Language in autism: domains, profiles and co-occurring conditions

This article reviews the current knowledge state on pragmatic and structural language abilities in autism and their potential relation to extralinguistic abilities and autistic traits. The focus is on questions regarding autism language profles with varying degrees of (selective) impairment and with respect to potential comorbidity of autism and language impairment: Is language impairment in autism the co-occurrence of two distinct conditions (comorbidity), a consequence of autism itself (no comorbidity), or one possible combination from a series of neurodevelopmental properties (dimensional approach)? As for language profles in autism, three main groups are identifed, namely, (i) verbal autistic individuals without structural language impairment, (ii) verbal autistic individuals with structural language impairment, and (iii) minimally verbal autistic individuals. However, this tripartite distinction hides enormous linguistic heterogeneity. Regarding the nature of language impairment in autism, there is currently no model of how language difculties may interact with autism characteristics and with various extralinguistic cognitive abilities. Building such a model requires carefully designed explorations that address specifc aspects of language and extralinguistic cognition. This should lead to a fundamental increase in our understanding of language impairment in autism, thereby paving the way for a substantial contribution to the question of how to best characterize neurodevelopmental disorders

Lexical semantics and language profiles in Hebrew-speaking children with ASD

La communication en général, et les capacités linguistiques en particulier, constituent de formidables obstacles pour beaucoup d'enfants avec TSA, qui ont du mal à faire connaître leurs idées, sentiments et intentions à autrui. La sémantique lexicale est fondamentale dans le choix des bons mots et la compréhension du monde autour de soi. Dans la recherche sur le Trouble du spectre de l’autisme (TSA), les capacités langagières sont communément mesurées sur la base de la performance sur des tâches qui mesurent les capacités en sémantique lexicale—les connaissances sur la signification des mots. Or, les connaissances scientifiques sur comment les capacités sémantiques lexicales sont liées aux autres aspects du langage dans le TSA sont pauvres.Communications in general and linguistic abilities in particular, constitute formidable obstacles for many children with ASD, who struggle with making their ideas, feelings and intentions known to others. Lexical semantics is fundamental to choosing the right words, and understanding the surrounding world. In research on ASD, language abilities are very widely measured on the basis of performance on tasks testing lexical semantic abilities—knowledge of the meaning of words. However, very little is known about how lexical semantic abilities are related to other aspects of language in ASD

ASD Is Not DLI: Individuals With Autism and Individuals With Syntactic DLI Show Similar Performance Level in Syntactic Tasks, but Different Error Patterns

Do individuals with autism have a developmental syntactic impairment, DLI (formerly known as SLI)? In this study we directly compared the performance of 18 individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) aged 9;0–18;0 years with that of 93 individuals with Syntactic-Developmental Language Impairment (SyDLI) aged 8;8–14;6 (and with 166 typically-developing children aged 5;2–18;1). We tested them using three syntactic tests assessing the comprehension and production of syntactic structures that are known to be sensitive to syntactic impairment: elicitation of subject and object relative clauses, reading and paraphrasing of object relatives, and repetition of complex syntactic structures including Wh questions, relative clauses, topicalized sentences, sentences with verb movement, sentences with A-movement, and embedded sentences. The results were consistent across the three tasks: the overall rate of correct performance on the syntactic tasks is similar for the children with ASD and those with SyDLI. However, once we look closer, they are very different. The types of errors of the ASD group differ from those of the SyDLI group—the children with ASD provide various types of pragmatically infelicitous responses that are not evinced in the SyDLI or in the age equivalent typically-developing groups. The two groups (ASD and SyDLI) also differ in the pattern of performance—the children with SyDLI show a syntactically-principled pattern of impairment, with selective difficulty in specific sentence types (such as sentences derived by movement of the object across the subject), and normal performance on other structures (such as simple sentences). In contrast, the ASD participants showed generalized low performance on the various sentence structures. Syntactic performance was far from consistent within the ASD group. Whereas all ASD participants had errors that can originate in pragmatic/discourse difficulties, seven of them had completely normal syntax in the structures we tested, and were able to produce, understand, and repeat relative clauses, Wh questions, and topicalized sentences. Only one ASD participant showed a syntactically-principled deficit similar to that of individuals with SyDLI. We conclude that not all individuals with ASD have syntactic difficulties, and that even when they fail in a syntactic task, this does not necessarily originate in a syntactic impairment. This shows that looking only at the total score in a syntactic test may be insufficient, and a fuller picture emerges once the performance on different structures and the types of erroneous responses are analyzed

DataSheet1.docx

<p>Do individuals with autism have a developmental syntactic impairment, DLI (formerly known as SLI)? In this study we directly compared the performance of 18 individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) aged 9;0–18;0 years with that of 93 individuals with Syntactic-Developmental Language Impairment (SyDLI) aged 8;8–14;6 (and with 166 typically-developing children aged 5;2–18;1). We tested them using three syntactic tests assessing the comprehension and production of syntactic structures that are known to be sensitive to syntactic impairment: elicitation of subject and object relative clauses, reading and paraphrasing of object relatives, and repetition of complex syntactic structures including Wh questions, relative clauses, topicalized sentences, sentences with verb movement, sentences with A-movement, and embedded sentences. The results were consistent across the three tasks: the overall rate of correct performance on the syntactic tasks is similar for the children with ASD and those with SyDLI. However, once we look closer, they are very different. The types of errors of the ASD group differ from those of the SyDLI group—the children with ASD provide various types of pragmatically infelicitous responses that are not evinced in the SyDLI or in the age equivalent typically-developing groups. The two groups (ASD and SyDLI) also differ in the pattern of performance—the children with SyDLI show a syntactically-principled pattern of impairment, with selective difficulty in specific sentence types (such as sentences derived by movement of the object across the subject), and normal performance on other structures (such as simple sentences). In contrast, the ASD participants showed generalized low performance on the various sentence structures. Syntactic performance was far from consistent within the ASD group. Whereas all ASD participants had errors that can originate in pragmatic/discourse difficulties, seven of them had completely normal syntax in the structures we tested, and were able to produce, understand, and repeat relative clauses, Wh questions, and topicalized sentences. Only one ASD participant showed a syntactically-principled deficit similar to that of individuals with SyDLI. We conclude that not all individuals with ASD have syntactic difficulties, and that even when they fail in a syntactic task, this does not necessarily originate in a syntactic impairment. This shows that looking only at the total score in a syntactic test may be insufficient, and a fuller picture emerges once the performance on different structures and the types of erroneous responses are analyzed.</p

Individual differences in autistic children’s homograph reading: Evidence from Hebrew

Background and aims On average, autistic individuals make more errors than control participants when reading aloud sentences containing heterophonic homographs—written words with multiple meanings and pronunciations. This finding is widely interpreted within the framework of “weak central coherence” as evidence for impaired sentence-level comprehension resulting in a failure to disambiguate the homograph meaning. However, consistent findings at the group level belie considerable individual variation. Our aim here was to determine whether that variation was reliable and whether it could be predicted. Methods We developed a Hebrew version of the homograph-reading test, containing many more items than is possible in English. The test was administered to 18 native-Hebrew speaking autistic children and adolescents, along with a battery of reading and language assessments. Results Participants with autism showed wide individual variation in performance on the homograph-reading task. Using a mixed random effects logistic regression analysis, we showed that measures of autism severity, single word reading, and single word comprehension all left reliable individual variation unaccounted for and none accounted for variation beyond that associated with the child’s age. Instead, homograph reading was best predicted by performance on a picture naming task, which accounted for unique variation beyond age and each of the other predictors. Conclusions Poor performance of autistic individuals on the English version of the homograph-reading task has until now been characterized as evidence for a comprehension deficit in autism. However, the results of the current study lead us to propose a new working hypothesis—that difficulties affecting some autistic individuals reflect impairment in the use of semantics to guide the selection of the appropriate phonological form during speech production. This hypothesis is consistent with the strong association between homograph reading and picture naming. It may also help explain the inconsistent pattern of results across studies using different measures of linguistic “central coherence.” Implications The results of this preliminary study should be replicated before firm conclusions are drawn. Nonetheless, the study serves to emphasize the importance of considering within-group as well as between-group variations in studies of autism. It also provides a worked example showing how mixed random effect analyses can be used to explore individual differences, distinguishing between genuine variation and psychometric noise

Cleft Lip and/or Cleft Palate: Prenatal Accuracy, Postnatal Course, and Long-Term Outcomes

Orofacial clefts include cleft lip (CL) and cleft palate (CP). This retrospective study assessed the efficacy of prenatal sonographic diagnosis of isolated and non-isolated cases of CL/CP and the postnatal outcomes of these children. Data regarding patients diagnosed and treated in the tertiary orofacial clinic from 2000 to 2020 were retrieved from electronic medical records and telephone-based questionnaires. Isolated CL was found in 7 cases (7.2%), isolated CP in 51 (53%), and combined CL/CP in 38 (39.5%), and 22 cases (23%) were associated with other anomalies. Among 96 cases, 39 (40.6%) were diagnosed prenatally. Isolated CL was diagnosed in 5/7 (71.5%), combined clefts in 29/38 (76.3%), and CP in 7/51 (13.8%). Prenatal chromosomal analysis performed in 32/39 (82%) cases was normal for all. The rate of surgical intervention in the first year of life was 36/38 (94.7%) for combined clefts, 5/7 (71.4%) for CL, and 20/51 (39%) for isolated CP. Most children had speech therapy (23/38 (60.5%), 3/7 (42.8%), and 41/51 (80.3%), respectively) and psychotherapy (6/38 (15.7%), 3/7 (42.8%) and, 15/51 (29.4%), respectively). The accuracy rate of sonographic prenatal diagnosis is low. Our results emphasize the suggested work-up of fetuses with CL and/or CP and improvements to parental counseling, as well as their understanding and compliance regarding post-natal therapeutic plans

Language in autism: domains, profiles and co-occurring conditions

This article reviews the current knowledge state on pragmatic and structural language abilities in autism and their potential relation to extralinguistic abilities and autistic traits. The focus is on questions regarding autism language profiles with varying degrees of (selective) impairment and with respect to potential comorbidity of autism and language impairment: Is language impairment in autism the co-occurrence of two distinct conditions (comorbidity), a consequence of autism itself (no comorbidity), or one possible combination from a series of neurodevelopmental properties (dimensional approach)? As for language profiles in autism, three main groups are identified, namely, (i) verbal autistic individuals without structural language impairment, (ii) verbal autistic individuals with structural language impairment, and (iii) minimally verbal autistic individuals. However, this tripartite distinction hides enormous linguistic heterogeneity. Regarding the nature of language impairment in autism, there is currently no model of how language difficulties may interact with autism characteristics and with various extralinguistic cognitive abilities. Building such a model requires carefully designed explorations that address specific aspects of language and extralinguistic cognition. This should lead to a fundamental increase in our understanding of language impairment in autism, thereby paving the way for a substantial contribution to the question of how to best characterize neurodevelopmental disorders.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Language in autism: domains, profiles and co‑occurring conditions

This article reviews the current knowledge state on pragmatic and structural language abilities in autism and their potential relation to extralinguistic abilities and autistic traits. The focus is on questions regarding autism language profiles with varying degrees of (selective) impairment and with respect to potential comorbidity of autism and language impairment: Is language impairment in autism the co-occurrence of two distinct conditions (comorbidity), a consequence of autism itself (no comorbidity), or one possible combination from a series of neurodevelopmental properties (dimensional approach)? As for language profiles in autism, three main groups are identified, namely, (i) verbal autistic individuals without structural language impairment, (ii) verbal autistic individuals with structural language impairment, and (iii) minimally verbal autistic individuals. However, this tripartite distinction hides enormous linguistic heterogeneity. Regarding the nature of language impairment in autism, there is currently no model of how language difficulties may interact with autism characteristics and with various extralinguistic cognitive abilities. Building such a model requires carefully designed explorations that address specific aspects of language and extralinguistic cognition. This should lead to a fundamental increase in our understanding of language impairment in autism, thereby paving the way for a substantial contribution to the question of how to best characterize neurodevelopmental disorders