Learning Language in Autism: Maternal Linguistic Input Contributes to Later Vocabulary
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well established that children with typical development (TYP) exposed to more maternal linguistic input develop larger vocabularies. We know relatively little about the linguistic environment available to children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD), and whether input contributes to their later vocabulary. Children with ASD or TYP and their mothers from English and French-speaking families engaged in a 10 min free-play interaction. To compare input, children were matched on language ability, sex, and maternal education (ASD n = 20, TYP n = 20). Input was transcribed, and the number of word tokens and types, lexical diversity (D), mean length of utterances (MLU), and number of utterances were calculated. We then examined the relationship between input and children's spoken vocabulary 6 months later in a larger sample (ASD: n = 19, 50-85 months; TYP: n = 44, 25-58 months). No significant group differences were found on the five input features. A hierarchical multiple regression model demonstrated input MLU significantly and positively contributed to spoken vocabulary 6 months later in both groups, over and above initial language levels. No significant difference was found between groups in the slope between input MLU and later vocabulary. Our findings reveal children with ASD and TYP of similar language levels are exposed to similar maternal linguistic environments regarding number of word tokens and types, D, MLU, and number of utterances. Importantly, linguistic input accounted for later vocabulary growth in children with ASD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it