Purpose: Retrieval practice has been found to be a powerful strategy to enhance long-term retention of new information; however, the utility of retrieval practice when teaching young children new words is largely unknown, and even less is known for young children with language impairments. The current study examined the effect of 2 different retrieval schedules on word learning at both the behavioral and neural levels. Method: Participants included 16 typically developing children ( M _TD = 61.58 months) and 16 children with developmental language disorder ( M _DLD = 59.60 months). Children participated in novel word learning sessions in which the spacing of retrieval practice was manipulated: Some words were retrieved only after other words had been presented (i.e., repeated retrieval that required contextual reinstatement [RRCR]); others were taught using an immediate retrieval schedule. In Experiment 1, children's recall of the novel word labels and their meanings was tested after a 5-min delay and a 1-week delay. In Experiment 2, event-related brain potentials were obtained from a match–mismatch task utilizing the novel word stimuli. Results: Experiment 1 findings revealed that children were able to label referents and to retain the novel words more successfully if the words were taught in the RRCR learning condition. Experiment 2 findings revealed that mismatching picture–word pairings elicited a robust N400 event-related brain potential only for words that were taught in the RRCR condition. In addition, children were more accurate in identifying picture–word matches and mismatches for words taught in the RRCR condition, relative to the immediate retrieval condition. Conclusions: Retrieval practice that requires contextual reinstatement through spacing results in enhanced word learning and long-term retention of words. Both typically developing children and children with developmental language disorder benefit from this type of retrieval procedure. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.7927112

This study compares the lexical composition of 118 children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) aged 12 to 84 months with 4626 vocabulary-matched typically developing toddlers with and without language delay, aged 8 to 30 months. Children with ASD and late talkers showed a weaker noun bias. Additionally, differences were identified in the proportion of nouns and verbs, and in the semantic categories of animals, toys, household items and vehicles. Most differences appear to reflect the extent of the age differences between the groups. However, children with ASD produced fewer high-social verbs than typical talkers and late talkers, a difference that might be associated with ASD features. In sum, our findings identified areas of overlap and distinction across the developing lexical profiles.

Children with autism spectrum disorder often have significant language delays. But do they learn language differently than neurotypical toddlers? We compared the lexical skills of 64 preverbal and minimally verbal children with autism spectrum disorder to 461 vocabulary-size-matched typically developing toddlers. We also examined social features of verb knowledge using a novel collection of social ratings. Children with autism spectrum disorder produced proportionally more verbs than typically developing toddlers. Children with autism spectrum disorder produced proportionally more action and food words, while typically developing toddlers produced proportionally more animal, people words, and animal sounds and sound effects. Children with autism spectrum disorder also produced “mommy” and “daddy” at lower rates. We discuss how these differences may reflect an association between lexical development and weaknesses in social communication. Lay Although preverbal and minimally verbal children with autism spectrum disorder represent a significant portion of the autism spectrum disorder population, we have a limited understanding of and characterization of them. Although it is a given that their lexical profiles contain fewer words, it is important to determine whether (a) the words preverbal and minimally verbal children with autism spectrum disorder produce are similar to the first words typically developing children produce or (b) there are unique features of the limited words that preverbal and minimally verbal children with autism spectrum disorder produce. The current study compared the early word profiles of preverbal and minimally verbal children with autism spectrum disorder to vocabulary-matched typically developing toddlers. Children with autism spectrum disorder produced proportionally more verbs than typically developing toddlers. Also, children with autism spectrum disorder produced proportionally more action and food words, while typically developing toddlers produced proportionally more animal words, animal sounds and sound effects, and people words. Children with autism spectrum disorder also produced “mommy” and “daddy” at lower rates. Our findings identified several areas of overlap in early word learning; however, our findings also point to differences that may be connected to core weaknesses in social communication (i.e. people words). The findings highlight words and categories that could serve as useful targets for communication intervention with preverbal and minimally verbal children with autism spectrum disorder.

A substantial amount of work has examined language abilities in young children with specific language impairment (SLI); however, our understanding of the developmental trajectory of language impairment is limited. Along with studying the behavioral changes that occur across development, it is important to examine the neural indices of language processing for children with different language trajectories. The current study sought to examine behavioral and neural bases of language processing in adolescents showing three different trajectories: those with normal language development (NL), those exhibiting persistent SLI (SLI-Persistent), and those with a history of SLI who appear to have recovered (SLI-Recovered). Through a sentence judgment task, we examined semantic and syntactic processing. Adolescents judged whether or not each sentence was semantically and syntactically correct. Stimuli consisted of naturally spoken sentences that were either correct, contained a semantic verb error, or contained a syntactic verb agreement error. Verb agreement errors consisted of omission and commission violations of the third-person singular -s. Behavioral button-press responses and electroencephalographic recordings were collected. Behavioral judgments and mean amplitude of the N400 and P600 components were examined. Adolescents in the SLI-Persistent group had lower sentence judgment accuracy overall, relative to the NL and SLI-Recovered groups. Accuracy in judging omission and commission syntactic errors were marginally different, with marginally lower accuracy for commission errors. All groups demonstrated an N400 component elicited by semantic violations. However, adolescents in the SLI-Persistent group demonstrated a less robust P600 component for syntactic violations. Furthermore, adolescents in the SLI-Recovered group exhibited a similar neural profile to the NL group for the semantic and syntactic omission violations. However, a unique profile with initial negativity was observed in the SLI-Recovered group in the commission violation condition. Adolescents with persistent language impairment continue to demonstrate delays in language processing at the behavioral and neural levels. Conversely, the adolescents in the SLI-Recovered group appear to have made gains in language processing skills to overcome their initial impairments. However, our findings suggest that the adolescents in the SLI-Recovered group may have compensatory processing strategies for some aspects of language, as evidenced by a unique event-related potential profile.

Previous work has noted that some children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) display weaknesses in receptive vocabulary relative to expressive vocabulary abilities. The current study extended previous work by examining the receptive-expressive vocabulary profile in boys with idiopathic ASD and boys with concomitant ASD and fragile X syndrome (ASD + FXS). On average, boys with ASD + FXS did not display the same atypical receptive-expressive profile as boys with idiopathic ASD. Notably, there was variation in vocabulary abilities and profiles in both groups. Although we did not identify predictors of receptive-expressive differences, we demonstrated that nonverbal IQ and expressive vocabulary positively predicted concurrent receptive vocabulary knowledge and receptive vocabulary predicted expressive vocabulary. We discuss areas of overlap and divergence in subgroups of ASD.

Background and aims: Understanding the unique expressive language profiles of children with phenotypically similar, but distinct neurodevelopmental disorders, such as idiopathic autism spectrum disorder and fragile X syndrome with a co-diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (fragile X syndrome + autism spectrum disorder), has both clinical and theoretical implications. However, comparative studies of these two clinical groups have been limited, and results have been inconsistent, partially as a result of different assessment methods being utilized. Thus, the current study compared the expressive language profiles of boys with idiopathic autism spectrum disorder and boys with fragile X syndrome + autism spectrum disorder and examined whether a similar linguistic profile emerged across different language sampling contexts: a semi-structured conversation and the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule. Methods: Eighteen boys with autism spectrum disorder ( M_age = 13.25 years) and 19 boys with fragile X syndrome + autism spectrum disorder ( M_age = 12.19 years), matched on autism spectrum disorder symptom severity and similar in terms of chronological age and mean length of utterance, participated in this study. Boys produced two language samples: one semi-structured conversation and one taken from the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule. Language samples were coded for talkativeness, lexical diversity, mean length of utterance, intelligibility, and repetitive or perseverative language. Results: Analyses revealed that boys with autism spectrum disorder produced language samples that were more lexically diverse and intelligible, and that included less topic perseveration compared to boys with fragile X syndrome + autism spectrum disorder. With regards to sampling context, boys in both groups were more talkative and produced longer and more intelligible utterances in their conversation sample compared to their Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule sample. However, boys with autism spectrum disorder and fragile X syndrome + autism spectrum disorder used a higher proportion of topic perseveration during the conversation sample. Conclusions: Overall, we found similarities as well as distinctions in the expressive language profiles of boys with fragile X syndrome + autism spectrum disorder and boys with idiopathic autism spectrum disorder. Moreover, the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule sample elicited a relatively different language profile than the conversation sample for boys in both groups. Implications: These findings help to further elucidate the unique language phenotypes of boys with idiopathic autism spectrum disorder and boys with fragile X syndrome + autism spectrum disorder. Moreover, our findings indicate that multiple language samples may be needed to obtain a comprehensive account of a child’s expressive language ability.