==== Front Mol Autism Mol Autism Molecular Autism 2040-2392 BioMed Central London 400 10.1186/s13229-020-00400-y Research Alpha connectivity and inhibitory control in adults with autism spectrum disorder http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3499-1784Yuk Veronica veronica.yuk@mail.utoronto.ca 123 Dunkley Benjamin T. 124 Anagnostou Evdokia 56 Taylor Margot J. 123 1 grid.42327.300000 0004 0473 9646Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University Avenue, Toronto, ON M5G 1X8 Canada 2 grid.42327.300000 0004 0473 9646Neurosciences and Mental Health Program, SickKids Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON Canada 3 grid.17063.330000 0001 2157 2938Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON Canada 4 grid.17063.330000 0001 2157 2938Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON Canada 5 grid.42327.300000 0004 0473 9646Department of Neurology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON Canada 6 grid.414294.e0000 0004 0572 4702Bloorview Research Institute, Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital, Toronto, ON Canada 7 12 2020 7 12 2020 2020 11 957 10 2019 18 11 2020 © The Author(s) 2020Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.Background Individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) often report difficulties with inhibition in everyday life. During inhibition tasks, adults with ASD show reduced activation of and connectivity between brain areas implicated in inhibition, suggesting impairments in inhibitory control at the neural level. Our study further investigated these differences by using magnetoencephalography (MEG) to examine the frequency band(s) in which functional connectivity underlying response inhibition occurs, as brain functions are frequency specific, and whether connectivity in certain frequency bands differs between adults with and without ASD. Methods We analysed MEG data from 40 adults with ASD (27 males; 26.94 ± 6.08 years old) and 39 control adults (27 males; 27.29 ± 5.94 years old) who performed a Go/No-go task. The task involved two blocks with different proportions of No-go trials: Inhibition (25% No-go) and Vigilance (75% No-go). We compared whole-brain connectivity in the two groups during correct No-go trials in the Inhibition vs. Vigilance blocks between 0 and 400 ms. Results Despite comparable performance on the Go/No-go task, adults with ASD showed reduced connectivity compared to controls in the alpha band (8–14 Hz) in a network with a main hub in the right inferior frontal gyrus. Decreased connectivity in this network predicted more self-reported difficulties on a measure of inhibition in everyday life. Limitations Measures of everyday inhibitory control were not available for all participants, so this relationship between reduced network connectivity and inhibitory control abilities may not be necessarily representative of all adults with ASD or the larger ASD population. Further research with independent samples of adults with ASD, including those with a wider range of cognitive abilities, would be valuable. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate reduced functional brain connectivity during response inhibition in adults with ASD. As alpha-band synchrony has been linked to top-down control mechanisms, we propose that the lack of alpha synchrony observed in our ASD group may reflect difficulties in suppressing task-irrelevant information, interfering with inhibition in real-life situations. Keywords AlphaAutismConnectivityGo/No-goInhibitionMEGhttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000024Canadian Institutes of Health ResearchMOP-119541MOP-142379Taylor Margot J. issue-copyright-statement© The Author(s) 2020 ==== Body Background Inhibition is one of the core executive functions that allows an individual to control their attention, thoughts, and behaviour by suppressing processes that hinder or are irrelevant to one’s goals [1]. The extent to which individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) experience difficulties with inhibition has been investigated across a variety of tasks. While there are reports showing some preserved inhibition in this population [2–4], others appear to suggest deficits in inhibitory control in people with ASD [5–8], such as in response inhibition specifically [9–12]. Moreover, as inhibition may underlie working memory [13] and cognitive flexibility [1], impairments in inhibition can have significant downstream effects on more complex behaviours required in everyday life in individuals with ASD, such as in reciprocal conversation [14]. These behavioural reports of inhibition deficits suggest differences in the functioning of the inhibitory control brain network in ASD. This network consists of several right-lateralized frontoparietal regions [15–17], including the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), insula, supplementary motor area (SMA), anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), and inferior and superior parietal lobules (IPL and SPL), of which the right IFG plays a prominent role [18–21]. Research using magnetoencephalography (MEG), which is sensitive to the timing of neural activity [22], has illustrated that these regions appear to be maximally active between 200 and 400 ms, after stimulus onset [23–25]. Electroencephalographic (EEG) studies have also revealed that peaks in event-related potentials at around 200 and 300 ms are associated with conflict monitoring and motor inhibition, respectively [26–29]. This neural activity consists of oscillations at different frequencies, specifically in the theta (4–7 Hz), alpha (8–14 Hz), beta (15–30 Hz), and gamma (> 30 Hz) bands, each of which plays a certain role in successful inhibition. For instance, greater oscillatory activity or power in the theta band has been observed selectively in trials involving response inhibition [30–32], potentially indicating the monitoring of conflicting responses [33, 34]. Increases in alpha power within brain regions are thought to reflect inhibition of a learned response or of task-irrelevant areas [35–37], while beta oscillations are believed to signify inhibition of a motor response [38–40] and maintenance of an ongoing sensorimotor or cognitive state [41]. Modulation of gamma activity may reflect changes in the balance of local excitatory and inhibitory neural activity that underlies a variety of cognitive functions, including response inhibition and other executive functions [42–47]. However, how these brain regions convey information through long-range synchrony to exert inhibitory control has not been well investigated. Generally, interregional communication and integration of information, as well as top-down control, are thought to be mediated by theta, alpha, and beta oscillations [48–53], whereas gamma oscillations are thought to reflect more local dynamics, as the gamma signal tends to diminish over longer distances [54, 55]. In addition, a few EEG studies have found that theta- and alpha-band synchrony are involved in response inhibition [32, 56]. It is important to better understand how connectivity facilitates inhibition, especially in the context of ASD, as people with ASD have demonstrated reduced long-range connectivity patterns in a wide range of domains, especially in the lower frequency bands [57–60] (see [61] for a review). For instance, in tasks of other executive functions, such as working memory and cognitive flexibility, individuals with ASD exhibit reduced theta- and alpha-band connectivity [62, 63]. Several studies have demonstrated atypical activation and functional connectivity of the inhibition brain network in the ASD population, even when behavioural differences were not observed. Compared to controls, fMRI and MEG studies have found that many individuals with ASD exhibit reduced activation of regions in this network, such as in the right IFG and insula [64], ACC [65–67], and right IPL [68, 69], as well as decreased connectivity between nodes of the inhibition network [65, 66], which may be specific to the alpha band [70], and which may worsen with age [71]. Conversely, a few fMRI investigations have shown increased activity in areas within and outside of the inhibition network [72, 73] and increased connectivity among regions of this network that differed from connectivity patterns in controls [74], suggesting the development of alternative neural mechanisms of inhibitory control in these samples. Furthermore, some studies have found that these differences in activity and connectivity relate to task performance and ASD symptomatology [64, 65, 67, 74]. Taken together, it appears that individuals with ASD have alterations in their recruitment of brain regions responsible for inhibitory control, which correlate with behaviour. The present study examines functional brain connectivity involved in inhibition in adults with ASD to better understand the relationship between these differences in brain function and the inhibitory difficulties experienced by this population. As considerable evidence has suggested that ASD may be characterized by patterns of altered functional connectivity [61, 75–79], we focused our analyses of inhibitory control in ASD on this aspect of neural function. Only one study with a small N (11/group) has explored the specificity of connectivity differences in certain frequency bands [70], even though oscillations at different frequencies are thought to underlie distinct inhibitory processes. This previous work assessed connectivity between specified brain regions implicated in inhibition, but not how they might differentially communicate with the rest of the brain. Thus, we investigated whether adults with ASD, compared to controls, would show differences in whole-brain functional connectivity during a Go/No-go response inhibition task using MEG, which is capable of accurately resolving the timing and frequency of neural activity [22]. Specifically, we examined synchrony among areas throughout the brain that form networks in the theta, alpha, and beta frequency bands between 0–400 ms, post stimulus onset, as this window would capture the onset and peak activation of the inhibitory control network and relevant oscillation frequencies underlying long-range interregional communication. We also explored the relationship between any differences in functional connectivity with task performance and difficulties with inhibition in everyday life to ascertain whether such connectivity differences might contribute to inhibitory control abilities. Methods and materials Participants We recruited 45 control adults and 54 adults with ASD between the ages of 18–40 years for this study. We screened for full-scale, two subtest IQ ≥ 70 as measured by the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI or WASI-II) [80, 81], no premature birth, no MRI or MEG contraindications, and in the control group specifically, no history of developmental, neurological, psychiatric, or psychological disorders. All participants with ASD received a primary diagnosis of ASD from a clinical expert. After standard preprocessing of the MEG data, we excluded five adults with ASD due to poor task performance (≤ 50% on Go trials, or ≤ 50% on No-go trials in the Vigilance condition; see the ‘Go/No-go MEG task’ section for a description of the Vigilance condition), one adult with ASD for missing head localization data for more than half of the recording session, and eight adults with ASD for excessive artefacts in the MEG data, such that < 40 trials (half the total possible number of trials) remained after data preprocessing. Subsequently, six control adults were excluded when matching the groups on age and sex. Thus, in the final sample, there were 39 control adults and 40 adults with ASD. The two groups did not differ on age (t(77) = 0.26, p = 0.79), sex (X2(1) = 0, p = 1), or IQ (t(65.28) = 1.01, p = 0.32). In the ASD group, we had scores for 37 adults on the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, Generic or Version 2 (ADOS-G or ADOS-2) [82, 83]. Demographic data are presented in Table 1.Table 1 Demographic data Control (N = 39) ASD (N = 40) Mean (SD) or count Mean (SD) or count Age 27.29 (5.94) 26.94 (6.08) Sex 27 M, 12 F 27 M, 13 F Handedness 33 R, 6 L 35 R, 5 L Full-scale IQ 114.24 (11.33) Range: [92–157], n = 38 110.95 (16.63) Range: [72–136], n = 38 ADOS CSS – 6.95 (2.15) Range: [2–10], n = 37 ADOS Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, CSS calibrated severity score Experimental design Questionnaires We asked participants to rate themselves on their executive functioning abilities using the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, Adult Version (BRIEF-A) [84]. The BRIEF-A is a questionnaire consisting of 75 items that assess abilities in a range of executive functions in everyday life, such as inhibition, working memory, and shifting. Participants were also rated on this questionnaire by an informant, or someone who knew the participant well (i.e., parent, partner, close friend, etc.). T scores on the Inhibit scale of the BRIEF-A were taken as measures of their everyday inhibitory control, with higher scores indicating poorer inhibition. Participants were also asked to complete the Social Responsiveness Scale, Second Version (SRS-2) [85]. The SRS-2 includes 65 items that measure impairments in several social domains associated with ASD, such as cognition, communication, and motivation, as well as restricted interests and repetitive behaviour. Scores on the social and restricted interests/repetitive behaviour subscales can be combined to measure overall severity of ASD symptoms. SRS-2 Total t scores were used as a measure of ASD symptom severity in our sample, wherein higher scores represent more severe ASD symptomatology. Go/No-go MEG task Participants performed a Go/No-go task in the MEG scanner (Fig. 1), adapted from previous work in our lab [24, 25, 69]. They were asked to press a button as quickly as possible in response to Go stimuli, which were five geometric shapes that were either blue or purple, totalling ten possible stimuli. Participants were also instructed to refrain from responding to No-go stimuli, which consisted of the same Go stimuli, but with a white ‘x’ superimposed on the centre of the shape. On each trial, the stimuli appeared in the middle of a grey box measuring 5 × 5 cm, centred on a black background. Between trials, a black fixation cross appeared in the centre of the grey box.Fig. 1 The Go/No-go task. Participants were instructed to press a button as quickly as possible upon seeing the Go stimuli (solid blue or purple shapes) and inhibit this response for No-go stimuli (solid blue or purple shapes with a white ‘x’ in the middle). No-go trials are highlighted in this figure with a coloured border. Stimuli were presented for a duration ranging from 300–700 ms, and interstimulus intervals (ISIs) lasted from 650–1300 ms, with a jitter of ± 200 ms. Stimulus presentation and ISI length were adapted to participants’ performance. Participants completed two blocks of this task: Inhibition (75% Go and 25% No-go trials) and Vigilance (25% Go and 75% No-go trials) To maintain a rapid response rate, we adapted the stimulus and interstimulus interval (ISI) durations to participants’ performance, as done previously (e.g., [69]). Stimulus duration ranged between 300–700 ms, while ISI duration ranged between 650–1300 ms, plus a random jitter of ± 200 ms; at the beginning of the task, stimulus and ISI durations were at maximum. Durations were increased or decreased within these ranges to maintain an overall accuracy of about 80% in No-go trials and 95% in Go trials. A more detailed description of the protocol for adjusting these durations can be found in Additional file 1. The task was run in two counterbalanced blocks: Inhibition and Vigilance. In the Inhibition condition, 75% of trials were Go and 25% were No-go, to ensure the establishment of a prepotent response that would have to be inhibited during the No-go trials. In the Vigilance condition, 25% of trials were Go and 75% were No-go, so very little inhibitory control was required for No-go trials. The Vigilance condition was run as a control for the Inhibition condition; while much of the existing literature has compared No-go trials to Go trials, the Go trials contain a strong motor response not present in No-go trials, so we instead contrasted No-go trials from a highly demanding situation (i.e., Inhibition) to those in a less demanding situation (i.e., Vigilance). Participants were familiarized with both blocks of the task before the MEG session. In the MEG scanner, the stimuli were back-projected onto a screen that was 80 cm away from the dewar and presented using Presentation 18.1 (Neurobehavioral Systems Inc., https://www.neurobs.com/presentation). Each of the blocks ended when participants successfully completed 80 correct No-go trials or until 10 min had passed. MEG data acquisition Participants’ MEG data were acquired while lying supine in a 151-channel CTF MEG system (Coquitlam, British Columbia, Canada) inside a magnetically shielded room. Head position was monitored in real time using fiducial coils located on the nasion and the left and right pre-auricular points. Data were sampled at 600 Hz, and a third-order spatial gradient and an anti-aliasing low-pass filter of 150 Hz were applied. MRI data acquisition Participants’ MRI data were acquired in a 3.0 T MRI scanner (MAGNETOM, Siemens AG, Erlangen, Germany) using a 12-channel head coil. Radio-opaque markers were placed at the MEG fiducial points, allowing for later MEG-MRI co-registration. T1-weighted MRI scans were obtained with the 3D SAG MPRAGE sequence (GRAPPA = 2, TR/TE/FA = 2300 ms/2.96 ms/9º, FOV = 192 × 240 × 256 mm, voxel size = 1.0 mm isotropic). MEG preprocessing We analysed the MEG data using FieldTrip [86] in MATLAB 2017b (The MathWorks, www.mathworks.com/products/matlab/). Trials were epoched from −1500 to 2000 ms, relative to the onset of the No-go stimulus. Data were filtered offline between 1 and 150 Hz using a fourth-order Butterworth bandpass filter. A notch filter was also applied to remove line noise and its harmonic (60 and 120 Hz). Physiological artefacts were removed by using independent component analysis to decompose the data into independent components, then manually identifying and rejecting components characteristic of eyeblinks and heartbeats. Trials containing signals exceeding 2000 fT or head motion exceeding 5 mm from the median head position were deemed artefactual and removed. Only correct trials were analysed. To generate the forward model, each participant’s MRI data were co-registered to their MEG data using the fiducials, then used to calculate a subject-specific head model based on the single-shell method [87]. Source activity was estimated at the centre of mass of the 90 AAL atlas regions [88] using a linearly constrained minimum variance beamformer [89] with 5% regularization and centre-of-head bias correction via the neural activity index. A common spatial filter was created using the covariance matrix computed over all trials, through which the entire continuous dataset (after artefact removal) was then projected. This dataset was then epoched as described above. To assess connectivity, we took the weighted phase lag index (wPLI) between each pairwise connection (excluding those to and from Heschl’s gyrus and olfactory cortex, as the primary auditory and olfactory areas are irrelevant to this task). wPLI is a reliable measure of phase synchronization which is robust to noise and volume conduction artefacts and has demonstrated good statistical power in detecting non-zero phase coherence [90]. wPLI values were calculated over trials using the cross-spectral density matrix, which was computed for signals from − 500 to 1000 ms within each frequency band of interest (theta: 4–7 Hz; alpha: 8–14 Hz; beta: 15–30 Hz) using wavelets with a width of seven cycles. Pairwise wPLI values were transformed into z scores using the values in the baseline window (− 500 to 0 ms), then averaged over our time window of interest, 0–400 ms. Connectivity matrices containing these normalized wPLI values were then subjected to statistical analysis to examine within- and between-group differences in network connectivity. Statistical analysis Behavioural data We examined the effects of group (control vs. ASD), rater (self vs. informant) and IQ, as well as the interaction between group and rater, on Inhibit scale scores of the BRIEF-A. We also investigated the effects of group (control vs. ASD), condition (Inhibition vs. Vigilance), age, and IQ, in addition to the interaction between group and condition, on participants’ accuracy on our Go/No-go task. D-prime (d′) was used as a measure of accuracy or ability to distinguish between Go and No-go stimuli when withholding a response. It was calculated by taking the difference between the z-transformed hit rate and the z-transformed false alarm rate: d′ = z(hit rate) − z(false alarm rate). Correct No-go trials were considered as hits, while incorrect Go trials were deemed as false alarms. All behavioural data were analysed using linear mixed effects models, as implemented by the nlme package, in R 3.5.0 (R Core Team, https://www.r-project.org/). Significant results are reported at p < 0.05, and effect sizes for linear mixed effects models were calculated as outlined by Brysbaert and Stevens [91] and Westfall and colleagues [92]. MEG connectivity data We used the Network-Based Statistic toolbox [93] to identify broadly distributed networks in theta, alpha, and beta that were specifically recruited for inhibitory control, relative to our control condition. We performed planned comparison t tests to detect networks that showed increased connectivity in the Inhibition vs. Vigilance condition in each group (Control, Inhibition > Vigilance; ASD, Inhibition > Vigilance), as well as between groups (ASD < Control, Inhibition > Vigilance; ASD > Control, Inhibition > Vigilance). To determine these networks, the t tests were applied at each pairwise connection and thresholded at values exceeding t = 2.708 (equivalent to p < 0.005). The largest network of contiguous suprathreshold connections was then subjected to permutation testing (5000 permutations), whereby an empirical null distribution of maximal network size was established by shuffling group labels. A family-wise error (FWE) corrected p value was calculated, signifying the probability of finding a network of equivalent or greater size, given the number of permutations, if the null hypothesis were true. Significant networks are reported at pFWE < 0.05 and visualized using BrainNet Viewer [94]. Brain–behaviour relations We explored the relations between any networks showing significant group differences and participants’ everyday inhibitory control, ASD symptom severity, and task performance. Specifically, we tested whether mean network connectivity values in these networks would predict any of these measures, and whether group status moderated this effect. Self-rated scores on the Inhibit scale of the BRIEF-A were used as an estimate of inhibitory control. SRS-2 self-rated Total scores were taken as an indication of severity of ASD symptoms. Task performance was determined using d′ scores. Analyses were performed in R 3.5.0 (R Core Team, https://www.r-project.org/). Significant results are reported at p < 0.05. Both unstandardized and standardized regression coefficients are reported as measures of effect size. Results BRIEF-A ratings While adults with ASD were rated by both themselves and their informants overall on the BRIEF-A as having more difficulties with inhibition compared to controls, this main effect of group across both self and informant ratings was only trending toward significance (F(1,39) = 3.95, p = 0.054, d = 0.25). However, scores significantly differed between raters (F(1,40) = 7.17, p = 0.011, d = 0.13), such that participants reported having more inhibitory control problems than their informants did (Fig. 2). Both self and informant ratings on the BRIEF-A are described in Table 2.Fig. 2 T scores on the Inhibit scale of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, Adult Version (BRIEF-A). Only the difference in raters’ scores was statistically significantly different (F(1,40) = 7.17, p = 0.011, d = 0.13). There was a small, but nonsignificant difference between groups (F(1,39) = 3.95, p = 0.054, d = 0.25). * p < 0.05 Table 2 Questionnaire self and informant ratings Control (N = 39) ASD (N = 40) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) BRIEF-A Inhibit Scale t Score Self 49.47 (8.74) Range = [37–65], n = 17 53.63 (8.19) Range = [37–71], n = 27 Informant 45.47 (5.43) Range = [39–57], n = 17 51.30 (11.39) Range = [39–76], n = 27 SRS-2 Total t Score Self 48.63 (9.00) Range = [36–72], n = 16 66.71 (9.69) Range = [51–90], n = 28 Informant 43.94 (6.79) Range = [36–59], n = 16 64.82 (10.93) Range = [48–86], n = 28 BRIEF-A Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, Adult Version, SRS-2 Social Responsiveness Scale, Second Version Task performance Adults with and without ASD performed equally well on the Go/No-go task (F(1,72) = 0.044, p = 0.84, d = 0.002), measured by d′. Both groups showed decreased accuracy during the Inhibition condition compared to the Vigilance condition (F(1,74) = 197.81, p < 0.0001, d = 1.02; Fig. 3).Fig. 3 Accuracy on the Go/No-go task. There was a main effect of condition, where accuracy was poorer in the Inhibition than the Vigilance condition (F(1,74) = 197.81, p < 0.0001, d = 1.02). For control adults, mean accuracy was 82.72 ± 7.37% in the Inhibition condition and 99.44 ± 1.04% in the Vigilance condition. For adults with ASD, mean accuracy was 83.31 ± 8.32% in the Inhibition condition and 99.18 ± 1.26% in the Vigilance condition. *** p < 0.001 Neuroimaging Within-group results Control adults displayed greater functional connectivity in the Inhibition than the Vigilance condition in the theta, alpha, and beta frequency bands between 0–400 ms (Fig. 4a). In the theta band, a broadly distributed network with a main hub (i.e., having a high number or degree of connections) in the right IFG was recruited (pFWE < 0.001). A network in the alpha band with hubs in the left thalamus, left ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC), and right SPL, and which involved the right IFG, was also engaged (pFWE = 0.004). A right-lateralized network in the beta band was additionally recruited (pFWE = 0.037), with the right middle frontal gyrus (MFG), fusiform gyrus, and putamen showing the greatest degree.Fig. 4 Networks of increased connectivity in a control adults and b adults with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) for correct No-go trials in the Inhibition compared to the Vigilance condition between 0 and 400 ms, post stimulus onset. a Control adults showed significantly increased network connectivity in the theta (pFWE < 0.001), alpha (pFWE = 0.004), and beta (pFWE = 0.037) bands, while b adults with ASD only demonstrated greater network connectivity in the theta band (pFWE < 0.001). Note that nodes are scaled by relative degree, or number of connections. The range of mean connectivity values in each network are detailed in Additional file 2: Table S1 Adults with ASD only showed greater connectivity for the Inhibition versus Vigilance condition in a network in the theta band (pFWE < 0.001; Fig. 4b). Regions that had high degrees were the left IPL, left superior frontal gyrus (SFG), and left IFG. There were no significant findings in the ASD group in either the alpha (pFWE = 0.617) or beta (pFWE = 0.534) band. Between-group results Adults with ASD demonstrated decreased connectivity, compared to controls, in a network in the alpha band between 0–400 ms for the Inhibition condition relative to the Vigilance condition (Fig. 5; pFWE = 0.038), such that mean connectivity in this network in the Inhibition condition was lower in adults with ASD than controls. The node with the highest degree in this network was the right IFG, which showed decreased connectivity with the left superior temporal gyrus (STG), fusiform gyrus, thalamus, and hippocampus. Adults with ASD did not show greater connectivity than controls in the alpha band, and the two groups did not differ significantly in terms of connectivity in either direction in the theta or beta band (all psFWE > 0.05).Fig. 5 Network of regions showing connectivity differences between the ASD and control groups, occurring between 0 and 400 ms, post No-go stimulus onset in the Inhibition condition over the Vigilance condition. Adults with ASD had significantly (pFWE = 0.038) decreased alpha-band connectivity compared to controls. Note that nodes are scaled by relative degree, or number of connections. The nodes in this network are reported in Additional file 3 Brain–behaviour relations Mean network connectivity values during the Inhibition condition in the alpha-band network showing significantly decreased connectivity in the ASD group negatively predicted self-rated scores on the Inhibit scale of the BRIEF-A (b = −5.09, B = −0.33, p = 0.042; Fig. 6). That is, greater connectivity in this network during response inhibition was associated with lower ratings on the Inhibit scale, or fewer self-reported issues with inhibitory control. There was no moderating effect of group on this relationship (b = −3.84, B = 0.25, p = 0.121). Neither mean connectivity in this network nor its interaction with group was significantly predictive of self-rated Total scores on the SRS-2 or task performance (all ps > 0.05; see Additional file 4: Fig. S1 for the association between mean network connectivity and SRS-2 self-rated Total scores).Fig. 6 Relationship between mean network connectivity values (z scores) in the alpha band in the Inhibition condition of the Go/No-go task and Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, Adult Version (BRIEF-A) self-reported t scores on the Inhibit scale. Mean alpha-band network connectivity inversely predicted BRIEF-A Inhibit scale scores (b = −5.09, B = −0.33, p = 0.042), such that participants who had greater connectivity in this network when inhibiting a prepotent response reported fewer problems with inhibition in everyday life. Mean network connectivity values were derived from the network in which adults with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) demonstrated decreased connectivity compared to controls between 0 and 400 ms, post stimulus onset, for the Inhibition greater than Vigilance condition in the alpha band. Solid lines represent the regression line for each group, while the dashed line signifies the regression line for the sample as a whole Discussion The current study revealed that while adults with ASD exhibited no behavioural differences in an experimental Go/No-go task, there was a tendency for them to report experiencing difficulties with inhibition in everyday life on the BRIEF-A. Although behavioural performance on the Go/No-go task did not differentiate inhibitory control in each group, and the disparity in real-life inhibition between adults with and without ASD was small, patterns of brain connectivity related to inhibition in adults with ASD remained distinct from those without ASD. At the group level, control adults activated networks in the theta, alpha, and beta bands, whose hubs mainly resided in the midline and right hemisphere, whereas adults with ASD only recruited a somewhat left-lateralized network in the theta band. Major nodes of the theta-band network in the ASD group comprised left homologues of brain regions implicated in inhibition, such as the IFG and IPL. Previous work has found that increases in theta power in left-lateralized regions of the inhibition network occur when resolving conflicting information during response inhibition [95]. While power and phase synchrony are not necessarily linked [96–98], the left-lateralization of this theta-band network in adults with ASD may reflect greater conflict between Go and No-go responses in the ASD group, leading to more effortful resolution of these opposing responses. Furthermore, given that individuals with ASD have demonstrated atypical lateralization of language [99, 100] and motor [101, 102] networks, it may not be surprising that they also show a more left-lateralized configuration of inhibitory control networks. Furthermore, a recent review of studies using MEG and EEG to examine functional brain connectivity in ASD [61] observed generally greater left lateralization of brain networks, which the authors interpreted as decreased integration of information between brain regions due to altered long-range connectivity typically found in the right hemisphere. Therefore, the left lateralization of the hubs of the theta-band network in our sample of adults with ASD may reflect altered communication among brain regions in the right hemisphere involved in inhibition, leading to atypical organization of homologous regions in the left hemisphere for inhibitory processes. A similar narrative of reduced right hemisphere connectivity emerged when we compared the two groups directly: in the alpha band, adults with ASD showed decreased connectivity in a network with its main hub in the right IFG. In particular, the right IFG was less synchronized with other brain regions in the midline and left hemisphere, such as the thalamus, STG, and fusiform gyrus. This decrease in connectivity between the right IFG and left hemisphere areas may reflect diminished interhemispheric connectivity, as inter-areal alpha-band connectivity has been linked to top-down processing and coordination of distant brain regions [37, 50–52], and since the structure of the corpus callosum, which links the two hemispheres, has been often reported as impaired in individuals with ASD across development [103–107]. Whereas control adults demonstrated increased alpha-band connectivity between these areas for the Inhibition versus Vigilance conditions, adults with ASD showed no differences in alpha-band synchrony for this same comparison and very little activation of the alpha-band network that differed between groups during the Inhibition condition (Fig. 6). This finding implies that in the ASD group, the right IFG is less effective at modulating communication with other brain regions in the alpha band for successful response inhibition. Our results complement those of Kenet and colleagues [70], who also observed decreased alpha-band connectivity between brain regions involved in an antisaccade task, which they suggested implied that top-down mechanisms were impaired in adults with ASD. Although it is still unclear whether alpha-band synchrony is involved in recruiting task-relevant areas or suppressing task-irrelevant areas [50], as the right IFG has been shown consistently to be involved in response inhibition [19, 108–110], and as the other regions in this network have not been reliably associated with inhibitory control, it is likely that this deficit in alpha-band synchrony may indicate difficulty in constraining task-irrelevant activity. Moreover, given that we did not find any group differences in long-range synchrony of theta or beta oscillations, which have been associated with monitoring conflicting responses [32–34] and motor inhibition [38–40], respectively, our results suggest that these functions may be preserved in adults with ASD, and that their disparities in inhibitory control may be particular to the suppression of task-irrelevant information that is facilitated by alpha-band synchrony. Considering that greater connectivity in this alpha-band network during the Inhibition condition was correlated with reports of better inhibitory control on the BRIEF-A, we propose that this decreased capability for inhibiting extraneous information impedes efficient top-down processing, ultimately leading to problems with inhibition in everyday life. Since participants completed our Go/No-go task in a very controlled and quiet environment, there were few distractors hindering task performance, but the degree of interference experienced in real-world situations from one’s surroundings is much greater, hence the dissociation between the behavioural results on our Go/No-go task and those on the BRIEF-A. This hypothesis is in line with research suggesting that individuals with ASD also experience difficulties with interference control [2, 4, 10], and that the right IFG is also involved in selecting appropriate strategies to achieve complex task goals [111, 112], such as those encountered in everyday life. Reduced top-down processing and inhibitory control may also contribute to the restricted, repetitive behaviours that are characteristic of ASD, as deficits in inhibition in ASD have been associated with greater severity of repetitive behaviours [113–116]. Thus, decreased alpha-band connectivity may influence not only interference control, but also the core symptom of repetitive behaviours in ASD. Limitations As we were unable to obtain BRIEF-A and SRS-2 scores for all participants, our findings involving either of these measurements do not necessarily characterize our entire sample, especially in the context of our brain-behaviour analyses. With regard to the SRS-2 Total scores in particular, we may have not found any significant relations between it and mean connectivity, as there may have been other variables contributing to ASD symptom severity, such as deficits in social abilities and other executive functions. In addition, the difference between adults with and without ASD in scores on the Inhibit scale of the BRIEF-A was only significant at a trend level, which may have been partly due to the informants reporting fewer inhibition difficulties in our sample compared to participants’ own ratings. This small difference in inhibition skills indicates that our sample of adults with ASD had relatively preserved inhibitory control, especially as participants who performed poorly on the Go/No-go task had to be excluded from the analyses due to insufficient data. Adults with ASD in our study were also matched on IQ with the control group, so our findings may not necessarily extend to the larger ASD population that shows a wide range of cognitive abilities, especially those who experience more difficulties with inhibition. Finally, many of our reported effect sizes were in the small to medium range. Taken together, these limitations warrant future replication of our results in an independent, larger group of adults with ASD. Although individuals with ASD show heterogeneity in functional connectivity patterns [117–120], our sample size was not large enough to examine this factor in the context of inhibitory control in ASD, which may explain why we did not observe recruitment of any alpha- or beta-band networks in the ASD group. Given that people with ASD may utilize alternative networks during inhibition, it would be important for future work to investigate whether adults with ASD demonstrate heterogeneity in the networks they recruit for inhibitory control. The theta, alpha, and beta frequency bands have all been implicated in different aspects of inhibition, and in our control group, all bands showed significant activity with this task. However, as this study is the first to look at whole-brain connectivity during response inhibition in adults with and without ASD and was therefore fairly exploratory, we did not perform corrections for the multiple tests conducted over the three frequency bands. Our main finding of decreased alpha-band connectivity in the ASD group would not have survived such a correction. However, the overlap in the specificity of our findings and those of others [70] to the alpha band suggests that adults with ASD demonstrate consistent differences in alpha-band connectivity related to inhibition. This study also did not consider the effect of timing on functional connectivity. We averaged connectivity over 0–400 ms and compared the frequency-specific networks elicited during this time period between adults with and without ASD. However, there is evidence that connectivity is dynamic and therefore changes over time [121–124], and that individuals with ASD demonstrate differences in dynamic functional connectivity [125–128]. In addition, we performed an exploratory analysis of the event-related fields generated in response to No-go trials in the Inhibition condition, which revealed that adults with ASD may show some delay in this signal. We specifically observed that the peaks at 200 and 300 ms that have been consistently reported in the response inhibition literature and which have been shown to differ in ASD [129–133], were delayed in the ASD group by ~ 50 ms (Additional file 5: Fig. S2). Therefore, it would be critical for future work to characterize the evolution of the networks recruited for inhibitory control over time in adults with ASD. Conclusion Overall, our study demonstrates that adults with ASD show atypical recruitment of brain networks during inhibitory control due to altered connectivity of right hemisphere regions typically involved in inhibition. We suggest that the lack of alpha-band connectivity observed in our ASD group, compared to our control group, implies reduced inhibition of task-irrelevant information by the right IFG. Since there was likely limited interference from extraneous stimuli in the Go/No-go task, the effects of this difficulty may be minimal during task performance. However, in complex, cognitively-demanding real-life situations, this decreased ability to suppress distractors may be more apparent and therefore interfere with their ability to exert inhibitory control, as seen in the association between lower alpha-band synchrony during prepotent response inhibition and poorer self-reported inhibition in everyday life. Future work should investigate whether adults with ASD also show atypical brain connectivity during tasks involving interference control, as impairments in this aspect of inhibitory control may account more precisely for the difficulties with inhibition that adults with ASD typically experience. Supplementary information Additional file 1: A detailed description of how stimulus and ISI durations were adapted to participant performance. Additional file 2: Table S1. Range of mean connectivity values (z scores) in networks recruited in the Inhibition > Vigilance condition in control and ASD groups. Additional file 3: A list of brain regions in the network demonstrating significant differences between the control and ASD groups in the alpha band. Additional file 4: Figure S1. A graph illustrating the relationship between mean network connectivity in the alpha-band network that was significantly different between groups and SRS-2 self-rated Total t scores. Additional file 5: Figure S2. A plot of the event-related fields elicited by the control and ASD groups during correct No-go trials in the Inhibition condition. Abbreviations ACCAnterior cingulate cortex ADOSAutism Diagnostic Observation Schedule ASDAutism spectrum disorder BRIEF-ABehavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, Adult Version EEGElectroencephalography FWEFamily-wise error IFGInferior frontal gyrus IPLInferior parietal lobule ISIInterstimulus interval MEGMagnetoencephalography MFGMiddle frontal gyrus SFGSuperior frontal gyrus SMASupplementary motor area SPLSuperior parietal lobule SRS-2Social Responsiveness Scale, Second Edition STGSuperior temporal gyrus vmPFCVentromedial prefrontal cortex WASIWechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence wPLIWeighted phase lag index Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Supplementary information Supplementary information accompanies this paper at 10.1186/s13229-020-00400-y. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Simeon Wong, MyLoi Huynh-Silveira, Julie Lu Patranoiu, Rianne Hastie Adams, Rachael Lyon, Katharine Coons, Marc Lalancette, Tammy Rayner, and Ruth Weiss for their assistance in recruitment, data collection, and/or analyses, as well as Rachel Leung for her help with ADOS-2 administration. We are also incredibly grateful to all individuals who participated in this study. Authors’ contributions MJT and VY conceived the study design. VY acquired and analysed all data. BTD and MJT guided analyses of the data. All authors contributed to interpretation of the data and preparing the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript. Funding This work was funded by Canadian Institutes of Health Research grants MOP-119541 and MOP-142379 to MJT and a Frederick Banting and Charles Best Canada Graduate Scholarships Doctoral Award awarded to VY. Availability of data and materials The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Ethics approval and consent to participate This study was approved by the Research Ethics Board at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Canada (REB #1000007826 and #1000051746). Informed written consent was obtained from all participants. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. ==== Refs References 1. Diamond A Executive functions Annu Rev Psychol 2013 64 135 168 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750 23020641 2. Adams NC Jarrold C Inhibition in autism: children with autism have difficulty inhibiting irrelevant distractors but not prepotent responses J Autism Dev Disord 2012 42 6 1052 1063 10.1007/s10803-011-1345-3 21830170 3. Goldberg MC Mostofsky SH Cutting LE Mahone EM Astor BC Denckla MB Subtle executive impairment in children with autism and children with ADHD J Autism Dev Disord 2005 35 3 279 293 10.1007/s10803-005-3291-4 16119469 4. Sanderson C Allen ML The specificity of inhibitory impairments in autism and their relation to ADHD-type symptoms J Autism Dev Disord 2013 43 5 1065 1079 10.1007/s10803-012-1650-5 23054200 5. Gioia GA Isquith PK Kenworthy L Barton RM Profiles of everyday executive function in acquired and developmental disorders Child Neuropsychol 2002 8 2 121 137 10.1076/chin.8.2.121.8727 12638065 6. Uzefovsky F Allison C Smith P Baron-Cohen S Brief Report: The go/no-go task online: Inhibitory control deficits in autism in a large sample J Autism Dev Disord 2016 46 8 2774 2779 10.1007/s10803-016-2788-3 27103120 7. van den Bergh SFWM Scheeren AM Begeer S Koot HM Geurts HM Age related differences of executive functioning problems in everyday life of children and adolescents in the autism spectrum J Autism Dev Disord 2014 44 8 1959 1971 10.1007/s10803-014-2071-4 24562693 8. Corbett BA Constantine LJ Hendren R Rocke D Ozonoff S Examining executive functioning in children with autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and typical development Psychiatry Res 2009 166 2–3 210 222 10.1016/j.psychres.2008.02.005 19285351 9. Demetriou EA Lampit A Quintana DS Naismith SL Song YJC Pye JE Autism spectrum disorders: a meta-analysis of executive function Mol Psychiatry 2018 23 5 1198 1204 10.1038/mp.2017.75 28439105 10. Geurts HM van den Bergh SFWM Ruzzano L Prepotent response inhibition and interference control in autism spectrum disorders: two meta-analyses Autism Res 2014 7 4 407 420 10.1002/aur.1369 24596300 11. Hill EL Executive dysfunction in autism Trends Cogn Sci 2004 8 1 26 32 10.1016/j.tics.2003.11.003 14697400 12. Luna B Doll SK Hegedus SJ Minshew NJ Sweeney JA Maturation of executive function in autism Biol Psychiatry 2007 61 4 474 481 10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.02.030 16650833 13. Hasher L Lustig C Zacks R Conway ARA Jarrold C Kane MJ Miyake A Towse JN Inhibitory mechanisms and the control of attention Var Work Mem 2007 New York Oxford University Press 227 249 14. Hutchison SM Müller U Iarocci G Parent reports of executive function associated with functional communication and conversational skills among school age children with and without autism spectrum disorder J Autism Dev Disord 2020 50 6 2019 2029 10.1007/s10803-019-03958-6 30847709 15. Sebastian A Pohl MF Klöppel S Feige B Lange T Stahl C Disentangling common and specific neural subprocesses of response inhibition Neuroimage 2013 64 601 615 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.09.020 22986077 16. Swick D Ashley V Turken AU Are the neural correlates of stopping and not going identical? Quantitative meta-analysis of two response inhibition tasks Neuroimage 2011 56 3 1655 1665 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.02.070 21376819 17. Zhang R Geng X Lee TMC Large-scale functional neural network correlates of response inhibition: an fMRI meta-analysis Brain Struct Funct 2017 222 9 3973 3990 10.1007/s00429-017-1443-x 28551777 18. Aron AR Fletcher PC Bullmore ET Sahakian BJ Robbins TW Stop-signal inhibition disrupted by damage to right inferior frontal gyrus in humans Nat Neurosci 2003 6 2 115 116 10.1038/nn1003 12536210 19. Aron AR Robbins TW Poldrack RA Inhibition and the right inferior frontal cortex: one decade on Trends Cogn Sci 2014 18 4 177 185 10.1016/j.tics.2013.12.003 24440116 20. Chambers CD Bellgrove MA Stokes MG Henderson TR Garavan H Robertson IH Executive “Brake Failure” following deactivation of human frontal lobe J Cogn Neurosci 2006 18 3 444 455 16513008 21. Rubia K Smith AB Brammer MJ Taylor E Right inferior prefrontal cortex mediates response inhibition while mesial prefrontal cortex is responsible for error detection Neuroimage 2003 20 1 351 358 10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00275-1 14527595 22. Hari R Salmelin R Magnetoencephalography: from SQUIDs to neuroscience: neuroimage 20th anniversary special edition Neuroimage 2012 61 2 386 396 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.074 22166794 23. Lin M-Y Tseng Y-J Cheng C-H Age effects on spatiotemporal dynamics of response inhibition: an MEG Study Front Aging Neurosci 2018 10 386 10.3389/fnagi.2018.00386 30515093 24. Vara AS Pang EW Vidal J Anagnostou E Taylor MJ Neural mechanisms of inhibitory control continue to mature in adolescence Dev Cogn Neurosci 2014 10 129 139 10.1016/j.dcn.2014.08.009 25212682 25. Vidal J Mills T Pang EW Taylor MJ Response inhibition in adults and teenagers: spatiotemporal differences in the prefrontal cortex Brain Cogn 2012 79 1 49 59 10.1016/j.bandc.2011.12.011 22325785 26. Enriquez-Geppert S Konrad C Pantev C Huster RJ Conflict and inhibition differentially affect the N200/P300 complex in a combined go/nogo and stop-signal task Neuroimage 2010 51 2 877 887 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.02.043 20188191 27. Donkers FCL van Boxtel GJM The N2 in go/no-go tasks reflects conflict monitoring not response inhibition Brain Cogn 2004 56 2 165 176 10.1016/j.bandc.2004.04.005 15518933 28. Rietdijk WJR Franken IHA Thurik AR Internal consistency of event-related potentials associated with cognitive control: N2/P3 and ERN/Pe PLoS ONE 2014 9 7 e102672 10.1371/journal.pone.0102672 25033272 29. Wessel JR Aron AR It’s not too late: the onset of the frontocentral P3 indexes successful response inhibition in the stop-signal paradigm Psychophysiology 2015 52 4 472 480 10.1111/psyp.12374 25348645 30. Kirmizi-Alsan E Bayraktaroglu Z Gurvit H Keskin YH Emre M Demiralp T Comparative analysis of event-related potentials during Go/NoGo and CPT: decomposition of electrophysiological markers of response inhibition and sustained attention Brain Res 2006 1104 1 114 128 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.03.010 16824492 31. Yamanaka K Yamamoto Y Single-trial EEG power and phase dynamics associated with voluntary response inhibition J Cogn Neurosci 2010 22 4 714 727 10.1162/jocn.2009.21258 19413474 32. Müller V Anokhin AP Neural synchrony during response production and inhibition PLoS ONE 2012 7 6 e38931 10.1371/journal.pone.0038931 22745691 33. Huster RJ Enriquez-Geppert S Lavallee CF Falkenstein M Herrmann CS Electroencephalography of response inhibition tasks: functional networks and cognitive contributions Int J Psychophysiol 2013 87 3 217 233 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2012.08.001 22906815 34. Nigbur R Ivanova G Stürmer B Theta power as a marker for cognitive interference Clin Neurophysiol 2011 122 11 2185 2194 10.1016/j.clinph.2011.03.030 21550845 35. de Pesters A Coon WG Brunner P Gunduz A Ritaccio AL Brunet NM Alpha power indexes task-related networks on large and small scales: a multimodal ECoG study in humans and a non-human primate Neuroimage 2016 134 122 131 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.03.074 27057960 36. Jensen O Mazaheri A Shaping functional architecture by oscillatory alpha activity: gating by inhibition Front Hum Neurosci 2010 4 186 10.3389/fnhum.2010.00186 21119777 37. Klimesch W Sauseng P Hanslmayr S EEG alpha oscillations: the inhibition-timing hypothesis Brain Res Rev 2007 53 1 63 88 10.1016/j.brainresrev.2006.06.003 16887192 38. Fonken YM Rieger JW Tzvi E Crone NE Chang E Parvizi J Frontal and motor cortex contributions to response inhibition: evidence from electrocorticography J Neurophysiol 2016 115 4 2224 2236 10.1152/jn.00708.2015 26864760 39. Picazio S Veniero D Ponzo V Caltagirone C Gross J Thut G Prefrontal control over motor cortex cycles at beta frequency during movement inhibition Curr Biol 2014 24 24 2940 2945 10.1016/j.cub.2014.10.043 25484293 40. Swann NC Cai W Conner CR Pieters TA Claffey MP George JS Roles for the pre-supplementary motor area and the right inferior frontal gyrus in stopping action: electrophysiological responses and functional and structural connectivity Neuroimage 2012 59 3 2860 2870 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.09.049 21979383 41. Engel AK Fries P Beta-band oscillations—signalling the status quo? Curr Opin Neurobiol 2010 20 2 156 165 10.1016/j.conb.2010.02.015 20359884 42. Cheng C-H Chan P-YS Niddam DM Tsai S-Y Hsu S-C Liu C-Y Sensory gating, inhibition control and gamma oscillations in the human somatosensory cortex Sci Rep. 2016 6 1 20437 10.1038/srep20437 26843358 43. Jensen O Kaiser J Lachaux J-P Human gamma-frequency oscillations associated with attention and memory Trends Neurosci 2007 30 7 317 324 10.1016/j.tins.2007.05.001 17499860 44. Bartos M Vida I Jonas P Synaptic mechanisms of synchronized gamma oscillations in inhibitory interneuron networks Nat Rev Neurosci 2007 8 1 45 56 10.1038/nrn2044 17180162 45. Cho KKA Hoch R Lee AT Patel T Rubenstein JLR Sohal VS Gamma rhythms link prefrontal interneuron dysfunction with cognitive inflexibility in Dlx5/6+/− Mice Neuron 2015 85 6 1332 1343 10.1016/j.neuron.2015.02.019 25754826 46. Sohal VS Zhang F Yizhar O Deisseroth K Parvalbumin neurons and gamma rhythms enhance cortical circuit performance Nature 2009 459 7247 698 702 10.1038/nature07991 19396159 47. Bosman CA Lansink CS Pennartz CMA Functions of gamma-band synchronization in cognition: from single circuits to functional diversity across cortical and subcortical systems Eur J Neurosci 2014 39 11 1982 1999 10.1111/ejn.12606 24809619 48. Brovelli A Ding M Ledberg A Chen Y Nakamura R Bressler SL Beta oscillations in a large-scale sensorimotor cortical network: Directional influences revealed by Granger causality Proc Natl Acad Sci 2004 101 26 9849 9854 10.1073/pnas.0308538101 15210971 49. Fries P A mechanism for cognitive dynamics: Neuronal communication through neuronal coherence Trends Cogn Sci 2005 9 10 474 480 10.1016/j.tics.2005.08.011 16150631 50. Palva S Palva JM Functional roles of alpha-band phase synchronization in local and large-scale cortical networks Front Psychol 2011 2 204 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00204 21922012 51. Sadaghiani S Scheeringa R Lehongre K Morillon B Giraud A-L D’Esposito M Alpha-band phase synchrony is related to activity in the fronto-parietal adaptive control network J Neurosci 2012 32 41 14305 14310 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1358-12.2012 23055501 52. von Stein A Chiang C König P Top-down processing mediated by interareal synchronization Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2000 97 26 14748 14753 10.1073/pnas.97.26.14748 11121074 53. Solomon EA Kragel JE Sperling MR Sharan A Worrell G Kucewicz M Widespread theta synchrony and high-frequency desynchronization underlies enhanced cognition Nat Commun 2017 8 1 1704 10.1038/s41467-017-01763-2 29167419 54. Kopell N Ermentrout GB Whittington MA Traub RD Gamma rhythms and beta rhythms have different synchronization properties Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2000 97 4 1867 1872 10.1073/pnas.97.4.1867 10677548 55. Ray S Maunsell JHR Do gamma oscillations play a role in cerebral cortex? Trends Cogn Sci 2015 19 2 78 85 10.1016/j.tics.2014.12.002 25555444 56. Shibata T Shimoyama I Ito T Abla D Iwasa H Koseki K The synchronization between brain areas under motor inhibition process in humans estimated by event-related EEG coherence Neurosci Res 1998 31 4 265 271 10.1016/S0168-0102(98)00046-7 9809585 57. Khan S Gramfort A Shetty NR Kitzbichler MG Ganesan S Moran JM Local and long-range functional connectivity is reduced in concert in autism spectrum disorders Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2013 110 8 3107 3112 10.1073/pnas.1214533110 23319621 58. Perez Velazquez JL Barcelo F Hung Y Leshchenko Y Nenadovic V Belkas J Decreased brain coordinated activity in autism spectrum disorders during executive tasks: Reduced long-range synchronization in the fronto-parietal networks Int J Psychophysiol 2009 73 3 341 349 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2009.05.009 19465065 59. Bangel KA Batty M Ye AX Meaux E Taylor MJ Doesburg SM Reduced beta band connectivity during number estimation in autism NeuroImage Clin 2014 6 202 213 10.1016/j.nicl.2014.08.020 25379432 60. Ye AX Leung RC Schäfer CB Taylor MJ Doesburg SM Atypical resting synchrony in autism spectrum disorder Hum Brain Mapp 2014 35 12 6049 6066 10.1002/hbm.22604 25116896 61. O’Reilly C Lewis JD Elsabbagh M Is functional brain connectivity atypical in autism? A systematic review of EEG and MEG studies PLoS ONE 2017 12 5 e0175870 10.1371/journal.pone.0175870 28467487 62. Doesburg SM Vidal J Taylor MJ Reduced theta connectivity during set-shifting in children with autism Front Hum Neurosci 2013 7 785 24294201 63. Urbain C Vogan VM Ye AX Pang EW Doesburg SM Taylor MJ Desynchronization of fronto-temporal networks during working memory processing in autism Hum Brain Mapp 2016 37 1 153 164 10.1002/hbm.23021 26485059 64. Shafritz KM Bregman JD Ikuta T Szeszko PR Neural systems mediating decision-making and response inhibition for social and nonsocial stimuli in autism Prog Neuro-Psychopharmacology Biol Psychiatry 2015 60 112 120 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2015.03.001 65. Agam Y Joseph RM Barton JJS Manoach DS Reduced cognitive control of response inhibition by the anterior cingulate cortex in autism spectrum disorders Neuroimage 2010 52 1 336 347 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.04.010 20394829 66. Kana RK Keller TA Minshew NJ Just MA Inhibitory control in high-functioning autism: decreased activation and underconnectivity in inhibition networks Biol Psychiatry 2007 62 3 198 206 10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.08.004 17137558 67. Velasquez F Qin XA Reilly MA Neuhaus E Estes A Aylward E Neural correlates of emotional inhibitory control in autism spectrum disorders Res Dev Disabil 2017 64 64 77 10.1016/j.ridd.2017.03.008 28359873 68. Padmanabhan A Garver K O’Hearn K Nawarawong N Liu R Minshew N Developmental changes in brain function underlying inhibitory control in autism spectrum disorders Autism Res 2015 8 2 123 135 10.1002/aur.1398 25382787 69. Vara AS Pang EW Doyle-Thomas KAR Vidal J Taylor MJ Anagnostou E Is inhibitory control a “no-go” in adolescents with autism spectrum disorder? Mol Autism 2014 5 1 6 10.1186/2040-2392-5-6 24485230 70. Kenet T Orekhova EV Bharadwaj H Shetty NR Israeli E Lee AKC Disconnectivity of the cortical ocular motor control network in autism spectrum disorders Neuroimage 2012 61 4 1226 1234 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.03.010 22433660 71. Lee PS Yerys BE Della Rosa A Foss-Feig J Barnes KA James JD Functional connectivity of the inferior frontal cortex changes with age in children with autism spectrum disorders: a fcMRI study of response inhibition Cereb Cortex 2009 19 8 1787 1794 10.1093/cercor/bhn209 19068486 72. Duerden EG Taylor MJ Soorya LV Wang T Fan J Anagnostou E Neural correlates of inhibition of socially relevant stimuli in adults with autism spectrum disorder Brain Res 2013 1533 80 90 10.1016/j.brainres.2013.08.021 23962468 73. Schmitz N Rubia K Daly E Smith A Williams S Murphy DGM Neural correlates of executive function in autistic spectrum disorders Biol Psychiatry 2006 59 1 7 16 10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.06.007 16140278 74. Solomon M Yoon JH Ragland JD Niendam TA Lesh TA Fairbrother W The development of the neural substrates of cognitive control in adolescents with autism spectrum disorders Biol Psychiatry 2014 76 5 412 421 10.1016/j.biopsych.2013.08.036 24209777 75. Di Martino A Yan C-G Li Q Denio E Castellanos FX Alaerts K The autism brain imaging data exchange: towards a large-scale evaluation of the intrinsic brain architecture in autism Mol Psychiatry 2014 19 6 659 667 10.1038/mp.2013.78 23774715 76. Just MA Keller TA Malave VL Kana RK Varma S Autism as a neural systems disorder: a theory of frontal-posterior underconnectivity Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2012 36 4 1292 1313 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.02.007 22353426 77. Anagnostou E Taylor MJ Review of neuroimaging in autism spectrum disorders: what have we learned and where we go from here Mol Autism 2011 2 1 4 10.1186/2040-2392-2-4 21501488 78. Belmonte MK Allen G Beckel-Mitchener A Boulanger LM Carper RA Webb SJ Autism and abnormal development of brain connectivity J Neurosci 2004 24 42 9228 9231 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3340-04.2004 15496656 79. Rane P Cochran D Hodge SM Haselgrove C Kennedy DN Frazier JA Connectivity in autism: a review of MRI connectivity studies Harv Rev Psychiatry 2015 23 4 223 244 10.1097/HRP.0000000000000072 26146755 80. Wechsler D Wechsler abbreviated scale of intelligence (WASI) 1999 San Antonio, TX Psychological Corporation 81. Wechsler D Wechsler abbreviated scale of intelligence, Second edition (WASI-II) 2011 San Antonio, TX NCS Pearson 82. Lord C Risi S Lambrecht L Cook EH Jr Leventhal BL DiLavore PC The autism diagnostic observation schedule-generic: a standard measure of social and communication deficits associated with the spectrum of autism J Autism Dev Disord 2000 30 3 205 223 10.1023/A:1005592401947 11055457 83. Lord C Rutter M DiLavore PC Risi S Gotham K Bishop SL Autism diagnostic observation schedule, second edition (ADOS-2) manual (Part I): modules 1–4 2012 Torrance, CA Western Psychological Services 84. Roth RM Isquith PK Gioia GA Behavior rating inventory of executive function–adult version 2005 Lutz, FL Psychological Assessment Resources 85. Constantino JN Gruber CP Social responsiveness scale 2012 2 Los Angeles, CA Western Psychological Services 86. Oostenveld R Fries P Maris E Schoffelen J-M FieldTrip: open source software for advanced analysis of MEG, EEG, and invasive electrophysiological data Comput Intell Neurosci 2011 2011 156869 10.1155/2011/156869 21253357 87. Nolte G The magnetic lead field theorem in the quasi-static approximation and its use for magnetoenchephalography forward calculation in realistic volume conductors Phys Med Biol 2003 48 22 3637 3652 10.1088/0031-9155/48/22/002 14680264 88. Tzourio-Mazoyer N Landeau B Papathanassiou D Crivello F Etard O Delcroix N Automated anatomical labeling of activations in SPM using a macroscopic anatomical parcellation of the MNI MRI single-subject brain Neuroimage 2002 15 1 273 289 10.1006/nimg.2001.0978 11771995 89. Van Veen BD Van Drongelen W Yuchtman M Suzuki A Localization of brain electrical activity via linearly constrained minimum variance spatial filtering IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1997 44 9 867 880 10.1109/10.623056 9282479 90. Vinck M Oostenveld R Van Wingerden M Battaglia F Pennartz CMA An improved index of phase-synchronization for electrophysiological data in the presence of volume-conduction, noise and sample-size bias Neuroimage. 2011 55 4 1548 1565 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.01.055 21276857 91. Brysbaert M Stevens M Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: a tutorial J Cogn 2018 1 1 9 10.5334/joc.10 31517183 92. Westfall J Kenny DA Judd CM Statistical power and optimal design in experiments in which samples of participants respond to samples of stimuli J Exp Psychol Gen 2014 143 5 2020 2045 10.1037/xge0000014 25111580 93. Zalesky A Fornito A Bullmore ET Network-based statistic: Identifying differences in brain networks Neuroimage 2010 53 4 1197 1207 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.06.041 20600983 94. Xia M Wang J He Y BrainNet viewer: a network visualization tool for human brain connectomics PLoS ONE 2013 8 7 e68910 10.1371/journal.pone.0068910 23861951 95. Chmielewski WX Mückschel M Dippel G Beste C Concurrent information affects response inhibition processes via the modulation of theta oscillations in cognitive control networks Brain Struct Funct 2016 221 8 3949 3961 10.1007/s00429-015-1137-1 26543023 96. Cox R Schapiro AC Stickgold R Variability and stability of large-scale cortical oscillation patterns Netw Neurosci 2018 2 4 481 512 10.1162/netn_a_00046 30320295 97. Siems M Siegel M Dissociated neuronal phase- and amplitude-coupling patterns in the human brain Neuroimage 2020 209 116538 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116538 31935522 98. Hipp JF Engel AK Siegel M Oscillatory synchronization in large-scale cortical networks predicts perception Neuron 2011 69 2 387 396 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.12.027 21262474 99. Escalante-Mead PR Minshew NJ Sweeney JA Abnormal brain lateralization in high-functioning autism J Autism Dev Disord 2003 33 5 539 543 10.1023/A:1025887713788 14594334 100. Lindell AK Hudry K Atypicalities in cortical structure, handedness, and functional lateralization for language in autism spectrum disorders Neuropsychol Rev 2013 23 3 257 270 10.1007/s11065-013-9234-5 23649809 101. Floris DL Barber AD Nebel MB Martinelli M Lai M-C Crocetti D Atypical lateralization of motor circuit functional connectivity in children with autism is associated with motor deficits Mol Autism 2016 7 1 35 10.1186/s13229-016-0096-6 27429731 102. Floris DL Howells H Atypical structural and functional motor networks in autism Prog Brain Res 2018 238 207 248 10.1016/bs.pbr.2018.06.010 30097193 103. Vogan VM Morgan BR Leung RC Anagnostou E Doyle-Thomas K Taylor MJ Widespread white matter differences in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder J Autism Dev Disord 2016 46 6 2138 2147 10.1007/s10803-016-2744-2 26899725 104. Mak-Fan KM Morris D Vidal J Anagnostou E Roberts W Taylor MJ White matter and development in children with an autism spectrum disorder Autism 2013 17 5 541 557 10.1177/1362361312442596 22700988 105. Aoki Y Yoncheva YN Chen B Nath T Sharp D Lazar M Association of white matter structure with autism spectrum disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder JAMA Psychiatry 2017 74 11 1120 1128 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.2573 28877317 106. Fitzgerald J Gallagher L McGrath J Widespread disrupted white matter microstructure in autism spectrum disorders J Autism Dev Disord 2019 49 7 2664 2674 10.1007/s10803-016-2803-8 27207090 107. Ameis SH Catani M Altered white matter connectivity as a neural substrate for social impairment in autism spectrum disorder Cortex 2015 62 158 181 10.1016/j.cortex.2014.10.014 25433958 108. Cai W Ryali S Chen T Li C-SR Menon V Dissociable roles of right inferior frontal cortex and anterior insula in inhibitory control: evidence from intrinsic and task-related functional parcellation, connectivity, and response profile analyses across multiple datasets J Neurosci. 2014 34 44 14652 14667 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3048-14.2014 25355218 109. Dodds CM Morein-Zamir S Robbins TW Dissociating inhibition, attention, and response control in the frontoparietal network using functional magnetic resonance imaging Cereb Cortex 2011 21 5 1155 1165 10.1093/cercor/bhq187 20923963 110. Levy BJ Wagner AD Cognitive control and right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex: reflexive reorienting, motor inhibition, and action updating Ann N Y Acad Sci 2011 1224 1 40 62 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.05958.x 21486295 111. Dippel G Beste C A causal role of the right inferior frontal cortex in implementing strategies for multi-component behaviour Nat Commun 2015 6 6587 10.1038/ncomms7587 25850926 112. Robinson GA Cipolotti L Walker DG Biggs V Bozzali M Shallice T Verbal suppression and strategy use: a role for the right lateral prefrontal cortex? Brain 2015 138 4 1084 1096 10.1093/brain/awv003 25665583 113. Schmitt LM White SP Cook EH Sweeney JA Mosconi MW Cognitive mechanisms of inhibitory control deficits in autism spectrum disorder J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2018 59 5 586 595 10.1111/jcpp.12837 29052841 114. Mosconi MW Kay M D’Cruz A-M Seidenfeld A Guter S Stanford LD Impaired inhibitory control is associated with higher-order repetitive behaviors in autism spectrum disorders Psychol Med 2009 39 9 1559 1566 10.1017/S0033291708004984 19154646 115. Faja S Nelson DL Variation in restricted and repetitive behaviors and interests relates to inhibitory control and shifting in children with autism spectrum disorder Autism 2019 23 5 1262 1272 10.1177/1362361318804192 30394786 116. Mostert-Kerckhoffs MAL Staal WG Houben RH de Jonge MV Stop and change: inhibition and flexibility skills are related to repetitive behavior in children and young adults with autism spectrum disorders J Autism Dev Disord 2015 45 10 3148 3158 10.1007/s10803-015-2473-y 26043846 117. Hong S-J Vogelstein JT Gozzi A Bernhardt BC Yeo BTT Milham MP Toward neurosubtypes in autism Biol Psychiatry 2020 88 1 111 128 10.1016/j.biopsych.2020.03.022 32553193 118. Tang S Sun N Floris DL Zhang X Di Martino A Yeo BTT Reconciling dimensional and categorical models of autism heterogeneity: a brain connectomics and behavioral study Biol Psychiatry 2020 87 12 1071 1082 10.1016/j.biopsych.2019.11.009 31955916 119. Chen H Uddin LQ Guo X Wang J Wang R Wang X Parsing brain structural heterogeneity in males with autism spectrum disorder reveals distinct clinical subtypes Hum Brain Mapp 2019 40 2 628 637 10.1002/hbm.24400 30251763 120. Easson AK Fatima Z McIntosh AR Functional connectivity-based subtypes of individuals with and without autism spectrum disorder Netw Neurosci 2019 3 2 344 362 10.1162/netn_a_00067 30793086 121. Brookes MJ Groom MJ Liuzzi L Hill RM Smith HJF Briley PM Altered temporal stability in dynamic neural networks underlies connectivity changes in neurodevelopment Neuroimage 2018 174 563 575 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.03.008 29524625 122. Chang C Liu Z Chen MC Liu X Duyn JH EEG correlates of time-varying BOLD functional connectivity Neuroimage 2013 72 227 236 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.01.049 23376790 123. Allen EA Damaraju E Plis SM Erhardt EB Eichele T Calhoun VD Tracking whole-brain connectivity dynamics in the resting state Cereb Cortex 2014 24 3 663 676 10.1093/cercor/bhs352 23146964 124. Vidaurre D Quinn AJ Baker AP Dupret D Tejero-Cantero A Woolrich MW Spectrally resolved fast transient brain states in electrophysiological data Neuroimage 2016 126 81 95 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.11.047 26631815 125. Chen H Nomi JS Uddin LQ Duan X Chen H Intrinsic functional connectivity variance and state-specific under-connectivity in autism Hum Brain Mapp 2017 38 11 5740 5755 10.1002/hbm.23764 28792117 126. Falahpour M Thompson WK Abbott AE Jahedi A Mulvey ME Datko M Underconnected, but not broken? Dynamic functional connectivity MRI shows underconnectivity in autism is linked to increased intra-individual variability across time Brain Connect 2016 6 5 403 414 10.1089/brain.2015.0389 26973154 127. Mash LE Linke AC Olson LA Fishman I Liu TT Müller R Transient states of network connectivity are atypical in autism: a dynamic functional connectivity study Hum Brain Mapp 2019 40 8 2377 2389 10.1002/hbm.24529 30681228 128. Rashid B Blanken LME Muetzel RL Miller R Damaraju E Arbabshirani MR Connectivity dynamics in typical development and its relationship to autistic traits and autism spectrum disorder Hum Brain Mapp 2018 39 8 3127 3142 10.1002/hbm.24064 29602272 129. Magnuson JR Iarocci G Doesburg SM Moreno S Increased intra-subject variability of reaction times and single-trial event-related potential components in children with autism spectrum disorder Autism Res 2020 13 2 221 229 10.1002/aur.2210 31566907 130. Magnuson JR Peatfield NA Fickling SD Nunes AS Christie G Vakorin V Electrophysiology of inhibitory control in the context of emotion processing in children with autism spectrum disorder Front Hum Neurosci 2019 13 78 10.3389/fnhum.2019.00078 30914937 131. Kim SH Grammer J Benrey N Morrison F Lord C Stimulus processing and error monitoring in more-able kindergarteners with autism spectrum disorder: a short review and a preliminary event-related potentials study Eur J Neurosci 2018 47 6 556 567 10.1111/ejn.13580 28394438 132. Faja S Clarkson T Webb SJ Neural and behavioral suppression of interfering flankers by children with and without autism spectrum disorder Neuropsychologia 2016 93 251 261 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.10.017 27825750 133. Høyland AL Øgrim G Lydersen S Hope S Engstrøm M Torske T Event-related potentials in a Cued Go-NoGo task associated with executive functions in adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: a case-control study Front Neurosci 2017 11 393 10.3389/fnins.2017.00393 28744191