TY - JOUR
T1 - Computational prosodic markers for autism
AU - Van Santen, Jan P.H.
AU - Prud'Hommeaux, Emily T.
AU - Black, Lois M.
AU - Mitchell, Margaret
PY - 2010/5
Y1 - 2010/5
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 - 10.1177/1362361310363281
DO - 10.1177/1362361310363281
M3 - Article
C2 - 20591942
AN - SCOPUS:77954366803
SN - 1362-3613
VL - 14
SP - 215
EP - 236
JO - Autism
JF - Autism
IS - 3
ER -