Baseline (Pre Training/Waitlist Phase) and at 11-12 Weeks (Post Training/Waitlist Phase)	Executive Control at home/school-Generalization (Post-testing controlling for Baseline) Global Executive Composite (GEC) scores are available for parents. The GEC is comprised of two sub-scales: Metacognition and Behavioral Regulation. T-scores are reported for the GEC (range = 30-100). Higher scores reflect more difficulty with executive function. At Post, lower scores represent a better outcome. Note: Teacher BRIEF was originally planned as an outcome measure, but due to low teacher response (10 teachers provided data for each group at both time points) the results were not analyzed.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Social Attribution Task (SAT) - Problem Solving Scale	Baseline (Pre Training/Waitlist Phase) and at 11-12 Weeks (Post Training/Waitlist Phase)	Theory of Mind Behavior (Post-testing controlling for Baseline) A measure of generalization.
Theory of Mind Composite: Perception Knowledge, Location Change False Belief, Unexpected-contents False Belief	Baseline (Pre Training/Waitlist Phase) and at 11-12 Weeks (Post Training/Waitlist Phase)	Theory of Mind (TOM) Behavior (Post-testing controlling for Baseline) A measure of generalization Composite score by computing the percent correct (range = 0-100% correct) across three video tasks measuring cognitive aspects of theory of mind (i.e., the Perception Knowledge Task, Location Change False Belief Task, and Unexpected-contents False Belief Task). Higher scores represent better performance (i.e., more correct responses). Higher scores at post testing represent better outcomes.
Social Skills Improvement System-Parent (SSIS) - Social Standard Score	Baseline (Pre Training/Waitlist Phase) and at 11-12 Weeks (Post Training/Waitlist Phase)	Social function home (Post-testing controlling for Baseline). A measure of generalization. Scores were available from parents. The SSIS Social Scale organizes prosocial behaviors into seven areas or subscales: Communication, Cooperation, Assertion, Responsibility, Empathy, Engagement, and Self-Control. Scores range from 40-160. Higher scores reflect more prosocial skills (i.e., better social ability). At Post, higher scores represent a better outcome. Note: Teacher SSIS was originally planned as an outcome measure, but due to low teacher response the results were not analyzed.
Narrative Language Task	Baseline (Pre Training/Waitlist Phase) and at 11-12 Weeks (Post Training/Waitlist Phase)	Social Communication Ability Behavior (Post-testing controlling for Baseline). A measure of generalization.
Performance on Hungry Donkey Task Assessed as Ratio of Safe to Risky Selections	Baseline (Pre Training/Waitlist Phase) and at 11-12 Weeks (Post Training/Waitlist Phase)	Conflict Processing (Reward) Behavior (Post-testing controlling for Baseline). Children selected from four doors with varying reward and loss ratios. Two doors have lower rewards but an overall net gain (safe) and two doors have higher rewards but an overall net loss (risky). Scores represent the ratio of safe to risky selections in the final two blocks (of five total blocks administered).
Backward Digit Span (Scaled Score)	Baseline (Pre Training/Waitlist Phase) and at 11-12 Weeks (Post Training/Waitlist Phase)	Working Memory Behavior (Post-testing controlling for Baseline) A control task - not specifically targeted by intervention. Scaled score for Backward Digit Span (higher scores represent better memory). Scaled scores are reported (range = 1-19). Higher scores reflect better working memory (an aspect of executive function). At Post, higher scores represent a better outcome.
TOM Test (Theory of Mind Test)	Baseline (Pre Training/Waitlist Phase) and at 11-12 Weeks (Post Training/Waitlist Phase)	Theory of Mind Behavior (Post-testing controlling for Baseline). A measure of generalization. Overall percent correct across the three sub-scales (i.e., percent correct calculated across all items of Level 1-Precursors, Level 2-First Order False Belief, and Level 3-Advanced) is reported. The percent correct ranges from 0-100% correct. Higher scores represent better theory of mind (affective and first/second order false belief).
Event-related Potentials Assessed During Cued Go/Nogo Task	Baseline (Pre Training/Waitlist Phase) and at 11-12 Weeks (Post Training/Waitlist Phase)	Conflict Processing-ERP Brain Response (N2 mean amplitude) Data were compared for Go and Nogo conditions at each time point (baseline and post testing). The task included 200 test trials. During 'go' trials (70% of trials), children were instructed to press a single button on a keypad each time a letter appeared on the screen. During 'nogo' trials (30% of trials), children were instructed to withhold their response when a specific letter appeared on the screen. To account for the confound of frequency with condition, two letters were used for go trials - an infrequent go (30% of trials) and a frequent go (40% of trials). Go responses were analyzed only for the infrequent go trials. Each trial was preceded by a fixation cross presented on the screen for 500 ms. Test trials were then presented for 700 ms. Only ERPs for correct trials that followed a correct 'go' response were analyzed in order to ensure consistent motor response on the previous trial.