Recognition of Event Information By Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders

Background:

Generalevent representations (GERs, aka cognitive scripts or event schemas) consist of the actors, props, and spatiotemporal sequences of expected actions that occur during familiar events (Slackman, Hudson, & Fivush, 1986; Hudson & Mayhew, 2009). GERs are important for predicting the progression and outcomes of future experiences and planning for social interactions.

Children with ASD typically exhibit deficits in social communication and their narratives are often disorganized, have limited causal connections, and reveal lack of understanding of the main idea. Therefore, the question arises as to whether children with ASD are able to recruit GERs for these activities. Prior research examining children with ASD has been inconsistent regarding whether they successfully use GERs similarly to neurotypical (NT) children (Trillingsgaard, 1999; Loth, 2007; Volden & Johnston, 1999).

Objectives:

This study investigated whether high-functioning (FSIQ ≥80) children with ASD, ages 6-12, can effectively recruit GERs for common, social events. The current study improved on previous methodological and procedural techniques by employing more stringent matching procedures based on chronological age and overall cognitive abilities.

Methods:

• Participants
  • The total included 19 matched pairs of NT children (6 males; 13 females) and children with ASD (18 males; 1 female). Participants were matched within one year of their ages (6.8 to 12.6 years) and on overall cognitive abilities (FSIQ scores 81-122).
• GER Recognition Task (Replicating Volden & Johnston, 1999)
  • Children were shown a sequenced set of drawings portraying 3 familiar events (restaurant, supermarket, movie theater). Twice per sequence a drawing was shown that disrupted the script. As each drawing was shown, the experimenter asked, “Are things happening as they should?” Responses were audiotaped and coded to determine children’s correct identification of script disruptions, omission errors, commission errors, and types of commission errors.

Results:

	Correct Disruption Identification	Commission Errors	Omission Errors
Group
Restaurant GER	M(SD)	M(SD)	M(SD)
ASD	1.32(.58)	1.89(1.10)	0.79(.63)
NT	1.37(.76)	1.53(1.35)	0.63(.76)
Supermarket GER
ASD	1.37(.60)	0.89(.74)	0.63(.60)
NT	1.37(.60)	1.05(.78)	0.63(.60)
Movie Theater GER
ASD	1.21(.71)	1.00(.82)	0.79(.71)
NT	0.95(.62)	1.32(.67)	1.05(.62)

A 2(Grp)X3(EventType) ANOVA revealed no effect of Group (F(1)=.24, p=.629) and no effect of Event Type GER on Correct Disruption Identification (F(2)=2.90,p=.060.

A 2(Grp)X3(EventType) ANOVA revealed no effect of Group (F(2)=0.04, p=.856), a main effect of Event Type GER on Commission Errors (F(2)=6.97, p=.002.

A 2(Grp)X3(EventType) ANOVA revealed no effect of group (F(1)=0.05, p=.819), no main effect of Event Type GER on Omission Errors (F(2)=2.69, p=.075.

There is also an association of Group with Commission Error Type (misunderstandings, confusions, or missing actions). The ASD group incorrectly reported more missing actions(X²[1,N=31]=5.45, p=.020), but there was no difference between the groups for reports of misunderstandingsor confusions.

Conclusions:

In contrast to previous results, the current study indicates that young children with high-functioning ASD are just as capable as their NT counterparts at identifying script disruptions for common, social events. Additionally, more commission errors were made regarding the restaurant scenario as the ASD sample identified more missing actions that were not explicitly depicted in the script.