Limits...
Impaired comprehension of alternating syntactic constructions in autism.

Stockbridge MD, Happé FG, White SJ - Autism Res (2013)

Bottom Line: This research examined the potential effects on comprehension of dative expressions that exhibited syntactic alternation versus those that were restricted, whether in syntactic construction or through marked semantic differences in construction.Construction, restriction, and semantic differentiation variables were analyzed for potential effects on the rate of accurate comprehension.Both groups performed with greater accuracy when dative expressions used a prepositional phrase than when the dative action was expressed in the syntax.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London, UK.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Differences in performance on alternation and restriction by group; error bars represent standard errors. There was a statistically reliable difference between the alternating (A: , s = 0.178, 95 percent confidence interval (CI95) = 0.552–0.729) and restricted (R: , s = 0.167, CI95 = 0.617–0.784) conditions seen in the autism spectrum disorder (ASD) group (t(17) = 2.053, P = 0.028), with better performance in the restricted condition. There was no difference in performance on the alternating or restricted conditions in the control group (A: , s = 0.163, CI95 = 0.634–0.797; R: , s = 0.195, CI95 = 0.610–0.814; t(17) = 0.381, P = 0.354).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4584491&req=5

fig01: Differences in performance on alternation and restriction by group; error bars represent standard errors. There was a statistically reliable difference between the alternating (A: , s = 0.178, 95 percent confidence interval (CI95) = 0.552–0.729) and restricted (R: , s = 0.167, CI95 = 0.617–0.784) conditions seen in the autism spectrum disorder (ASD) group (t(17) = 2.053, P = 0.028), with better performance in the restricted condition. There was no difference in performance on the alternating or restricted conditions in the control group (A: , s = 0.163, CI95 = 0.634–0.797; R: , s = 0.195, CI95 = 0.610–0.814; t(17) = 0.381, P = 0.354).

Mentions: The interaction effect between group and restriction approached significance with a moderate effect size (Fig. 1; F(1,34) = 3.482, P = 0.071, ηP2 = 0.093). This nearly significant result reflected an a priori hypothesis and was examined further in post hoc analysis. A one-tailed paired-samples t-test revealed a statistically reliable difference between the alternating (A: , s = 0.178) and restricted (R: , s = 0.167) conditions within the ASD group (t(17) = 2.053, P = 0.028), with better performance in the restricted condition. In the control group, there was no difference in performance on the alternating and restricted conditions, however (A: , s = 0.163; R: , s = 0.195; t(17) = 0.381, P = 0.354). There was no significant interaction effect between group and construction (F(1,34) = 2.087, P = 0.158), between restriction and construction (F(1,34) = 2.228, P = 0.145), or among group, restriction, and construction (F(1,34) = 0.012, P = 0.915). Passive sentences produced no significant results between children with ASD (, s = 0.179) and controls (, s = 0.152), with neither group performing significantly above chance.


Impaired comprehension of alternating syntactic constructions in autism.

Stockbridge MD, Happé FG, White SJ - Autism Res (2013)

Differences in performance on alternation and restriction by group; error bars represent standard errors. There was a statistically reliable difference between the alternating (A: , s = 0.178, 95 percent confidence interval (CI95) = 0.552–0.729) and restricted (R: , s = 0.167, CI95 = 0.617–0.784) conditions seen in the autism spectrum disorder (ASD) group (t(17) = 2.053, P = 0.028), with better performance in the restricted condition. There was no difference in performance on the alternating or restricted conditions in the control group (A: , s = 0.163, CI95 = 0.634–0.797; R: , s = 0.195, CI95 = 0.610–0.814; t(17) = 0.381, P = 0.354).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4584491&req=5

fig01: Differences in performance on alternation and restriction by group; error bars represent standard errors. There was a statistically reliable difference between the alternating (A: , s = 0.178, 95 percent confidence interval (CI95) = 0.552–0.729) and restricted (R: , s = 0.167, CI95 = 0.617–0.784) conditions seen in the autism spectrum disorder (ASD) group (t(17) = 2.053, P = 0.028), with better performance in the restricted condition. There was no difference in performance on the alternating or restricted conditions in the control group (A: , s = 0.163, CI95 = 0.634–0.797; R: , s = 0.195, CI95 = 0.610–0.814; t(17) = 0.381, P = 0.354).
Mentions: The interaction effect between group and restriction approached significance with a moderate effect size (Fig. 1; F(1,34) = 3.482, P = 0.071, ηP2 = 0.093). This nearly significant result reflected an a priori hypothesis and was examined further in post hoc analysis. A one-tailed paired-samples t-test revealed a statistically reliable difference between the alternating (A: , s = 0.178) and restricted (R: , s = 0.167) conditions within the ASD group (t(17) = 2.053, P = 0.028), with better performance in the restricted condition. In the control group, there was no difference in performance on the alternating and restricted conditions, however (A: , s = 0.163; R: , s = 0.195; t(17) = 0.381, P = 0.354). There was no significant interaction effect between group and construction (F(1,34) = 2.087, P = 0.158), between restriction and construction (F(1,34) = 2.228, P = 0.145), or among group, restriction, and construction (F(1,34) = 0.012, P = 0.915). Passive sentences produced no significant results between children with ASD (, s = 0.179) and controls (, s = 0.152), with neither group performing significantly above chance.

Bottom Line: This research examined the potential effects on comprehension of dative expressions that exhibited syntactic alternation versus those that were restricted, whether in syntactic construction or through marked semantic differences in construction.Construction, restriction, and semantic differentiation variables were analyzed for potential effects on the rate of accurate comprehension.Both groups performed with greater accuracy when dative expressions used a prepositional phrase than when the dative action was expressed in the syntax.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London, UK.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus