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
. 2024 Dec 23:10.1007/s10803-024-06689-5.
doi: 10.1007/s10803-024-06689-5. Online ahead of print.

Stick with Static: Unexpected Detrimental Effects of Visual Movement in a Looking-While-Listening Task

Affiliations

Stick with Static: Unexpected Detrimental Effects of Visual Movement in a Looking-While-Listening Task

Emily Lorang et al. J Autism Dev Disord. .

Abstract

Purpose: Looking while listening (LWL) tasks track eye movements while children view images (e.g., a dog and a ball) and hear an auditory prompt (e.g., "Find the ball"), allowing researchers to measure receptive language in populations who may be difficult to test with traditional measures. However, LWL tasks often result in high levels of missing data and accurately measuring receptive language in autistic children remains a challenge.

Methods: We analyzed data from 18 autistic children ages 2-5 years and examined whether adding visual movement of the named image improved LWL accuracy compared to a static condition. This study also investigated whether receptive language abilities on a standardized assessment moderated the effect of condition (i.e., static vs. movement) on LWL accuracy.

Results: There was evidence of comprehension in both conditions, although children showed faster recognition in the static compared to the movement condition. Standardized language abilities did not moderate the effect of condition on LWL accuracy. However, as standardized receptive language scores increased, accuracy increased.

Conclusion: Findings indicate that the visual movement manipulation in the current study did not improve accuracy compared to traditional static images within the LWL task. These results also suggest a continued need to refine LWL tasks in order to improve LWL methodology and refine receptive language measures for autistic children.

Keywords: Assessment; Autism; Looking-while-listening; Receptive language; Visual salience.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Informed Consent: Written informed consent was obtained from legal guardians. Institutional Review Board: All study procedures were approved by Michigan State University’s Institutional Review Board. Conflict of Interest: The authors declare they have no relevant financial or non-financial conflicts of interest to disclose.

Similar articles

References

    1. Amso D, Hass S, Tenenbaum E, Markant J, & Sheinkopf SJ (2014). Bottom-up attention orienting in young children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorder, 44, 664–673. 10.1038/jid.2014.371 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Arunachalam S, Steele A, Pelletier T, & Luyster R. (2024). Do focused interests support word learning? A study with autistic and nonautistic children. Autism Research. 10.1002/aur.3121 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Barr DJ, Levy R, Scheepers C, & Tily HJ (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, & Walker S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01 - DOI
    1. Brady NC, Anderson CJ, Hahn LJ, Obermeier SM, & Kapa LL (2014). Eye tracking as a measure of receptive vocabulary in children with autism spectrum disorders. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 30(2), 147–159. 10.3109/07434618.2014.904923 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources