Comparing Frequency of Listener Responses Between Adolescents with and Without ASD During Conversation

Matthewman, Holly; Zane, Emily; Grossman, Ruth B.

doi:10.1007/s10803-021-04996-9

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 44 publications

(60 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This seems aligned with a previous findings that autistic individuals show differences with turn-taking (Bone et al, 2013; Kaczmarek, 2002; Kim & Clarke, 2015; Ying Sng et al, 2018). Similarly, a recent paper from our lab finds that this same group of autistic children also produce back-channeling less often than their NonAu counterparts (Matthewman et al, 2021). One explanation for this is that—when they are acting as the listener—they do not pick up on moments when the speaker pauses for a moment while still holding the floor.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

“…Combining the results of Matthewman et al (2021) and the current study, we find that whether these children are acting as listeners or as speakers, they respond differently to turn-taking cues, specifically those where a speaker is pausing between ideas/utterances/clauses but still desires to hold the floor. In contrast, our like findings show that older autistic children and adolescents are adept at using the discourse marker like , despite its representing complex and nuanced pragmatic information (Fox Tree, 2007; Fuller, 2003; Underhill, 1988).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 61%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Like, it's important: The frequency and use of the discourse marker like in older autistic children

Jones

Zane

Grossman

2022

Autism & Developmental Language Impairments

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background & Aims Discourse markers, such as well or like, serve a variety of functions to support conversational reciprocity: filling pauses, aiding word-finding, and modulating turn-taking by holding the conversational floor. Previous research shows that autistic individuals use discourse markers less frequently than non-autistic (NonAu) peers; however, the discourse marker like has not been included in that research, despite its ubiquitous use by NonAu individuals, and despite the fact that like serves important pragmatic functions that are not encoded by any other discourse marker. Specifically, like signals to the listener that the content of upcoming speech is 1) Important/new; 2) Loose/approximate; 3) Reformulative; or 4) Quotative. The current study addresses this gap in the literature by comparing the frequency of discourse marker like use between older autistic and non-autistic children as well as exploring patterns of usage between the four like functions. Methods Twenty-one 10-to-17-year-old children on the autism spectrum and 20 NonAu peers—statistically matched on age, sex, IQ and language scores—engaged in a semi-structured interview with a researcher. Uses of discourse-marker like were identified from written transcripts of interviews and each use was categorized into one of the four functions. Results There were no significant differences in like frequencies between groups, nor were there differences in relative proportions of functions used by each group. Conclusions Research consistently indicates that autistic individuals use discourse markers significantly less often than their NonAu counterparts, but the findings from our study suggest that this pattern does not persist to all such markers. This group of older autistic children use like as often as their peers and use it to signify similar information about upcoming speech to their listener.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 61%

Like, it's important: The frequency and use of the discourse marker like in older autistic children

Jones

Zane

Grossman

2022

Autism & Developmental Language Impairments

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In sum, there is considerable evidence demonstrating equivalent (high) levels of lexical and syntactic alignment in school age children with ASD compared with language-or age-matched TD children (see also Matthewman et al, 2022;Slocombe et al, 2013). These findings have been cited to support the claim that these types of linguistic alignment are based on automatic psycholinguistic priming mechanisms rather than (or more strongly than) the mentalizing associated with social cognitive and/or affective processes, because the latter are presumed to be impaired in children with ASD.…”

Section: Empirical Evidence For Linguistic Alignment In Asdmentioning

confidence: 99%

●Repeat after me? Both Children with and without Autism Commonly Align Their Language with That of Their Caregivers

Fusaroli¹,

Weed²,

Rocca³

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The role of linguistic repetition in child language is complicated. Echolalia, the persistent repetition of one’s interlocutor’s utterances, has long been associated with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). The literature on echolalia suggests that children with ASD often re-use fragments of language without any communicative or language-learning purpose. At the same time, research on linguistic repetition in typically developing (TD) children and adults increasingly demonstrates that linguistic repetition is an important social activity that helps create shared engagement, common ground and even scaffolds language acquisition. Depending on which literature is consulted, children with ASD, who often have social challenges, might be expected to repeat more or less than typically developing children. Objective: We take a systematic and nuanced approach to linguistic repetition in children with and without ASD: we distinguished exact repetition, rate, and level, as well as lexical, syntactic, and semantic repetition in a large, quasi-naturalistic corpus. We hypothesize that more rigid forms of repetition (exact lexical repetitions) would be more frequent in ASD, and negatively related to individual differences in linguistic, cognitive, and social skills. We hypothesize that more potentially productive forms of repetitions (alignment rate, semantic alignment) would be less frequent in ASD and positively related to the same individual differences.Methods: We analyzed spontaneous speech in 67 parent-child dyads from a longitudinal corpus (30 minutes of play activities at 6 visits over 2 years). We included 32 children diagnosed with ASD and 35 linguistically matched TD children (mean age at recruitment respectively 32.76 and 20.27 months). Alignment was calculated using the ALIGN Python library (Duran et al., 2019). We first contrasted child alignment in actual conversations with that in surrogate pairs formed by a parent and a child from two different dyads. We used Bayesian multilevel zero-and-one-inflated beta regression models. This accounts for the propensity of children to align at all (rate), the proportion of the caregiver’s utterance repeated when the children do align (level), and exact repetitions, as a function of diagnostic group and visit. Lexical repetitions were regressed out from syntactic and semantic repetitions to minimize confounds. Analyses of individual differences include Mullen Expressive Language and Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) as proxies for linguistic skills, Visual Reception for non-linguistic cognitive skill; and Vineland Socialization for socialization skills. Results: We found a small number of exact repetitions in both groups (roughly 1% of utterances across visits); moreover, children with ASD increased their use of repetitions over time while the TD group decreased theirs (at final visit, 1.2% in ASD vs. 0.7% in TD). Partial repetitions were much more frequent: children reused caregivers’ words at high rates regardless of diagnostic group (24% of utterances at first visit). Partial repetitions of words increased in frequency (but not level) over time, and did so faster for TD children (at final visit: 33% for ASD and 40% for TD); and the same happened for partial repetition of syntax (from approximately 20% of utterances in both groups at first visit to 23% for ASD and 43% for TD at last visit) and semantic alignment (from 0.34 semantic similarity at first visit to 0.37 for ASD and 0.44 for TD at last visit). Further, children with richer linguistic abilities also displayed a higher tendency to partially re-use their caregivers’ language (alignment rates and semantic alignment).Discussion: Children with and without ASD commonly re-used the words, syntax, and topics of their caregivers. Furthermore, most repetition was at least potentially productive, with repeated language being re-contextualized and integrated with non-repeated language. Interestingly, children with ASD developed this skill at a slower rate than TD children, contrary to previous findings using less fine-grained methods. Only individual differences in linguistic skills positively related to flexible forms of alignment, further supporting their productive nature. The salience of echolalia in ASD might be partially explained by slight differences in frequency, amplified by lower semantic alignment, persistence over time, and expectations of echolalia. However, more in-depth qualitative and quantitative analyses of how repetitions are used and received in context are needed.

show abstract

“…In sum, there is considerable evidence demonstrating equivalent (high) levels of lexical and syntactic alignment in school‐age children with ASD compared with language‐ or age‐matched TD children (see also Matthewman, Zane, & Grossman, 2022; Slocombe et al., 2013). These findings have been cited to support the claim that these types of linguistic alignment are based on automatic psycholinguistic priming mechanisms rather than (or more strongly than) the mentalizing associated with social cognitive and/or affective processes, because the latter are presumed to be impaired in children with ASD.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Repeat After Me? Both Children With and Without Autism Commonly Align Their Language With That of Their Caregivers

Fusaroli,

Weed,

Rocca

et al. 2023

Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Linguistic repetitions in children are conceptualized as negative in children with autism – echolalia, without communicative purpose – and positive in typically developing (TD) children – linguistic alignment involved in shared engagement, common ground and language acquisition. To investigate this apparent contradiction we analyzed spontaneous speech in 67 parent–child dyads from a longitudinal corpus (30 minutes of play activities at 6 visits over 2 years). We included 32 children with autism and 35 linguistically matched TD children (mean age at recruitment 32.76 and 20.27 months). We found a small number of exact repetitions in both groups (roughly 1% of utterances across visits), which increased over time in children with autism and decreased in the TD group. Partial repetitions were much more frequent: children reused caregivers' words at high rates regardless of diagnostic group (24% of utterances at first visit), and this increased in frequency (but not level) over time, faster for TD children (at final visit: 33% for autism, 40% for TD). The same happened for partial repetition of syntax and semantic alignment. However, chance alignment (as measured by surrogate pairs) also increased and findings for developmental changes were reliable only for syntactic and semantic alignment. Children with richer linguistic abilities also displayed a higher tendency to partially re–use their caregivers' language (alignment rates and semantic alignment). This highlights that all children commonly re–used the words, syntax, and topics of their caregivers, albeit with some quantitative differences, and that most repetition was at least potentially productive, with repeated language being re–contextualized and integrated with non–repeated language. The salience of echolalia in ASD might be partially explained by slight differences in frequency, amplified by lower semantic alignment, persistence over time, and expectations of echolalia. More in–depth qualitative and quantitative analyses of how repetitions are used and received in context are needed.

show abstract

Comparing Frequency of Listener Responses Between Adolescents with and Without ASD During Conversation

Cited by 5 publications

References 44 publications

Like, it's important: The frequency and use of the discourse marker like in older autistic children

Like, it's important: The frequency and use of the discourse marker like in older autistic children

●Repeat after me? Both Children with and without Autism Commonly Align Their Language with That of Their Caregivers

Repeat After Me? Both Children With and Without Autism Commonly Align Their Language With That of Their Caregivers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About