The Other Architecture

High Body Empathy, Boundary Vulnerability, and the Non-Autistic Developmental Pathway

High Body Empathy, Boundary Vulnerability, and the Non-Autistic Developmental Pathway
This series has spent six posts tracing the boundary experience of the autistic developmental pathway: where the boundary sense can fail to build, why it can fail, what the consequences are across the lifespan when it does, and what optimal developmental conditions would have provided instead. That account is necessary and it is honest. But it is incomplete, and the incompleteness matters.

Because the non-autistic person in a neurodiverse relationship is not simply a stable, neurologically unremarkable person who has been worn down by a difficult dynamic. They are, in MacMillan's theoretical framework, a person whose own neurological architecture places them at a genuinely distinct position on a human neurological spectrum, one that brings its own profound capacities and its own specific boundary vulnerabilities, and one that has received almost no attention in the developmental psychology literature as a neurological experience in its own right.

This post is about that non-autistic architecture. What it is, what it produces developmentally, and why the boundary difficulties that emerge from it in neurodiverse relationships are not character weaknesses or learned dysfunctions but the predictable expressions of a nervous system doing exactly what it was built to do, in conditions it was not built to navigate without support.

This post draws substantially on MacMillan's theoretical framework, which has not yet been fully published and which points toward research that has not yet been done. It is offered as theory in need of future empirical investigation, not as established finding. The clinical and developmental patterns it describes are real. The neurological account of those patterns is theoretical, coherent, and in need of the research that will either confirm or refine it.


A Different Kind of Neurological Difference

MacMillan's Spiral and Staircase Model™ proposes that autistic and non-autistic developmental pathways differ not simply in the presence or absence of social difficulty, but in the neurological architecture through which each pathway receives and processes the social world. The autistic pathway is characterized by lower levels of embodied simulation and interoceptive sensitivity and awareness, meaning that social and emotional information from others does not arrive automatically, continuously, and in the body in the way it does for non-autistic people (Craig, 2009; Gallese, 2007; Milton, 2012). That difference shapes the entire developmental trajectory, as this series has traced.

But MacMillan's framework also proposes something that the developmental psychology literature has not yet organized: that among non-autistic people, there is significant neurological variation in the degree of embodied simulation and interoceptive sensitivity and awareness, and that people at the high end of that variation, people MacMillan terms high body empathetics, represent a genuinely distinct neurological experience with its own developmental implications (Craig, 2009; Davis, 1983; Gallese, 2007; MacMillan, 2018).

The high body empathetic, in MacMillan’s theoretical framework, is a person whose embodied simulation and interoceptive sensitivity and awareness operate at exceptionally high levels. Where the average non-autistic person is continuously registering social and emotional information from others through body empathy, the high body empathetic is doing so with unusual force and unusual depth (Craig, 2009; Decety & Lamm, 2006; Gallese, 2007). They do not simply notice that someone in the room is distressed. They feel something of that distress in their own body, often before they are consciously aware of it, and often with a vividness and immediacy that makes the distinction between their own emotional state and the emotional states of others genuinely difficult to maintain (Hatfield et al., 1994; Lamm et al., 2016; Tone & Tully, 2014).

This is not a deficit. It is a different neurological architecture, one that brings real and profound capacities: for attunement, for compassion, for the kind of deep relational presence that allows another person to feel genuinely known and genuinely held (Davis, 1983; Hoffman, 2000; Smith, 2006). These are not small things. They are among the most valuable human capacities that exist, and they are rooted in a neurological reality that is as real and as structurally significant as the neurological reality of the autistic developmental pathway (Craig, 2009; Gallese, 2007; Lamm et al., 2016).

But like the autistic developmental pathway, the high body empathetic architecture brings its own specific vulnerabilities. And those vulnerabilities are, at their core, boundary vulnerabilities (Decety & Lamm, 2009; Lamm et al., 2016; Tone & Tully, 2014).

The Structural Boundary Challenge of High Body Empathy

The boundary sense, as this series has argued throughout, depends on the felt experience of where the self ends and another person begins. For most non-autistic people, that felt experience is maintained partly through the continuous registration of others' states through body empathy: a process that, paradoxically, both connects the person to others and maintains the distinction between self and other by keeping the person oriented to both simultaneously (Bird & Viding, 2014; Decety & Lamm, 2006; Lamm et al., 2016).

For the high body empathetic, this process operates at a magnitude that can compromise the distinction it is supposed to maintain. When the registration of another person's emotional state arrives in one's own body with exceptional vividness, when the felt sense of another's distress, need, or perspective is experienced almost as viscerally as one's own, the boundary between self and other becomes genuinely difficult to hold. Not because the high body empathetic lacks a sense of self, but because the neurological architecture through which they engage with others is continuously pulling them toward the other's experience with a force that ordinary boundary maintenance cannot easily resist (Decety & Lamm, 2009; Lamm et al., 2016; Tone & Tully, 2014).

For the high body empathetic, this process operates at a magnitude that can compromise the distinction it is supposed to maintain. When the registration of another person's emotional state arrives in one's own body with exceptional vividness, when the felt sense of another's distress, need, or perspective is experienced almost as viscerally as one's own, maintaining one's own relational ground becomes genuinely difficult. Not because the high body empathetic lacks a sense of self, but because the neurological architecture through which they engage with others is continuously pulling them toward the other's experience with a force that ordinary boundary maintenance cannot easily hold its position against (Decety & Lamm, 2009; Lamm et al., 2016; Tone & Tully, 2014).

The adjacent research on high affective empathy, while not specifically about MacMillan's high body empathetic construct, points in a consistent direction. A growing body of research on what has been termed the dark side of empathy finds that exceptionally high levels of affective empathy, the kind that involves actually feeling something of what others feel in one's own body, is associated with emotional overwhelm, anxiety, depression, burnout, vicarious trauma, and emotional over-involvement (Decety & Lamm, 2009; Figley, 1995; Tone & Tully, 2014; Zhang et al., 2021). These are not the consequences of caring too much in an abstract sense. They are the consequences of a nervous system that is structurally oriented toward others' experience in ways that can make the boundary between self and other difficult to maintain across time and under conditions of sustained relational demand (Lamm et al., 2016; Tone & Tully, 2014).

MacMillan's theoretical framework proposes that the high body empathetic experiences exactly this structural challenge, and that it is neurological in origin rather than learned or characterological (MacMillan [Janai], 2018). This is a theoretical proposition in need of empirical investigation. But it is a proposition with significant clinical and developmental implications, and with real patterns of human experience pointing toward it.

What This Produces Developmentally

If the high body empathetic neurological architecture is real, and if it produces the structural boundary vulnerability MacMillan's framework proposes, then the developmental pathway of the high body empathetic has its own distinct shape, with its own particular challenges and its own particular needs.

Erikson's autonomy stage, as this series has argued, is where the boundary sense begins to build in earnest: the child discovering that they have a will, that the will can be expressed, and that the negotiation of the will against the wills and limits of others is the developmental process through which the felt sense of where the self ends takes shape (Erikson, 1963, 1980; Ryan & Deci, 2017). For the high body empathetic child, that process may be shaped from the beginning by a nervous system that is registering others' states so continuously and so vividly that the self's own will and the other's needs become difficult to hold as separate things (Lamm et al., 2016; Tone & Tully, 2014).

The high body empathetic child who feels another child's distress in their own body may find it genuinely difficult to maintain their own preference against that distress. Not because they have been taught to defer, but because the neurological experience of another person's need is so immediate and so visceral that their own needs may recede from awareness in its presence (Decety & Lamm, 2009; Hatfield et al., 1994; Tone & Tully, 2014). Over time, that pattern can consolidate into something that looks, from the outside, like selflessness or exceptional sensitivity, and from the inside can feel like the self being perpetually organized around what others need rather than what the self itself needs (Figley, 1995; Tone & Tully, 2014).
This is not directly parallel to the failure modes described in Posts 2 and 3, because the high body empathetic's boundary vulnerability is not primarily produced by the environment's specific approach. It is more structurally internal than that. A nervous system continuously oriented toward others' experience will tend toward caretaking and accommodation across a range of environments, not because the environment has demanded it but because the neurological architecture makes it the path of least resistance (Decety & Lamm, 2009; Lamm et al., 2016; Tone & Tully, 2014).

In a critical or over-controlling environment, the high body empathetic child may learn to caretake their way toward safety, organizing themselves around the caregiver's needs and states in order to manage the relational field. In a more supportive environment, the caretaking orientation may still be present, expressed differently but rooted in the same neurological pull. The developmental consequence, across environments, is a boundary sense that may develop with less robustness in the direction of the self's own limits than the developmental journey ideally requires, not because the environment specifically failed to provide challenge or confirmation, but because the nervous system's own orientation consistently pulls the self toward others rather than back toward itself (Erikson, 1963, 1980; Lamm et al., 2016; Ryan & Deci, 2017).

What the high body empathetic developmental pathway needs, in MacMillan's theoretical framework, is what every developmental pathway needs: an environment that can read its signals accurately and offer it the holding environment Kegan describes (Kegan, 1982). But the specific calibration that the high body empathetic pathway needs may include particular support for the development of the self's own limits, particular encouragement of the self's own preferences and will, and particular attention to the pattern of the self organizing around others rather than alongside them (Erikson, 1963, 1980; Kegan, 1982; Ryan & Deci, 2017). Without that support, the boundary sense may develop in a direction that prioritizes the recognition of others' limits over the assertion of one's own, which is, in its own way, as incomplete as the autistic developmental pattern that prioritizes the self's own perspective over the recognition of others' (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2017).

A Neurological Pattern, Not a Pathology

It is worth pausing here to name something that the labels most commonly applied to the non-autistic partner's experience in neurodiverse relationships do not adequately capture.

The patterns that get labeled codependency in these relationships, the chronic accommodation, the loss of self, the suppression of one's own needs in service of another's, the external focus that makes the self difficult to locate, are real in their effects and real in their suffering. The research on what the codependency literature calls codependent behavior confirms that the experiences it is trying to describe produce genuine psychological distress (Cullen et al., 1999; Marks et al., 2012). But the codependency framework locates those experiences in the individual as a pathology, often rooted in family of origin dysfunction or addiction dynamics, and the research has consistently struggled to establish the construct's validity and to distinguish it from what might simply be the normal human response to abnormal relational conditions (Cullen et al., 1999; Marks et al., 2012).

The patterns that get labeled Cassandra syndrome in neurodiverse relationships are similarly real: the chronic sense of being emotionally unseen, of having one's perception of the relationship disbelieved by others, of emotional deprivation inside a relationship one genuinely values, and of the cumulative distress that can develop from years of navigating a neurological mismatch without a framework for understanding it. But Cassandra syndrome is not a recognized clinical diagnosis, and the framing carries risks: it can locate the entire dynamic in the autistic partner's deficits, and it can position the non-autistic partner as a passive victim of their partner's neurology rather than as someone whose own neurological architecture is also shaping the dynamic (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021; Milton, 2012).

MacMillan's theoretical framework proposes a different location for both sets of experiences. The chronic accommodation, the self-loss, the external focus, and the particular susceptibility to emotional depletion in neurodiverse relationships are not primarily the product of family of origin pathology, addiction dynamics, or the autistic partner's behavior alone. They are, in this framework, the expression of a specific neurological architecture, the high body empathetic nervous system, under the specific conditions of close and sustained relationship with a neurological architecture that is organized in a fundamentally different direction (MacMillan, 2018; Milton, 2012; Yew et al., 2023). The relational dynamic amplifies and compounds what the neurological architecture already makes possible. It does not create these patterns from nothing.

This reframing is clinically important. It means that the non-autistic partner's experience in a neurodiverse relationship is not primarily a story about what has been done to them, or about a dysfunction they brought into the relationship from their own history. It is a story about two neurological architectures meeting each other in a relational field, each doing what it was built to do, without adequate support for the mismatch between them (Milton, 2012; Morrison et al., 2020; Yew et al., 2023). Both people are neurologically shaped. Both are responding to something real. And both deserve a framework that sees their experience accurately rather than attributing it to character or pathology (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021; Jaswal & Akhtar, 2019).
This is theoretical. It requires empirical investigation. But it is a theoretical position with significant implications for how non-autistic partners in neurodiverse relationships understand themselves, and for how the providers supporting them approach that support.

The Neurological Pairing: An Empirical Starting Point

MacMillan's graduate research found that non-autistic people who self-selected into intimate partnerships with autistic partners had significantly lower levels of autistic traits than non-autistic people who self-selected into intimate partnerships with other non-autistic people (MacMillan, 2018). This is not a clinical observation or a hypothesis generated from practice alone. It is a research finding, and it points toward something worth taking seriously.

If the high body empathetic represents one end of a neurological spectrum whose other end is the autistic person, then this finding suggests that the pairing of autistic and high body empathetic partners may not be coincidental or simply the product of circumstance. It may be neurologically patterned: two atypical nervous systems at opposite ends of a spectrum of embodied simulation and interoceptive sensitivity and awareness, drawn toward each other through multiple converging routes (Craig, 2009; Gallese, 2007; MacMillan, 2018).

One route is neurological complementarity. The high body empathetic's exceptional capacity for attunement and relational presence may be experienced by the autistic partner as the kind of genuine being-met that their developmental pathway has rarely found. The autistic partner's clarity, directness, and strong relationship with their own perspective may be experienced by the high body empathetic as a kind of grounding, a person who is not continuously pulled in all directions by the social field the way the high body empathetic tends to be (Jaswal & Akhtar, 2019; Milton, 2012; Morrison et al., 2020).

A second route, proposed in MacMillan's theoretical framework and in need of future empirical investigation, is family familiarity. MacMillan's hypothesis, drawing on evolutionary psychology, is that high body empathetics may be born disproportionately into the same family systems as autistic and attention-divergent people, functioning across generations as the relational caregivers who hold those systems together, whose capacity for attunement and self-sacrifice has made it possible for autistic family members to survive and thrive and pass their genetics forward. If that hypothesis holds, high body empathetics may also carry a genetic link to ADHD that has not yet been investigated. And they may be drawn to autistic partners not only through neurological complementarity but through the deep familiarity of a relational dynamic they have known since childhood, in a parent, a sibling, a family system organized around a neurological difference they learned early to accommodate and to care for.

The same familiarity may operate in the other direction. The autistic person may be drawn to the high body empathetic for reasons rooted equally in familiarity: a person whose relational presence and attunement feel recognizable, whose capacity for care and accommodation has always been part of the relational landscape the autistic person has moved through.

These are theoretical propositions in need of research. But they point toward something that reframes the entire landscape of Neurodiverse Relationship Dynamics™: this is not a pairing of one typical person and one atypical person. It is a pairing of two atypical people, each neurologically distinct, each carrying their own developmental history, each drawn toward the other through routes that are rooted in neurology, in family, and in the particular kind of recognition that familiarity produces (MacMillan [Janai], 2018; Milton, 2012). The attraction is real, the complementarity is real, and the difficulties that follow are equally real, because the same differences that create the draw also create the mismatch that neither person, without adequate understanding and support, can navigate from within the dynamic alone (Morrison et al., 2020; Yew et al., 2023).

What the High Body Empathetic Needs

If the high body empathetic neurological architecture produces specific boundary vulnerabilities rooted in a structural orientation toward others' experience, then what this developmental pathway needs is not a diagnosis or a label. It needs what every developmental pathway needs: accurate recognition of what it actually is, and environments calibrated to support its growth rather than simply to accommodate or pathologize its expression (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021; Kegan, 1982; Ryan & Deci, 2017).

That means support for the development of the self's own limits, which may require more deliberate and more explicit attention than it would for a nervous system less continuously pulled toward others. It means learning to recognize the difference between genuinely feeling another person's distress, which the high body empathetic nervous system does structurally and unavoidably, and being responsible for resolving that distress, which is a choice and a pattern rather than a neurological inevitability (Decety & Lamm, 2009; Lamm et al., 2016; Tone & Tully, 2014). It means developing the capacity to stay in contact with one's own experience even in the presence of another person's very powerful experience, which is the specific developmental work that the high body empathetic boundary challenge requires (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Kegan, 1982; Ryan & Deci, 2017).

And it means understanding that the self-loss, the accommodation, and the depletion that the high body empathetic may experience in neurodiverse relationships are not signs of weakness or dysfunction. They are the predictable expression of a nervous system that was built for deep relational connection, meeting relational conditions that consistently demand more of that connection than the nervous system can sustainably provide without adequate support and without the individual developmental work that allows the self to remain clearly located even in the presence of another person's powerful relational pull (Lamm et al., 2016; Tone & Tully, 2014; Yew et al., 2023).

That individual work is not the same as repairing the relationship. It is, as the next post will explore, prior to it. And it is what makes anything genuinely different possible, for both people, whatever the relationship's outcome turns out to be (Kegan, 1982; Ryan & Deci, 2017).

Next in this series: Boundaries in Neurodiverse Relationships, what happens when these two neurological architectures meet each other in close relationship, what the dynamic produces for both people, and what understanding makes possible.



This was Article 7: The Other Architecture

This is Series III — Boundaries Across Neurologies: Autistic Development, High Body Empathy, and Neurodiverse Relationships

Articles in the Series:

1. The Boundary Gap
   What Developmental Psychology Has Never Quite Named

2. When the Self Is Not Allowed to Choose
   Over-Control and the Autistic Developmental Pathway

3. When the Self Is Never Challenged
   Over-Support and the Limits of Unconditional Accommodation

4. Narcissistic Behaviors, Autistic Development, and the Optimal Environment
   A Theoretical Framework for Future Research

5. Masking as Boundary Collapse
   What Happens When the Self Learns to Override Itself

6. The Other Side of the Boundary
   How the Same Developmental Gap Produces Two Problems at Once

7. The Other Architecture
   High Body Empathy, Boundary Vulnerability, and the Non-Autistic Developmental Pathway

8. Boundaries in Neurodiverse Relationships
   When Two Architectures Meet

References

Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Development, 37(4), 887–907. https://doi.org/10.2307/1126611

Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431691111004

Bird, G., & Viding, E. (2014). The self to other model of empathy: Providing a new framework for understanding empathy impairments in psychopathy, autism, and alexithymia. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 47, 520–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.09.021

Bottema-Beutel, K., Kapp, S. K., Lester, J. N., Sasson, N. J., & Hand, B. N. (2021). Avoiding ableist language: Suggestions for autism researchers. Autism in Adulthood, 3(1), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2020.0014

Cullen, J., Carr, A., & Bannon, O. (1999). Codependency: An empirical study from a systemic perspective. Contemporary Family Therapy, 21(4), 505–526. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021627205565

Craig, A. D. B. (2009). How do you feel—now? The anterior insula and human awareness. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(1), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2555

Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113

Decety, J., & Lamm, C. (2006). Human empathy through the lens of social neuroscience. The Scientific World Journal, 6, 1146–1163. https://doi.org/10.1100/tsw.2006.221

Decety, J., & Lamm, C. (2009). Empathy versus personal distress: Recent evidence from social neuroscience. In J. Decety & W. Ickes (Eds.), The social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 199–213). MIT Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). W. W. Norton.

Erikson, E. H. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. W. W. Norton.

Figley, C. R. (1995). Compassion fatigue as secondary traumatic stress disorder: An overview. In C. R. Figley (Ed.), Compassion fatigue: Coping with secondary traumatic stress disorder in those who treat the traumatized (pp. 1–20). Brunner/Mazel.

Gallese, V. (2007). Before and below “theory of mind”: Embodied simulation and the neural correlates of social cognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362(1480), 659–669. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2006.2002

Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion. Cambridge University Press.

Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. Cambridge University Press.

Jaswal, V. K., & Akhtar, N. (2019). Being versus appearing socially uninterested: Challenging assumptions about social motivation in autism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 42, Article e82. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X18001826

Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Harvard University Press.

Lamm, C., Bukowski, H., & Silani, G. (2016). From shared to distinct self–other representations in empathy: Evidence from neurotypical function and socio-cognitive disorders. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1686), Article 20150083. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0083

MacMillan (Janai), A. (2018). An investigation of quality of mixed-neurodevelopmental intimate adult relationships with an emphasis on the typically developing partner perspective [Master’s thesis, Harvard University]. Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:37799748

Marks, A. D. G., Blore, R. L., Hine, D. W., & Dear, G. E. (2012). Development and validation of a revised measure of codependency. Australian Journal of Psychology, 64(3), 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-9536.2011.00034.x

Milton, D. E. M. (2012). On the ontological status of autism: The “double empathy problem.” Disability & Society, 27(6), 883–887. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.710008

Morrison, K. E., DeBrabander, K. M., Jones, D. R., Faso, D. J., Ackerman, R. A., & Sasson, N. J. (2020). Outcomes of real-world social interaction for autistic adults paired with autistic compared to typically developing partners. Autism, 24(5), 1067–1080. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361319892701

Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In D. J. Mashek & A. P. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201–225). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reis, H. T., & Gable, S. L. (2015). Responsiveness. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 67–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.01.001

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press.

Sasson, N. J., Faso, D. J., Nugent, J., Lovell, S., Kennedy, D. P., & Grossman, R. B. (2017). Neurotypical peers are less willing to interact with those with autism based on thin slice judgments. Scientific Reports, 7, Article 40700. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40700

Shogren, K. A., Mosconi, M. W., Raley, S. K., Dean, E. E., Little, T. D., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (2021). Advancing the personalization of assessment and intervention in autistic adolescents and young adults by targeting self-determination and executive processes. Autism in Adulthood, 3(4), 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2021.0010

Smith, A. (2006). Cognitive empathy and emotional empathy in human behavior and evolution. The Psychological Record, 56(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395534

Tone, E. B., & Tully, E. C. (2014). Empathy as a “risky strength”: A multilevel examination of empathy and risk for internalizing disorders. Development and Psychopathology, 26(4 Pt. 2), 1547–1565. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579414001199

Yew, R. Y., Hooley, M., & Stokes, M. A. (2023). Factors of relationship satisfaction for autistic and non-autistic partners in long-term relationships. Autism, 27(7), 2088–2103. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613231160244

Zhang, L., Li, C., Huang, J., & Chen, Y. (2021). Self-oriented empathy and compassion fatigue: The serial mediation of dispositional mindfulness and counselor’s self-efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 613908. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.613908