And the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (Lord et al. 1994), and confirmed by expert clinical opinion. All ASD participants met criteria for autism on the ADI and for autism or spectrum disorder on the ADOS (25 met ASD Lixisenatide cost cut-offs and 61 met autism cutoffs on the ADOS). No ADI scores were available for four adult participants due to lack of suitable informants, but all four had life long histories and current manifestations that were consistent with an ASD diagnosis. The control participants were recruited from the community in response to advertisements. TD participants were screened by telephone questionnaires, interviews, and psychometric evaluations. Participants with TD were excluded if found to have a family history (in parents, siblings, and offspring) of autism, developmental cognitive disorders, learning disabilities, affective disorders, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, or other neurologic or psychiatric disorders thought to have a genetic component. All participants were recruited and assessed by an autism research center at a major university. The data for this study were collected as part of a larger subject characterization battery. Recruitment and data collection procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Boards at two major universities. Written informed consent was obtained from participants and/or guardians prior to testing.J Autism Dev Disord. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 September 01.Bodner et al.PageAssessment InstrumentAuthor Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptProceduresTo create the items for the PIT, the stimulus items from the Mason et al. (2008) functional imaging study of ToM processing were used as initial models. Thirty 2- to 4-sentence stories (28 for testing with two for practice) that presented typical life situations followed by a verbal question that implicitly invited the participant to make an inference were created. The test consisted of two types of items. The first type was designed to elicit responses that described physical relationships (7 questions). The second type (internal) was designed to elicit items that required inferences about mental or emotional states (ToM) (21 questions); however, it was possible that the respondents could provide an answer that described a physical relationship instead. For example, one internal story states, “Andy was only 2 years old. He was sitting in his mother’s lap when a big dog ran up and licked him on the cheek. Andy’s eyes got really big, and he started to cry.” The examiner then asks the participant, “Why did Andy do that?” using an open-ended questioning format. This allows the participant to produce a range of response types. For example, the participant may provide responses that incorporate an understanding of internal states, such as: “Andy was scared of the dog” or “Andy was surprised/startled by the dog” (both Procyanidin B1 site correct emotional ToM responses). Alternatively, the participant may provide responses that are technically correct but do not provide the expected ToM aspect because they refer to physical rather than mental or emotional states. For example, responses such as “Because the dog licked him” (correct physical response). Even when the participant responds incorrectly, information may be gathered as to their inferential abilities. For example, a response such as “Andy is allergic to the dog” is incorrect and also indicates that the respondent made an inference abou.And the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (Lord et al. 1994), and confirmed by expert clinical opinion. All ASD participants met criteria for autism on the ADI and for autism or spectrum disorder on the ADOS (25 met ASD cut-offs and 61 met autism cutoffs on the ADOS). No ADI scores were available for four adult participants due to lack of suitable informants, but all four had life long histories and current manifestations that were consistent with an ASD diagnosis. The control participants were recruited from the community in response to advertisements. TD participants were screened by telephone questionnaires, interviews, and psychometric evaluations. Participants with TD were excluded if found to have a family history (in parents, siblings, and offspring) of autism, developmental cognitive disorders, learning disabilities, affective disorders, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, or other neurologic or psychiatric disorders thought to have a genetic component. All participants were recruited and assessed by an autism research center at a major university. The data for this study were collected as part of a larger subject characterization battery. Recruitment and data collection procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Boards at two major universities. Written informed consent was obtained from participants and/or guardians prior to testing.J Autism Dev Disord. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 September 01.Bodner et al.PageAssessment InstrumentAuthor Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptProceduresTo create the items for the PIT, the stimulus items from the Mason et al. (2008) functional imaging study of ToM processing were used as initial models. Thirty 2- to 4-sentence stories (28 for testing with two for practice) that presented typical life situations followed by a verbal question that implicitly invited the participant to make an inference were created. The test consisted of two types of items. The first type was designed to elicit responses that described physical relationships (7 questions). The second type (internal) was designed to elicit items that required inferences about mental or emotional states (ToM) (21 questions); however, it was possible that the respondents could provide an answer that described a physical relationship instead. For example, one internal story states, “Andy was only 2 years old. He was sitting in his mother’s lap when a big dog ran up and licked him on the cheek. Andy’s eyes got really big, and he started to cry.” The examiner then asks the participant, “Why did Andy do that?” using an open-ended questioning format. This allows the participant to produce a range of response types. For example, the participant may provide responses that incorporate an understanding of internal states, such as: “Andy was scared of the dog” or “Andy was surprised/startled by the dog” (both correct emotional ToM responses). Alternatively, the participant may provide responses that are technically correct but do not provide the expected ToM aspect because they refer to physical rather than mental or emotional states. For example, responses such as “Because the dog licked him” (correct physical response). Even when the participant responds incorrectly, information may be gathered as to their inferential abilities. For example, a response such as “Andy is allergic to the dog” is incorrect and also indicates that the respondent made an inference abou.