Video: Affinity, assessing and quantifying the behavior of ASD people in presence of their affinity.

Question: What is the affinity?

Myriam Chérel :
Every autistic person has a fixation, a ritualization, an obsession, or even an object to the extent that Frances Tustin, one of the pioneers in the field, elevated this preference for objects to the level of a concept, distinguishing them from comfort items.

In psychopathology, we’ve studied the functions of these objects and their presence. Why do autistic people love manipulating, watching, and mastering them, contrary to their reluctance in social interactions, their unease or even anxiety around others? These objects, these affinities, take the place of language. We know that to build one’s sense of self, to find a place in the world, and to access speech, one must pass through language. But in its absence, autistic individuals form an attachment to an affinity, an object, or a boundary through which they unfold their world and immense capacities. Ultimately, this serves as their entry point into social connection and helps them access learning.

Question: What is the goal of the Affinity project?

Myriam Chérel :
We wanted to demonstrate that the affinities of each autistic person are crucial—not only for their functioning but also for helping them open up to others, the world, and social connections. Our research aimed to find ways to scientifically prove this.

Meriem Outtas :
To scientifically prove the importance of affinity for autistic individuals, it was essential to objectively evaluate their visual engagement with these affinities using digital and statistical methods.

Question: What skills were involved in this project?

Myriam Chérel :
I would say human qualities. Of course, we come from two very different laboratories—hard sciences on one side, social sciences on the other. In my field, clinical psychopathology and psychoanalytic clinic are central. But we needed real researchers, as they say, from different universities. More importantly, it was about the human aspect.

Meriem Outtas :
Absolutely. It also involved skills in computer vision, designing and conducting experimental tests on human vision, statistical analysis, data analysis, and, above all, human competencies.

Question: How did you manage to collaborate despite your different areas of expertise?

Julie Fournier :
It’s true that we come from very different fields. I’m on the computer science side, while Emma and Pauline come from psychology. At first, it was sometimes difficult to understand each other because we didn’t share the same vocabulary or methods. It was important to simplify our subjects enough to make them understandable to all team members, while still maintaining the complexity needed for everyone to grasp the key issues of the other fields. We also created a summary document that we kept updating with definitions from each discipline so that everyone could follow along. Now, communication flows much more smoothly.

Question: What were the stages of this project?

Julie Fournier :
There were three major phases in the project. The first was setting up the experimental protocol and, most importantly, adapting it for autistic individuals, as they have different needs compared to what we’re used to in computer science. For this, we connected with an association experienced in working with autistic people and digital tools, and they helped us make the protocol more suitable for autistic participants. At the same time, the psychological team set up partnerships with institutions to ensure they would collaborate with us and allow us to conduct experiments on-site.

Pauline Mann :
In the second phase, the actual experiments, we visited four institutions in two successive steps. First, we immersed ourselves in the daily life of the autistic subjects at the institutions. Then, we set up the computer workshop alongside the experiments.

Emma Bucher :
Pauline and I visited the institutions ahead of time to familiarize ourselves with the subjects and the professionals, which allowed us to collect complementary data. We accompanied the subjects during the experiments. The final phase was data analysis. Based on our clinical framework, we created categories that enabled us to analyze the results and compare the subjects. Julie was then able to carry out statistical analyses from these categories.

Question: Affinity includes experiments with a human audience. What are the ethical implications?

Myriam Chérel :
Ethically, we had to respect their symptoms, fears, and possible moments of anxiety. Our ethical stance was to ensure our presence was accepted by the participants, that they felt reassured and safe. Our doctoral students spent two to three weeks living daily in the institutions with the autistic participants to establish trust and make them comfortable with the equipment for the experiments.

Meriem Outtas :
As for data protection, we chose not to share the data, in full compliance with GDPR regulations.

Question: What tools did you use for the experiments?

Julie Fournier :
We conducted an eye-tracking experiment using a device called an eye tracker, which measures gaze positions on a screen. We projected various images, some representing the subject’s affinity and others neutral. At the same time, we used a Kinect as a depth camera to measure the distance between the subject and the screen. Autistic individuals often struggle to remain still, sometimes moving close to the screen when particularly interested in an image, causing the tracker to lose data. The Kinect allowed us to retain important information. After collecting the data, we applied statistical tests to identify visual behavior differences based on the type of images viewed, specifically to determine whether the observed differences could be attributed to the nature of the images.

Pauline Mann :
We also developed a clinical data collection table based on existing literature, which evolved through our meetings with professionals and participants in the institutions. This table helped us gather data on body image, language, social interactions, and affinities, contextualizing and comparing the participants. We also created another table during the experiment to collect additional clinical data alongside Julie’s observations.

Question: What results did you obtain?

Julie Fournier :
To measure visual attention, we studied two main types of eye movements: fixations and saccades. Fixations are when the gaze is relatively stable, allowing the brain to process visual information. Between fixations, we observe saccades—quick movements during which the brain doesn’t analyze the visual field. We distinguished four main behavioral types from our results. First, for some subjects, there was no difference between affinity images and neutral ones. For others, we noticed increased attention on affinity images, indicated by more and wider eye movements. Some subjects, however, showed an aversion to affinity images, avoiding prolonged gaze, which we attributed to the involuntary appearance of their affinity, leading to feelings of intrusion and anxiety. The final behavior was a paradoxical mix of heightened attention and gaze avoidance, reflecting both a fascination and discomfort with the affinity.

Question: Were these results in line with your expectations?

Emma Bucher :
There were surprises because clinical encounters always bring unexpected results. Some previously silent subjects started talking in front of their affinities, while others, who were usually more withdrawn, remained present during the experiments. Some even asked to repeat the experiment multiple times. What also surprised us was how the digital workshop preceding the experiment helped establish connections with the subjects, most of whom eagerly engaged with tablets or computers, creating a valuable link with them.

Pauline Mann :
Autistic individuals often struggle with social interactions, and affinities are sometimes criticized for promoting isolation. However, what we observed during the workshops was that affinities actually facilitate their openness to the world, provided we show interest in their objects and give them the initiative in forming social connections.

Question: What was the LabEx CominLabs’ contribution to the Affinity project?

Myriam Chérel :
In February 2019, the LabEx supported this multidisciplinary project, spearheaded by Olivier Le Meur, who initiated this exploration of the specificities of autism. This exploratory action allowed us to gather initial data and develop new objectives for proposing the Affinity project. That’s when Lu and Meriem joined this significant endeavor.

Question: What future avenues remain to be explored?

Meriem Outtas : We are currently in the phase of thesis defenses. The first defense on visual attention in autistic individuals received a lot of positive feedback from the jury, suggesting there is much more to explore in terms of experiments and visual attention in autism.

Myriam Chérel :
From a clinical perspective, even though the thesis is nearly finished, it’s clear that the research has significant implications for body image construction. Another key finding is the high prevalence of digital affinities among autistic individuals, which opens up many more avenues for exploration, especially in video games. Many autistic individuals demonstrate that creating avatars helps them form social connections, as interacting through a character is much easier for them. So, there’s still much to explore, particularly with digital tools.

Meriem Outtas :
We’ve started writing a new project—yes, I think it’s fair to say—that focuses on developing a digital tool to help autistic individuals open up to the world through their affinities.

Myriam Chérel :
The key would be for this digital tool to be fully customizable by each individual, ensuring a tailor-made approach. Ethically, it’s important that the tool is not “one-size-fits-all,” but adaptable to the specific needs of each user.