SLI - DDL

Phonological delay or phonological impairment in autism: an intergroup comparison
Sandrine Ferré, Christophe dos Santos & Frédérique Bonnet-Brilhault
a
This work was supported by the Agence Nationale de la
Recherche: ANR-08-BLAN-0328-01
[email protected] - [email protected]
INSERM, U930, Tours, France ; b Université François-Rabelais de Tours, UMR 930 Imagerie et Cerveau, Tours, France
Overall results
Introduction
Studies (Bartak et al., 1975; Cantwell et al., 1978) investigating language, cognition,
and behavior in children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and children with
Specific Language Impairment (SLI) suggested clear differences between these two
groups. Kjelgaard et al. (2001) showed that among the children with autism there
was significant heterogeneity in language skills.
Debate : children with ASD have the same language profile as children with SLI
OR these children present a delayed acquisition rather than a deviancy (TagerFlusberg, 1981; Tager-Flusberg et al., 1990).
Correct productions (raw scores /32)
1
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0
30,0
26,5
25,0
20,0
21,4
18,8
15,0
****
*
10,0
Objectives : to determine whether one aspect of atypical language development
in ASD (i.e. phonology) is only characterized by a simple delay in development or if
it also shows some similarity with structural language impairment found in children
with SLI.
SLI
ASD
ASD
0,0
ASD T1
L2 T1
SLI T1
Overall results show that children with SLI have
significantly more difficulties repeating items, and that
children with ASD perform like L2 children
Mean age
(SD)
Age of
acquisition
(SD)
Mean Z-score
-
-
-5.1
28 6;5-12;11
9;6 (2;9)
-
-
-7.1
29 mo
(14mo)
9;6 (1;9)
7;8 (1;9)
-2.65
Task
• Short-version of the Word Repetition Task (WR) from the BILO-3C (Khomsi et al., 2007)
used to assess phonology by clinicians
• Some unfamiliar words work as non-words (e.g.: moissonneuse-batteuse ‘combine harvester’,
kiosque ‘kiosk’, réservoir ‘tank’)
• No explicit control of phonological complexity was used during test building
Nb Words
32
Mean Nb phonemes
6.9 (3-13)
****
****
--n.s.--
internal L in
coda
[tʁaktœʁ]
ASD T1
L2 T1
SLI T1
*
--n.s.--
Internal C in
coda
[anoʁak]
 Structures that distinguish the 3 groups are more
complex and always involve a consonant in a specific
(‘complex’) syllabic position
--n.s.--
final sC
[ɔʁlɔʒ]
 Patterns of production are specific to each group
[kask]
Mean Nb Syllables
2.7 (1-6)
Patterns of errors
IPC Rank
buffet
chapeau
oiseau robot
chapeau
oiseau robot
éclipse
album
IPC mean
6.8 (1-15)
10
IPC
x score
rs
p-value
ASD
L2
20
tracteur
éclipse
horloge
cafetière
pneu
10
album
5
éclipse
spectacle
15
kiosque
IPC - Rank
15
IPC - Rank
-0.25
-0.47
-0.17
0.16
0.01
0.33
ASD
L2
SLI
-0.60
-0.10
-0.74
0.01
0.69
p < 0.01
oiseau
carafehorloge
ASD T1
•
•
•
Score per item (0/1)
Index of Phonological Complexity (IPC): IPC score is composed of 8 productionbased indices calculated at the word-level. These indices reflects the relative complexity
of the segmental variation within a word
Errors according to phonological position (each phoneme is coded according to its
position in the word produced and its position in the syllabic structure)
L2 T1
SLI T1
ASD group is only different from L2 group in the use of substitution (Z=2.27, p=.02)

ASD group uses similar patterns as SLI group

L2 show preference for elision
L2

Focus on elision:
 ASD & SLI groups omit phonemes
 L2 omit syllables
éclipse
bateau
éclipse
biscuit
album
buffet
Progression one year later (T1 vs T2)
spectacle
kiosque
tracteur
cafetière
pneu
5
10
15
The scores for each group are increasing but the only group that show a
significant difference between T1 and T2 on overall score in the short
version of the task is the L2 group. (p<0.001)
The word ‘buffet’ is not complex: ASD > L2 (L1 frequency effect)
The word ‘éclipse’ is complex: L2 > ASD (complexity effect)
IPC - Rank
Conclusions
Further information
- Productions of participants with pathology are more influenced by phonological complexity than length, as opposed to L2 children
- Children with SLI and ASD are sensitive to consonants in syllable final position. Syllabic complexity plays a role in their segmental deficit
 Phonology is affected in children with ASD and the way it is affected is comparable to productions of children with SLI on many points
Measures
--n.s.--
--*--
casque
sortie
buffet
• Phonological complexity affects ASD & SLI more than L2
• Length affects more L2 than ASD & SLI
--n.s.--
kiosque
10
chapeaurobot
%Metathesis
0
tracteur
spectacle
SLI
%Addition
40
carafe
horloge
cafetière
pneu
% Elision
60
biscuitsortiecarafe
buffet
% Substitution
80
biscuitsortie
5
Word length
x score
rs
p-value
ASD
15
15
buffet
10
• Short-term memory in terms of word length (#
syllables) - Gathercole & Baddeley (1990)
• Input Frequency – Pierrehumbert (2003)
• Index of phonetic complexity – IPC - Jakielski (1998)
• Syllabic structure – Rose (2000)
100
casque
casque
bateau
5
Possible predictors of language development
bateau
Phonology
8;9 (1;8)
6;4-12;7
[tɛʁmomɛtʁ]
15
Length of
exposure
(SD)
6;4-12;9
26
Final C
10
L2
Final L after C
n.s.
***
5
SLI
--***--
Mean of Word Scores for the TSA group - Rank
3 groups of children tested: ASD, SLI and L2 (L1 English, L2 French)
Only participants with atypical development (on average scores below 2 SD) were considered:
17
--n.s.--
5
Participants
ASD
****
****
Mean of Word Scores for the TSA group - Rank
A group of English-speaking children that were acquiring French as a second language will be
use as a ‘standard’ for a delayed acquisition compared to typical French speaking children.
N Age range
***
- ASD sometimes behave like L2 , but are rarely
significantly different from SLI (due to heterogeneity)
- A consonant in syllable final position (‘al.bum’ or
[al.bɔm] or ‘trac.teur’ [tʁak.tœʁ]) (coda position)
implies increases of errors in ASD and SLI children
Sources of difficulties
L2
Group
n.s.
****
Mean of Word Scores for the L2 group - Rank
SLI
-----------------------n.s.-------------------
5,0
Structural differences between groups
REFERENCES
Bartak, L., Rutter, M., & Cox, A. (1975). A comparative study of infantile autism and specific development receptive language disorder.
The children. British Journal of Psychiatry, 126, 127–145.
Cantwell, D. P., Baker, L., & Rutter, M. (1978). A comparative study of infantile autism and specific developmental receptive language
disorder: IV. : Analysis of syntax and language function. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 19, 351-356.
Gathercole, S. E. & Baddeley, A. D. (1990). Phonological memory deficits in language disordered children: Is there a causal
connection? Journal of Memory & Language, 29, 336-360.
Jakielski, K.J. (1998). Motor organization in the acquisition of consonant clusters. University of Texas at Austin: Ann Arbor Michigan. UMI
Dissertation services. PhD thesis.
About this study, the team
and current projects :
Khomsi, A., Khomsi, J., Pasquet, F. & Parbeau-Guéno, A. (2007). Bilans Informatisés du Langage Oral. Paris : ECPA.
Kjelgaard, M., & Tager-Flusberg, H. (2001). An investigation of language impairment in autism: Implications for genetic subgroups.
Language & Cognitive Processes, 16, 287–308
Pierrehumbert, J. (2003). Phonetic diversity, statistical learning, and acquisition of phonology, Language and Speech, 46(2-3), 115-154.
Rose,Y. (2000) Headedness and Prosodic Licensing in the L1 Acquisition of Phonology. Ph.D. Dissertation, McGill University.
Tager-Flusberg H. (1981). Sentence comprehension in autistic children. Applied Psycholinguistics.;2:5–24.
Tager-Flusberg, H., Calkins, S., Nolin, T., Baumberger, T., Anderson, M., & Chadwick-Dias, A. (1990). A longitudinal study of language
acquisition in autistic and Downs syndrome children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 20, 1–21.