Computational prosodic markers for autism

Jan Van Santen, Emily T. Prud'Hommeaux, Lois M. Black, Margaret Mitchell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

30 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We present results obtained with new instrumental methods for the acoustic analysis of prosody to evaluate prosody production by children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Typical Development (TD). Two tasks elicit focal stress ĝ€" one in a vocal imitation paradigm, the other in a picture-description paradigm; a third task also uses a vocal imitation paradigm, and requires repeating stress patterns of two-syllable nonsense words. The instrumental methods differentiated significantly between the ASD and TD groups in all but the focal stress imitation task. The methods also showed smaller differences in the two vocal imitation tasks than in the picture-description task, as was predicted. In fact, in the nonsense word stress repetition task, the instrumental methods showed better performance for the ASD group. The methods also revealed that the acoustic features that predict auditory-perceptual judgment are not the same as those that differentiate between groups. Specifically, a key difference between the groups appears to be a difference in the balance between the various prosodic cues, such as pitch, amplitude, and duration, and not necessarily a difference in the strength or clarity with which prosodic contrasts are expressed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)215-236
Number of pages22
JournalAutism
Volume14
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 2010

Fingerprint

Autistic Disorder
Acoustics
Cues
Autism Spectrum Disorder

Keywords

  • acoustic
  • autism
  • computational
  • prosody
  • speech

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Developmental and Educational Psychology
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Van Santen, J., Prud'Hommeaux, E. T., Black, L. M., & Mitchell, M. (2010). Computational prosodic markers for autism. Autism, 14(3), 215-236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361309363281

Computational prosodic markers for autism. / Van Santen, Jan; Prud'Hommeaux, Emily T.; Black, Lois M.; Mitchell, Margaret.

In: Autism, Vol. 14, No. 3, 2010, p. 215-236.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Van Santen, J, Prud'Hommeaux, ET, Black, LM & Mitchell, M 2010, 'Computational prosodic markers for autism', Autism, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 215-236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361309363281
Van Santen J, Prud'Hommeaux ET, Black LM, Mitchell M. Computational prosodic markers for autism. Autism. 2010;14(3):215-236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361309363281
Van Santen, Jan ; Prud'Hommeaux, Emily T. ; Black, Lois M. ; Mitchell, Margaret. / Computational prosodic markers for autism. In: Autism. 2010 ; Vol. 14, No. 3. pp. 215-236.
@article{b141e2bab0e5474797b30adac486d647,
title = "Computational prosodic markers for autism",
abstract = "We present results obtained with new instrumental methods for the acoustic analysis of prosody to evaluate prosody production by children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Typical Development (TD). Two tasks elicit focal stress ĝ€{"} one in a vocal imitation paradigm, the other in a picture-description paradigm; a third task also uses a vocal imitation paradigm, and requires repeating stress patterns of two-syllable nonsense words. The instrumental methods differentiated significantly between the ASD and TD groups in all but the focal stress imitation task. The methods also showed smaller differences in the two vocal imitation tasks than in the picture-description task, as was predicted. In fact, in the nonsense word stress repetition task, the instrumental methods showed better performance for the ASD group. The methods also revealed that the acoustic features that predict auditory-perceptual judgment are not the same as those that differentiate between groups. Specifically, a key difference between the groups appears to be a difference in the balance between the various prosodic cues, such as pitch, amplitude, and duration, and not necessarily a difference in the strength or clarity with which prosodic contrasts are expressed.",
keywords = "acoustic, autism, computational, prosody, speech",
author = "{Van Santen}, Jan and Prud'Hommeaux, {Emily T.} and Black, {Lois M.} and Margaret Mitchell",
year = "2010",
doi = "10.1177/1362361309363281",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "14",
pages = "215--236",
journal = "Autism",
issn = "1362-3613",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Computational prosodic markers for autism

AU - Van Santen, Jan

AU - Prud'Hommeaux, Emily T.

AU - Black, Lois M.

AU - Mitchell, Margaret

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - We present results obtained with new instrumental methods for the acoustic analysis of prosody to evaluate prosody production by children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Typical Development (TD). Two tasks elicit focal stress ĝ€" one in a vocal imitation paradigm, the other in a picture-description paradigm; a third task also uses a vocal imitation paradigm, and requires repeating stress patterns of two-syllable nonsense words. The instrumental methods differentiated significantly between the ASD and TD groups in all but the focal stress imitation task. The methods also showed smaller differences in the two vocal imitation tasks than in the picture-description task, as was predicted. In fact, in the nonsense word stress repetition task, the instrumental methods showed better performance for the ASD group. The methods also revealed that the acoustic features that predict auditory-perceptual judgment are not the same as those that differentiate between groups. Specifically, a key difference between the groups appears to be a difference in the balance between the various prosodic cues, such as pitch, amplitude, and duration, and not necessarily a difference in the strength or clarity with which prosodic contrasts are expressed.

AB - We present results obtained with new instrumental methods for the acoustic analysis of prosody to evaluate prosody production by children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Typical Development (TD). Two tasks elicit focal stress ĝ€" one in a vocal imitation paradigm, the other in a picture-description paradigm; a third task also uses a vocal imitation paradigm, and requires repeating stress patterns of two-syllable nonsense words. The instrumental methods differentiated significantly between the ASD and TD groups in all but the focal stress imitation task. The methods also showed smaller differences in the two vocal imitation tasks than in the picture-description task, as was predicted. In fact, in the nonsense word stress repetition task, the instrumental methods showed better performance for the ASD group. The methods also revealed that the acoustic features that predict auditory-perceptual judgment are not the same as those that differentiate between groups. Specifically, a key difference between the groups appears to be a difference in the balance between the various prosodic cues, such as pitch, amplitude, and duration, and not necessarily a difference in the strength or clarity with which prosodic contrasts are expressed.

KW - acoustic

KW - autism

KW - computational

KW - prosody

KW - speech

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77954366803&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77954366803&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1362361309363281

DO - 10.1177/1362361309363281

M3 - Article

VL - 14

SP - 215

EP - 236

JO - Autism

JF - Autism

SN - 1362-3613

IS - 3

ER -