Early Predictors to School Age Language: Individual and Interactional Child and Parent Factors

项目总结/摘要 ASD的语言使用是非常异质性的，从适合年龄的非语言。的PI 在过去的8-12年里，跟踪了三组ASD儿童（总N = 42）的语言发育， 从大约2.5年的初始诊断到5-8年的随访，通常发生（TD） 对照组（共N = 45）在研究开始时语言匹配（早期语言纵向研究; LSEL）。我们 展示了精细的生产和理解措施在表征个人方面的效用 两组的差异。这些孩子现在正处于童年中期到青春期， 语言使用适合这个年龄，它的关系，'个人'早期儿童和父母的语言措施 从LSEL和'互动'的措施，从父母-孩子的对话动态。 该项目调查了关于ASD或TD学龄儿童语言的三个问题： 儿童在学校期间的语法、语义和语用语言使用的变异性 年龄显示了这些语言区域的相互依赖性与独特性？我们假设 在当前项目中收集的语法和语义的综合度量将体现 独特性，在变异性上几乎没有重叠。语义学和语用学的综合测量将体现 更强的相互依赖性。 (2)哪一个早期儿童和父母的措施预测儿童的学龄语言使用？ 我们假设，早期儿童的语法，语义和社会认知的措施将预测学龄 相同域中的度量（例如，早期的语法处理将预测在学校的语法用法 年龄）。我们还假设，在孩子的成长过程中使用更多样化的词汇和语法结构的父母， 早期的孩子在学校里会有更高级的分类和语法用法 年龄，以及使用更多非语境化语言并提供更多叙事支架的父母 会有孩子在学龄时使用更复杂的叙述。我们预计 在TD组和ASD组中，早期父母的测量对后期语言的影响相对更大。 (3)哪种早期和同时的交互式会话行为的测量会因群体而异， 预测学龄儿童的语言使用？我们研究了互动动态之间的关系 在孩子们还是学龄前儿童的时候，他们在游戏中聚集，他们的学龄语言。我们 假设话轮转换和反向通道在TD二元互动中比在 与ASD儿童的互动，而对齐措施将因组而异。此外，委员会认为， 会话动态测量将预测儿童随后的言语和理解方面 水平，以及他们在学龄期间的叙述。最后，会话动态测量将起到调解作用 个体测量的预测能力，可能与诊断相互作用。

Project Summary/Abstract Language use in ASD is extremely heterogeneous, ranging from age-appropriate to nonverbal. The PI has tracked language development in three cohorts of children with ASD (total N = 42) for the past 8-12 years, from initial diagnosis at approximately 2.5 years to follow-up at 5-8 years, with typically developing (TD) controls (total N = 45) language-matched at study onset (the Longitudinal Study of Early Language; LSEL). We demonstrated the utility of fine-grained measures of production and comprehension in characterizing individual variation in both groups. These children are now in middle childhood to adolescence, allowing us to study language use appropriate to this age, its relationship to ‘individual’ early child and parent language measures from the LSEL and ‘interactive’ measures drawn from parent-child conversational dynamics. This project investigates three questions about the language of school age children with ASD or TD: How does variability in children’s grammatical, semantic, and pragmatic language usage during school age demonstrate the inter-dependence vs. distinctiveness of these language areas? We hypothesize that composite measures of grammar and semantics collected in the current project will manifest distinctiveness, with little overlap in variability. Composite measures of semantics and pragmatics will manifest stronger inter-dependence. (2) Which individual early child and parent measures predict children’s school age language use? We hypothesize that early child measures of grammar, semantics, and social cognition will predict school age measures in the same domains (e.g., early grammatical processing will predict grammatical usage at school age). We also hypothesize that parents who used more diverse words and grammatical constructions during earlier time periods will have children with more advanced categorization and grammatical usage at school age, and that parents who used more decontextualized language and provided more narrative scaffolding during earlier time periods will have children who use more sophisticated narratives at school age. We expect that early parent measures will exert relatively more influence on later language in the TD vs. ASD group. (3) Which early and concurrent measures of interactive conversational behavior will vary by group and predict children’s school age language use? We examine the relationships between interactive dynamics during play sessions gathered when the children were preschoolers, and their school age language. We hypothesize that turn-taking and backchanneling will be more prevalent in TD dyadic interactions than in interactions with children with ASD while alignment measures will vary less by group. Moreover, conversational dynamics measures will predict aspects of children’s subsequent speech and comprehension levels, as well as their narratives during school age. Finally, conversational dynamics measures will mediate the predictive power of individual measures, possibly in interaction with diagnosis.