Acoustic analysis of speech intonation pattern of individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders

Comparison between the socio-educational profiles of children with verbal and non-verbal Autism Spectrum Disorder

PURPOSE

Compare the psychoeducational profiles of children with verbal and non-verbal Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).

METHODS

Cross-sectional study conducted with a sample of 30 children with a medical diagnosis of ASD (15 verbal and 15 non-verbal) aged 2-9 years. The Psychoeducational Profile-Revised (PEP-R) scale was applied to assess the children's development. The data were analyzed quantitatively and comparatively. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed to evaluate the compatibility between the groups regarding the scores obtained in each PEP-R area, with chronological age as the covariate, and Student's t-Test was used for the independent samples (p≤0.001).

RESULTS

The scores in the different areas of the PEP-R were higher in the verbal group, with associations between language development and cognitive and social adaptive skills in the studied sample. Comparison between the groups showed a lower profile of the non-verbal group, with statistically significant differences in the areas of imitation, perception, gross and fine motor coordination, eye-hand coordination, cognitive performance, and verbal performance.

CONCLUSION

The goal of comparing the psychoeducational profiles of verbal and non-verbal ASD children was reached, and statistically significant differences were observed. The children with non-verbal ASD presented a lower psychoeducational profile compared with that of verbal ASD children. Further studies with larger samples, delimited age groups, and more specific tests in each developmental area are suggested.

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.

Distinctive prosodic features of people with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis study

In this systematic review, we analyzed and evaluated the findings of studies on prosodic features of vocal productions of people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in order to recognize the statistically significant, most confirmed and reliable prosodic differences distinguishing people with ASD from typically developing individuals. Using suitable keywords, three major databases including Web of Science, PubMed and Scopus, were searched. The results for prosodic features such as mean pitch, pitch range and variability, speech rate, intensity and voice duration were extracted from eligible studies. The pooled standard mean difference between ASD and control groups was extracted or calculated. Using I2 statistic and Cochrane Q-test, between-study heterogeneity was evaluated. Furthermore, publication bias was assessed using funnel plot and its significance was evaluated using Egger's and Begg's tests. Thirty-nine eligible studies were retrieved (including 910 and 850 participants for ASD and control groups, respectively). This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that ASD group members had a significantly larger mean pitch (SMD =  - 0.4, 95% CI [- 0.70, - 0.10]), larger pitch range (SMD =  - 0.78, 95% CI [- 1.34, - 0.21]), longer voice duration (SMD =  - 0.43, 95% CI [- 0.72, - 0.15]), and larger pitch variability (SMD = - 0.46, 95% CI [- 0.84, - 0.08]), compared with typically developing control group. However, no significant differences in pitch standard deviation, voice intensity and speech rate were found between groups. Chronological age of participants and voice elicitation tasks were two sources of between-study heterogeneity. Furthermore, no publication bias was observed during analyses (p > 0.05). Mean pitch, pitch range, pitch variability and voice duration were recognized as the prosodic features reliably distinguishing people with ASD from TD individuals.