![[ Visit Client Website ]](images/banner.JPG)
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Northwest Hall (Chicago Hilton)
3:30 PM
Background:
Pragmatic impairments in autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are significant, and are uniquely impaired as children with ASD mature (e.g., Paul et al., 2005). Impairments in executive function, or the allocation of attentional and cognitive resources, may influence pragmatic language ability; specifically, working memory (WM), involved in updating and maintaining representations, may play a central role. This study explores pragmatic language and WM interactions by assessing whether children with ASD maintain accurate representations of what knowledge is shared between conversational partners. This skill, known as common ground (Clark, 1992), has not been previously explored in ASD. The current study utilized a cooperative problem-solving task in which a participant places shapes onto a visual display according to a confederate partner’s spoken instructions; some shapes are unknown to the partner. Previous studies of typical development suggest that while participants’ ultimate responses indicate their knowledge of what shapes are unknown, and thus unlikely to be referred to by the partner, their eye-movements indicate significant competition from these “secret” shapes. Increasing the number of secret shapes provides a manipulation of WM demands. Examining both overt responses and eye movement patterns allows us to examine the interactions among pragmatic language and WM skills in ASD.
Objectives:
The primary goals were to 1) examine the role of WM in a CG task, and 2) explore group differences between children of TD and with ASD, to determine the influence of WM load on perspective-taking during discourse. If WM abilities are critical in maintaining CG, then they may account for some of the variation in pragmatic impairments observed in ASD.
Methods:
Children with ASD (mean age, 11.8 years) and age- and IQ-matched typically developing controls (n = 4 per group) cooperated with a partner (a trained research assistant) to solve a puzzle, following the partner’s instructions to move shapes onto a grid presented on a computer. Participants’ eye movements were tracked during the task. The number of secret shapes, known only to the participant, was manipulated to assess the role of WM. Final analyses will be reported for 40 children (ASD n=20) ranging from 9 to 16 years old.
Results:
Preliminary data indicated that all participants were accurate in their behavioral responses (81%). Eye-movement data indicated that all participants looked more closely, p<0.001, and fixated more quickly, p<0.01, to the target shape. However, the ASD group fixated less accurately, p<.01, and appeared to disambiguate the target more slowly, p<.001, than controls. In addition, differences in performance for low versus high WM conditions suggested that the ASD group was more susceptible to WM demands in this task, consistent with predictions. Overall, eye fixation patterns suggested that children with ASD had greater difficulty differentiating between target and secret shapes.
Conclusions:
Results are consistent with previous studies suggesting taking another’s perspective requires additional processing capacity. Examining the processes underlying pragmatic deficits, such as WM and common ground, will allow for a better understanding of the deficits, and can also illuminate the role of WM in the symptomatology of ASD.
Pragmatic impairments in autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are significant, and are uniquely impaired as children with ASD mature (e.g., Paul et al., 2005). Impairments in executive function, or the allocation of attentional and cognitive resources, may influence pragmatic language ability; specifically, working memory (WM), involved in updating and maintaining representations, may play a central role. This study explores pragmatic language and WM interactions by assessing whether children with ASD maintain accurate representations of what knowledge is shared between conversational partners. This skill, known as common ground (Clark, 1992), has not been previously explored in ASD. The current study utilized a cooperative problem-solving task in which a participant places shapes onto a visual display according to a confederate partner’s spoken instructions; some shapes are unknown to the partner. Previous studies of typical development suggest that while participants’ ultimate responses indicate their knowledge of what shapes are unknown, and thus unlikely to be referred to by the partner, their eye-movements indicate significant competition from these “secret” shapes. Increasing the number of secret shapes provides a manipulation of WM demands. Examining both overt responses and eye movement patterns allows us to examine the interactions among pragmatic language and WM skills in ASD.
Objectives:
The primary goals were to 1) examine the role of WM in a CG task, and 2) explore group differences between children of TD and with ASD, to determine the influence of WM load on perspective-taking during discourse. If WM abilities are critical in maintaining CG, then they may account for some of the variation in pragmatic impairments observed in ASD.
Methods:
Children with ASD (mean age, 11.8 years) and age- and IQ-matched typically developing controls (n = 4 per group) cooperated with a partner (a trained research assistant) to solve a puzzle, following the partner’s instructions to move shapes onto a grid presented on a computer. Participants’ eye movements were tracked during the task. The number of secret shapes, known only to the participant, was manipulated to assess the role of WM. Final analyses will be reported for 40 children (ASD n=20) ranging from 9 to 16 years old.
Results:
Preliminary data indicated that all participants were accurate in their behavioral responses (81%). Eye-movement data indicated that all participants looked more closely, p<0.001, and fixated more quickly, p<0.01, to the target shape. However, the ASD group fixated less accurately, p<.01, and appeared to disambiguate the target more slowly, p<.001, than controls. In addition, differences in performance for low versus high WM conditions suggested that the ASD group was more susceptible to WM demands in this task, consistent with predictions. Overall, eye fixation patterns suggested that children with ASD had greater difficulty differentiating between target and secret shapes.
Conclusions:
Results are consistent with previous studies suggesting taking another’s perspective requires additional processing capacity. Examining the processes underlying pragmatic deficits, such as WM and common ground, will allow for a better understanding of the deficits, and can also illuminate the role of WM in the symptomatology of ASD.