↓ Skip to main content

Grammar Is Differentially Impaired in Subgroups of Autism Spectrum Disorders: Evidence from an Investigation of Tense Marking and Morphosyntax

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Grammar Is Differentially Impaired in Subgroups of Autism Spectrum Disorders: Evidence from an Investigation of Tense Marking and Morphosyntax
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00320
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nadezhda Modyanova, Alexandra Perovic, Ken Wexler

Abstract

Deficits in the production of verbal inflection (tense marking, or finiteness) are part of the Optional Infinitive (OI) stage of typical grammatical development. They are also a hallmark of language impairment: they have been used as biomarkers in guiding genetic studies of Specific Language Impairment (SLI), and have also been observed in autism spectrum disorders (ASD). To determine the detailed nature of finiteness abilities in subgroups of ASD [autism with impaired language (ALI) vs. autism with normal language (ALN)], we compared tense marking abilities in 46 children with ALI and 37 children with ALN with that of two groups of nonverbal mental age (MA) and verbal MA-matched typically developing (TD) controls, the first such study described in the literature. Our participants' performance on two elicited production tasks, probing third-person-singular -s and past tense -ed, from the Rice/Wexler Test of Early Grammatical Impairment (TEGI, Rice and Wexler, 2001), revealed extensive deficits in the ALI group: their ability to correctly mark tense was significantly worse than their much younger TD controls', and significantly worse than that of the ALN group. In contrast, the ALN group performed similarly to their TD controls. We found good knowledge of the meaning of tense, and of case and agreement, in both ASD groups. Similarly, both ASD groups showed distributions of null or overt subjects with nonfinite and finite verbs in line with those found in young TD children. A key difference, however, was that the ALI group used (rather than simply omitted) the wrong tense in some sentences, a feature not reported in the OI stage for TD or SLI children. Our results confirm a clear distinction in the morphosyntactic abilities of the two subgroups of children with ASD: the language system responsible for finiteness in the ALN group seems to be functioning comparably to that of the TD children, whereas the ALI group, despite showing knowledge of case and agreement, seems to experience an extensive grammatical deficit with respect to finiteness which does not seem to improve with age. Crucially, our ALI group seems to have worse grammatical abilities even than those reported for SLI.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 89 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 14%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 3%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 26 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 20%
Linguistics 16 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 11%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Neuroscience 4 4%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 30 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 October 2023.
All research outputs
#7,479,136
of 24,590,593 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#10,642
of 33,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,373
of 313,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#255
of 539 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,590,593 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,162 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,011 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 539 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.