Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Sukenik N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5894483 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Sukenik Nufar N Friedmann Naama N

Frontiers in psychology 20180404

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 ar ...[more]

PMID: 29670550

Similar Datasets

Project description:After committing an error, participants tend to perform more slowly. This phenomenon is called post-error slowing (PES). Although previous studies have explored the PES effect in the context of observed errors, the issue as to whether the slowing effect generalizes across tasksets remains unclear. Further, the generation mechanisms of PES following observed errors must be examined. To address the above issues, we employed an observation-execution task in three experiments. During each trial, participants were required to mentally observe the outcomes of their partners in the observation task and then to perform their own key-press according to the mapping rules in the execution task. In Experiment 1, the same tasksets were utilized in the observation task and the execution task, and three error rate conditions (20%, 50% and 80%) were established in the observation task. The results revealed that the PES effect after observed errors was obtained in all three error rate conditions, replicating and extending previous studies. In Experiment 2, distinct stimuli and response rules were utilized in the observation task and the execution task. The result pattern was the same as that in Experiment 1, suggesting that the PES effect after observed errors was a generic adjustment process. In Experiment 3, the response deadline was shortened in the execution task to rule out the ceiling effect, and two error rate conditions (50% and 80%) were established in the observation task. The PES effect after observed errors was still obtained in the 50% and 80% error rate conditions. However, the accuracy in the post-observed error trials was comparable to that in the post-observed correct trials, suggesting that the slowing effect and improved accuracy did not rely on the same underlying mechanism. Current findings indicate that the occurrence of PES after observed errors is not dependent on the probability of observed errors, consistent with the assumption of cognitive control account. Moreover, the PES effect appears across tasksets with distinct stimuli and response rules in the context of observed errors, reflecting a generic process. Additionally, the slowing effect and improved accuracy in the post-observed error trial do not occur together, suggesting that they are independent behavioral adjustments in the context of observed errors.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In 1998 secretin, a gastrointestinal hormone, was suggested as an effective treatment for autism spectrum disorders (ASD) based on anecdotal evidence. OBJECTIVES:To assess whether intravenous secretin improves the core features of ASD, other aspects of behaviour or function such as self-injurious behaviour, and the quality of life of affected individuals and their carers. We also assessed whether secretin causes harm. This is an updated version of our review of this topic originally published in 2005. SEARCH METHODS:We searched CENTRAL (2010 Issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to January 2010) , EMBASE (1980 to 2010 Week 2), PsycINFO (1806 to 2010 Week 2), CINAHL (1938 to January 2010), ERIC (1966 to January 2010), Sociological Abstracts (1952 to January 2010). Sociofile and HealthStar were searched in March 2005 when this review was first published, but were not available for this update. Records were limited to studies published since 1998 as this is when secretin was first proposed as a possible treatment for ASD. We searched reference lists of trials and reviews; we also contacted experts and trialists to find unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA:Randomised controlled trials of intravenous secretin compared to a placebo treatment in children or adults diagnosed with ASD, where at least one standardised outcome measure was reported. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria but for two of these, conducted by Repligen, the only available multisite data were reported in press releases. All outcome data from the other 14 trials were continuous. Where trials used cross-over designs, we conducted analysis on results from the first treatment phase. Where mean change from baseline was reported, we used this in preference to post-treatment scores for meta-analyses or forest plots. Meta-analysis was able to be attempted for only one outcome (Childhood Autism Rating Scale). Insufficient data were available to conduct sensitivity or subgroup analyses to assess the impact of study quality, clinical differences in the intervention or clinically relevant differences between groups, such as age or presence of gastrointestinal symptoms. MAIN RESULTS:Over 900 children were recruited for the secretin trials. Twenty-five established standardised outcome measures were reported to assess core features of ASD, communication, behaviour, visuospatial skills, affect and adverse events. One standardised measure of global impression was also used. No more than four studies used any one outcome measure similarly. When duration from the start of the intervention to outcome assessment was known, outcomes were reported at between three and six weeks. Meta-analysis of data was not possible but there is now consistency of findings, with RCTs of the efficacy of secretin in autism not showing improvements for core features of ASD. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:There is no evidence that single or multiple dose intravenous secretin is effective and as such currently it should not be recommended or administered as a treatment for ASD. Further experimental assessment of secretin's effectiveness for ASD can only be justified if there is new high-quality and replicated scientific evidence that either finds that secretin has a role in neurotransmission in a way that could benefit all children with ASD or identifies important subgroups of children with ASD who could benefit from secretin because of a proven link between the action of secretin and the known cause of their ASD, or the type of problems they are experiencing.

Project description:Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a complex neurological and developmental disorder characterized by behavioral and social impairments as well as multiple co-occurring conditions, such as gastrointestinal abnormalities, dental/periodontal diseases, and allergies. The etiology of ASD likely involves interaction between genetic and environmental factors. Recent studies suggest that oral and gut microbiome play important roles in the pathogenesis of inflammation, immune dysfunction, and disruption of the gut-brain axis, which may contribute to ASD pathophysiology. The majority of previous studies used unrelated neurotypical individuals as controls, and they focused on the gut microbiome, with little attention paid to the oral flora. In this pilot study, we used a first degree-relative matched design combined with high fidelity 16S rRNA (ribosomal RNA) gene amplicon sequencing in order to characterize the oral and gut microbiotas of patients with ASD compared to neurotypical individuals, and explored the utility of microbiome markers for ASD diagnosis and subtyping of clinical comorbid conditions. Additionally, we aimed to develop microbiome biomarkers to monitor responses to a subsequent clinical trial using probiotics supplementation. We identified distinct features of gut and salivary microbiota that differed between ASD patients and neurotypical controls. We next explored the utility of some differentially enriched markers for ASD diagnosis and examined the association between the oral and gut microbiomes using network analysis. Due to the tremendous clinical heterogeneity of the ASD population, we explored the relationship between microbiome and clinical indices as an attempt to extract microbiome signatures assocociated with clinical subtypes, including allergies, abdominal pain, and abnormal dietary habits. The diagnosis of ASD currently relies on psychological testing with potentially high subjectivity. Given the emerging role that the oral and gut microbiome plays in systemic diseases, our study will provide preliminary evidence for developing microbial markers that can be used to diagnose or guide treatment of ASD and comorbid conditions. These preliminary results also serve as a starting point to test whether altering the oral and gut microbiome could improve co-morbid conditions in patients with ASD and further modify the core symptoms of ASD.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets