Division of Biomedical Computer Science, Oregon Health & Science University, Beaverton, OR 97006, USA.
Autism. 2010 May;14(3):215-36. doi: 10.1177/1362361309363281.
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 - 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.
我们展示了使用新的仪器方法进行韵律声学分析的结果,这些方法用于评估自闭症谱系障碍(ASD)和典型发育(TD)儿童的韵律产生能力。有两个任务可以引出焦点重音——一个在声乐模仿范式中,另一个在图片描述范式中;第三个任务也使用声乐模仿范式,要求重复两个音节无意义单词的重音模式。除了焦点重音模仿任务外,仪器方法在所有任务中都能显著区分 ASD 和 TD 组。这些方法在两个声乐模仿任务中的差异也比在图片描述任务中要小,这是预测的结果。事实上,在无意义单词重音重复任务中,仪器方法对 ASD 组的表现更好。这些方法还表明,预测听觉感知判断的声学特征与区分组间差异的特征并不相同。具体来说,两组之间的一个关键区别似乎是各种韵律线索(如音高、幅度和持续时间)之间的平衡差异,而不一定是韵律对比表达的强度或清晰度的差异。