Visual strategies in solving Raven’s Matrices: Insights from autism

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) has been associated with superior performance on Raven’s Progressive Matrices (RPM), yet the mechanisms underlying this advantage remain unclear. In typically developing (TD) individuals, two main solving strategies have been described for RPM: Constructive Matching (CM) and Elimination Response (ER). This study aimed to investigate group differences in the use of these strategies through eye-tracking glasses, allowing an ecological completion. Forty-six adults (19 ASD, 27 TD) completed the standard RPM while wearing the mobile eye-tracking device. A composite score reflecting strategic tendency was calculated based on the percentage of matrix and response areas exploration and the number of transitions between them. Results revealed no significant group differences in accuracy or resolution time. Higher composite scores—indicating greater use of the CM strategy—were strongly associated with better performance across participants, as reported previously. Moreover, for successful items, autistic individuals showed a more pronounced preference for the CM strategy than TD individuals but both groups modulated their strategy according to item difficulty in a similar manner. These findings suggest that autistic individuals tend to engage in more analytical and constructive visual reasoning, possibly supported by cognitive traits associated with autism. As no performance advantage emerges with the moderately difficult RPM used here, we discuss the possibility that task complexity and adaptability to complexity may be key to revealing group differences. Future research using more complex tasks and diverse samples may clarify how autistic cognitive profiles affect reasoning strategies and RPM performance. • A composite eye-tracking score reflects strategy use in Raven's Matrices. • Constructive Matching strategy is associated with better performance. • Autistic adults rely more on the effective Constructive Matching strategy. • Both groups adjust strategies based on task difficulty.