Durrleman Stephanie, Franck Julie
Institute of Cognitive Science, CNRS, Lyon, France; Dept. of Linguistics, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Dept. of Psycholinguistics, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
J Commun Disord. 2015 Mar-Apr;54:15-31. doi: 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2014.12.001. Epub 2015 Jan 6.
A growing body of work indicates a close relation between complement clause sentences and Theory of Mind (ToM) in children with autism (e.g., Tager-Flusberg, & Joseph (2005). In Astington, & Baird (Eds.), Why language matters for theory of mind (pp. 298-318). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press, Lind, & Bowler (2009). Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39(6), 929). However, this link is based primarily on success at a specific complement clause task and a verbal false-belief (FB) task. One cannot exclude that the link found between these tasks may be a by-product of their both presupposing similar levels of language skills. It is also an open question if the role of complementation in ToM success is a privileged one as compared to that of other abilities which have been claimed to be an important factor for ToM understanding in autism, namely executive functioning (EF) (Pellicano (2007). Developmental Psychology 43, 974). Indeed the role played by complementation may be conceived of as an indirect one, mediated by some more general cognitive function related to EF. This study is the first to examine the relation between theory of mind assessed both verbally and non-verbally and various types of complement clause sentences as well as executive functions in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Our participants included 17 children and adolescents with ASD (aged 6 to 16) and a younger TD control group matched on non-verbal IQ (aged 4 to 9 years). Three tasks assessing complements of verbs of cognition, verbs of communication and verbs of perception were conducted. ToM tasks involved a verbal ToM task (Sally-Anne, Baron-Cohen et al. (1985). Cognition, 21(1), 37) as well as a non-verbal one (Colle et al. (2007). Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(4), 716). Indexes of executive functions were collected via a computerized version of the Dimensional Change Card-Sorting task (Frye et al., 1995). Standardized measures of vocabulary, morphosyntax and non-verbal IQ were also administered. Results show similar performance by children with ASD and TD controls for the understanding of complement sentences, for non-verbal ToM and for executive functions. However, children with ASD were significantly impaired for false belief when this was measured verbally. For both ASD and TD, correlations controlling for IQ were found between the verbal FB task and complement sentences of verbs of communication and cognition, but not with verbs of perception. EF indexes did not significantly correlate with either of the ToM tasks, nor did any of the general language scores. These findings provide support for the view that knowledge of certain specific types of complement clause may serve as a privileged means of 'hacking out' solutions to verbal false belief tasks for individuals on the autistic spectrum. More specifically, complements with a truth-value that is independent of that of the matrix clause (i.e. those occurring with verbs of cognition and of communication, but not of perception) may describe a false event while the whole sentence remains true, making these linguistic structures particularly well suited for representing the minds of others (de Villiers, 2007).
Readers will be able to (1) describe and evaluate the hypothesis that complement sentences play a privileged role in false belief task success in autism; (2) describe performance on complement sentences, executive functioning and false belief tasks by children with autism as compared to IQ-matched peers; (3) explain which types of complements specifically relate to false belief task performance and why; and (4) understand that differences in performance by children with autism at different types of false-belief tasks may be related to the nature of the task conducted and the underlying mechanisms involved.
越来越多的研究表明,自闭症儿童的补语句与心理理论(ToM)之间存在密切关系(例如,Tager-Flusberg和Joseph,2005年。载于Astington和Baird编著的《为什么语言对心理理论很重要》,第298 - 318页。美国纽约,牛津大学出版社;Lind和Bowler,2009年。《自闭症与发育障碍杂志》,39(6),929)。然而,这种联系主要基于在特定补语句任务和言语错误信念(FB)任务上的成功。不能排除在这些任务之间发现的联系可能是它们都预设了相似语言技能水平的副产品。与其他被认为是自闭症中理解心理理论的重要因素的能力(即执行功能(EF))相比,补语在心理理论成功中的作用是否具有特权也是一个悬而未决的问题(Pellicano,2007年。《发展心理学》43,974)。事实上,补语所起的作用可能被认为是间接的,由一些与执行功能相关的更一般的认知功能介导。本研究首次考察了自闭症谱系障碍(ASD)儿童在言语和非言语评估的心理理论与各种类型的补语句以及执行功能之间的关系。我们的参与者包括17名患有ASD的儿童和青少年(年龄在6至16岁之间)以及一个在非言语智商上匹配的年龄较小的发育正常(TD)对照组(年龄在4至9岁之间)。进行了三项评估认知动词、交流动词和感知动词补语的任务。心理理论任务包括一个言语心理理论任务(萨利 - 安妮任务,Baron-Cohen等人,1985年。《认知》,21(1),37)以及一个非言语任务(Colle等人,2007年。《自闭症与发育障碍杂志》,37(4),716)。通过维度变化卡片分类任务的计算机化版本收集执行功能指标(Frye等人)
结果显示,患有ASD的儿童和发育正常的对照组在理解补语句、非言语心理理论和执行功能方面表现相似。然而,当通过言语测量错误信念时,患有ASD的儿童明显受损。对于ASD组和发育正常组,在控制智商的情况下,言语错误信念任务与交流动词和认知动词的补语句之间存在相关性,但与感知动词的补语句无关。执行功能指标与任何一个心理理论任务均无显著相关性,一般语言分数也没有相关性。这些发现支持了这样一种观点,即对于自闭症谱系中的个体来说,某些特定类型补语句的知识可能是解决言语错误信念任务的一种特权方式。更具体地说,真值独立于主句真值的补语(即那些与认知动词和交流动词一起出现,但与感知动词不同的补语)可以描述一个错误事件,而整个句子仍然为真,使得这些语言结构特别适合于表征他人的心理(de Villiers,2007年)。
读者将能够(1)描述和评估补语句在自闭症错误信念任务成功中起特权作用的假设;(2)描述自闭症儿童与智商匹配的同龄人在补语句、执行功能和错误信念任务上的表现;(3)解释哪些类型的补语与错误信念任务表现具体相关以及原因;(4)理解自闭症儿童在不同类型错误信念任务上表现的差异可能与所进行任务的性质和所涉及的潜在机制有关。