Reduced Pseudoneglect for Physical Space, but not Mental Representations of Space, for Adults with Autistic Traits.

Ivy et al. (2017) asked 48 college students to do two quick computer tasks.

One task showed lines on a screen. Students marked each line’s middle with a mouse.

The other task showed a number line from 1 to 9. Students said where each spoken number should sit on the line.

Half the students scored high on an autism-trait survey; half scored low.

On the screen lines, the high-trait group placed marks closer to the true center. They showed less “left-side pull,” called pseudoneglect.

On the mental number line, both groups still placed small numbers a bit left and big numbers right. The high-trait group looked normal here.

So the bias drop only happened for real visual space, not for imagined space.

Cari-Léne et al. (2019) extends this idea to body space. They found autistic adults feel their personal bubble as smaller and sharper, matching the tighter spatial bias seen here.

van Timmeren et al. (2016) conceptually replicates the finding with brain waves. Their EEG showed the same high-trait adults struggle to shut out side pictures, giving a neural reason for the weaker left-side pull.

Laycock et al. (2014) set the stage by showing high-trait adults also miss brief visual objects. Together, the three papers paint one picture: autistic traits bring real-world visual attention gaps, but only when the task uses outside space, not inner maps.

When you test visual skills, place materials straight in front and give extra time. The usual left-side shortcut may not work for clients with high autistic traits. For number lines, timers, or schedules drawn in the mind, you can keep your normal layout because that bias stays intact.