Production of contrastive focus in children with autistic spectrum disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contrastive focus serves to emphasize the importance of a semantic unit in the language string. Children with autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) appear to show difficulties in producing this prosodic marker. This study aimed to identify acoustic correlates related to contrastive focus in children with ASD. Nine francophone children with ASD and nine francophone typically developing (TYP) children produced simple four-word sentences (for example, «C’est une chaise.»: «it is a chair.») in a neutral condition and then in a contrastive focus condition. Ninety-six speech productions were recorded using a system that synchronized acoustic signals with lingual and labial movements. Maximum pitch, mean pitch, and pitch range, as well as maximum and mean sound intensity and duration were investigated. Values for pitch range, maximum and mean sound intensity, and duration were greater in the focus condition than in the neutral condition. Moreover, the differences were significantly greater in TYP children than in ASD children, who did not have increased speech values when switching to the focus mode. This suggests that pitch range, and intensity and duration of sound correlate most with contrastive focus marking in both groups. Yet, it appears that ASD children show less contrastive focus marking than TYP children.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".