*

On-line attention to cue (ASD n = 13, TYP n = 25)

On-line learning: Test (ASD n = 7, TYP n = 23)

Off-line learning: Object Description (ASD n = 7, TYP = 21)

“Can  you  describe  a  pagoune  for  my  friend?  “        “You  can  tell  me  about  the  size,  color,  shape,  what  you  can  do  with  it  and  what  kind  of  object  it  is.”      Prompt:  “Can  you  tell  me  3  more  things?”  

Gaze versus arrows: Referential intent and word learning in children with autism spectrum disorders and typical development

Janet Bang1, 2, Corentin Montiel1, and Aparna Nadig1, 2

1School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, McGill University, 2Center for Research on Brain, Language, and Music

Background and Aims Participants

Procedure and Results

Discussion

Block  2  (2  trials)  

Block  1  (2  trials)  

(Immediately after video AND one week later) Object Description Baseline (4s) Label (1.63s):

“pagoune, pagoune” Test (4s)

Shown 2x

ISI (1.5s) ISI (1.5s)

“Where is the pagoune?”

+

+

Attention to cue Contingent looks [cue – target]

References

Acknowledgements

ASD  (n  =  13)   TYP  (n  =  25)  

Age    (years;  months,  M  (SD),  range)  

9;3  (1;3)  6;9  –  11;3  

8;8  (1;0)  6;11  –  10;6  

Gender  (M  :  F)   10  :  3   17  :  8  

Nonverbal  IQ  (Leiter-­‐R,  M  (SD),  range)  

110.54  (12.41)  88  –  131  

113.64  (13.55)  83  –  143  

Language    (CELF-­‐4  Word  Classes  -­‐  Total  Standard  Score,  M  (SD),  range)  

10.17  (3.97)  5  –  16    

12.36  (3.2)  7  –  19    

Socioeconomic  status  (Maternal  parent  educa_on)  

54%  university  or  higher  

80%  university  or  higher  

Social  Communica_on  Ques_onnaire  

21.31  (5.82)  14  –  32  

3.66  (2.65)  0  -­‐  11  

This work was partially supported by The Autism Research Training program funded through the CIHR Strategic Initiative in Health Research, with supplemental funding from the Sinneave Family Foundation and McGill University, support from the Center for Research on Brain, Language, and Music, as well as a Travel Award to J.B. from the Drs Annalee & Mark Abelson Travel Fund in Medicine. We also thank Lisa Bissett, Hida Caliskan, Nowrin Hoque, Nicole Khammar, Verona Soliman, Helen Valkanas, and Milva Venditti for their help with testing and coding. Finally, we thank the families in Montreal who gave their time to participate in this study.

When learning new words, it is unclear whether children with ASD and typically-developing children (TYP) attribute intent to a speaker’s referential gaze (i.e., eye gaze directed to an object) or are simply guided by attentional salience (e.g., Baron-Cohen et al., 1995, Bani Hani et al., 2012) . Few studies have examined the long-term retention of information about new words (e.g., recalling semantic features; Norbury et al., 2010).

Bani Hani, H., Gonzalez-Barrero, A. M., & Nadig, A. S. (2012). Children's referential understanding of novel words and parent labeling behaviors: similarities across children with and without autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Child Language, 1-32.

Baron-Cohen, S., Campbell, R., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Grant, J. & Walker, J. (1995). Are children with autism blind to the mentalistic significance of the eyes? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 13, 379-398.

Norbury, C., Griffiths, H., & Nation, K. (2010). Sound before meaning: Word learning in autistic disorders. Neuropsychologia, 48, 4012–4019.

COMMUNICATIVE INTENT

ATTENTIONAL SALIENCE

?•  Is attention to referential gaze greater

than attention to a moving arrow (control for attentional salience)?

•  Do children learn more semantic

features about a novel object with referential gaze versus a moving arrow?

•  What information do they retain one week later?

Attention to cue: Both groups of children attend significantly more to referential gaze versus an arrow when the cue is directed at the target object, but typically-developing children also make more contingent looks between [referential gaze - target] versus [arrow - target]. This suggests that children with ASD may not be using the cue in the same way as typically-developing children (Norbury et al., 2010).

Learning: Whereas children did not differ between cues in their on-line learning (e.g., latency to target), differences were seen in the off-line measure of recollection of semantic features. For both groups, learning from either cue had similar effects immediately after the video. However, one week later, typically-developing children produced significantly more semantic features for objects taught with referential gaze versus an arrow, whereas children with ASD showed no difference. These findings suggest that typically-developing children treat referential gaze cues differently than an arrow, and they retain more semantic features about a target object one week later in the gaze condition. Children with ASD show subtle differences in their processing of gaze which may reduce their retention of semantic features.

Learning measures calculated only for children who correctly identified the target object in both conditions

Cue (3.6s)

+ +

+

Mea

n nu

mbe

r of s

eman

tic fe

atur

es

Mea

n nu

mbe

r of s

eman

tic fe

atur

es

ns d = -.11

Fixa

tion

Dur

atio

n

(acc

ount

ing

for o

vera

ll lo

okin

g tim

e)

Num

ber o

f con

tinge

nt lo

oks

(acc

ount

ing

for c

ontin

gent

look

s to

com

petit

or)

Late

ncy

to fi

xate

to ta

rget

(s)

ns d = - .51

ns d = -.11

ns d = .40

ns d = .19

ns d = .09

p < .05 gaze

arrow

* d = .85 * d = .66 * d = .44 * d = .52

Latency to target Number of semantic features recalled Immediately after video One week later