Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Jun;32(2):95-119.
doi: 10.1097/WNN.0000000000000194.

Implicit Measures of Receptive Vocabulary Knowledge in Individuals With Level 3 Autism

Affiliations

Implicit Measures of Receptive Vocabulary Knowledge in Individuals With Level 3 Autism

Emily L Coderre et al. Cogn Behav Neurol. 2019 Jun.

Abstract

Implicit measures of cognition are essential for assessing knowledge in people with Level 3 autism because such individuals are often unable to make reliable overt behavioral responses. In this study, we investigated whether three implicit measures-eye movement (EM) monitoring, pupillary dilation (PD), and event-related potentials (ERPs)-can be used to reliably estimate vocabulary knowledge in individuals with Level 3 autism. Five adults with Level 3 autism were tested in a repeated-measures design with two tasks. High-frequency 'known' words (eg, bus, airplane) and low-frequency 'unknown' words (eg, ackee, cherimoya) were presented in a visual world task (during which EM and PD data were collected) and a picture-word congruity task (during which ERP data were collected). Using a case-study approach with single-subject analyses, we found that these implicit measures have the potential to provide estimates of receptive vocabulary knowledge in individuals with Level 3 autism. Participants differed with respect to which measures were the most sensitive and which variables best predicted vocabulary knowledge. These implicit measures may be useful to assess language abilities in individuals with Level 3 autism, but their use should be tailored to each individual.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Examples of ‘known’ and ‘unknown’ stimuli.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Illustration of the nine electrode clusters used for the EEG analysis.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Results for D.L. A: Bar graphs comparing ‘known’ and ‘unknown’ word trials for each of the eye movement variables. B: Comparisons of ‘known’ and ‘unknown’ word trials for each of the pupillometry variables. Error bars indicate standard error of the mean. C: Event-related potential data for all conditions at the nine electrode cluster sites. Negative is plotted up.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Results for H.D. A: Bar graphs comparing ‘known’ and ‘unknown’ word trials for each of the eye movement variables. B: Comparisons of ‘known’ and ‘unknown’ word trials for each of the pupillometry variables. Error bars indicate standard error of the mean. C: Event-related potential data for all conditions at the nine electrode cluster sites. Negative is plotted up.
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
Results for W.F. A: Bar graphs comparing ‘known’ and ‘unknown’ word trials for each of the eye movement variables. B: Comparisons of ‘known’ and ‘unknown’ word trials for each of the pupillometry variables. Error bars indicate standard error of the mean. Significant differences between ‘known’ and ‘unknown’ words, based on permutation tests with Bonferroni corrections, are indicated by asterisks (*Significant at P<0.05; **Significant at P<0.01). C: Event-related potential data for all conditions at the nine electrode cluster sites. Negative is plotted up. The orange bar beneath the waveforms indicates significant differences between congruent and incongruent conditions for ‘known’ words, as determined by permutation tests with a cluster-based family-wise error correction at P<0.05.
FIGURE 6
FIGURE 6
Results for S.E. A: Bar graphs comparing ‘known’ and ‘unknown’ word trials for each of the eye movement variables. B: Comparisons of ‘known’ and ‘unknown’ word trials for each of the pupillometry variables. Error bars indicate standard error of the mean. Significant differences between ‘known’ and ‘unknown’ words, based on permutation tests with Bonferroni corrections, are indicated by asterisks (*Significant at P<0.05). C: Event-related potential data for all conditions at the nine electrode cluster sites. Negative is plotted up.
FIGURE 7
FIGURE 7
Results for P.B. A: Bar graphs comparing ‘known’ and ‘unknown’ trials for each of the EM variables. B: Comparisons of ‘known’ and ‘unknown’ trials for each of the pupillometry variables. Error bars indicate standard error of the mean. Significant differences or trends toward significance between ‘known’ and ‘unknown’ words, based on permutation tests with Bonferroni corrections, are indicated by asterisks (*Significant at P<0.05; **Significant at P<0.01; ‡Statistical trend at P<0.10). C: Event-related potential data for all conditions at the nine electrode cluster sites. Negative is plotted up. The orange bar beneath the waveforms indicates significant differences between congruent and incongruent conditions for ‘known’ words, as determined by permutation tests with a cluster-based family-wise error correction at P<0.05.
FIGURE 8
FIGURE 8
Summary descriptions of individual participant data. A: ‘Unknown’−‘known’ difference scores (scaled z scores) for each eye movement and pupil dilation variable. Variables on the left were predicted to be larger for ‘unknown’ than ‘known’ word trials, and so the ‘unknown’−‘known’ difference score should be negative. Variables on the right were predicted to be larger for ‘known’ than ‘unknown’ word trials, and so the ‘unknown’−‘known’ differences should be positive. B: Topographic plots of the event-related potential incongruent – congruent difference for ‘known’ and ‘unknown’ words in 50-millsecond windows from 200 to 800 milliseconds after sound presentation.

References

    1. Adamo N, Huo L, Adelsberg S, et al. 2014. Response time intra-subject variability: commonalities between children with autism spectrum disorders and children with ADHD. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 23:69–79. - PMC - PubMed
    1. American Psychiatric Association. 2013. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition: DSM–5 Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
    1. Anderson CJ, Colombo J. 2009. Larger tonic pupil size in young children with autism spectrum disorder. Dev Psychobiol. 51:207–211. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Applied Science Laboratories. 2009. ASL Results [Computer Software]. Bedford, Massachusetts: Applied Science Laboratories.
    1. Bavin EL, Kidd E, Prendergast L, et al. 2014. Severity of autism is related to children’s language processing. Autism Res. 7:687–694. - PubMed

Publication types