Grossman et al. (2013)

 

ANALYSIS

Comparison Research

 

NOTE: No summary of intervention is included in the review.

 

 

KEY:

 

AA = Acoustic analysis

ADOS = Autism Diagnostic Observation Scale

AFA = Auditory and Facial Analysis

ASD = Autism spectrum disorders

E = experimenter

eta =   partial eta squared

f = female

HFA = High –Functioning Autism

m = male

MLU = mean length of utterance

NA = Not Applicable

P = participant or patient

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech-language pathologist

TD = typically developing

 

 

SOURCE: Grossman, R. B., Edelson, L. R., & Tager-Flusberg, H. (2013). Emotional facial and vocal expressions during story retelling by children and adolescents with high-functioning autism. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 56, 1035-1044.

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: July 22, 2016

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY: no grade. This is not an intervention investigation; it is concerned with the nature of prosodic problems associated with clinical conditions.

 

TAKE AWAY: This preliminary investigation is concerned with prosodic and facial affect associated with autism spectrum disorders (ASD); it is not an intervention or assessment investigation. Nevertheless, it has application to the practice of speech-language pathology. The accuracy of participants (Ps) with HFA and their typically developing (TD) peers in representing emotion using facial gestures was similar. However, Ps with HFA are more accurate then TD peers when using prosody to represent emotion. The investigators suggested that because TD peers’ prosody was rated as being closer to neutral expressively, they may have been more difficult to interpret. There was positive correlation between judges’ perception of Ps with HFA facial and prosodic awkwardness with their social communication skills on the Autism Diagnostic Observation Scale (ADOS.) The results cannot be used to describe behavior of females with HFA because there were no females with HFA in the sample.

 

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified?

                                                                                                           

  • What was the type of design? Comparison Research- Prospective, Nonrandomized Group Design with Controls

 

  • What was the focus of the research? Clinically Related

                                                                                                           

  • What was the level of support associated with the type of evidence? Level = B

 

                                                                                                           

  1. Group membership determination:

                                                                                                           

  • If there were groups, were participants randomly assigned to groups? No, the Ps were either diagnosed with HFA or were TD peers.
  • If there were groups and Ps were not randomly assigned to groups, were members of groups carefully matched? Yes

                                                                    

 

  1. Were experimental conditions concealed?

                                                                                                           

– from participants? Unclear

                                                                    

– from administrators of experimental conditions? No

                                                                    

– from analyzers/judges? Yes

                                                                    

 

  1. Were the groups adequately described? Yes

 

  • How many participants were involved in the study?

 

– Because of technical difficulties, there were, in effect, 2 phases of this investigation:

  • Participants (Ps) whose recordings were acoustically analyzed for auditory depiction of affect (Acoustic Analysis group; AA group)
  • Participants (Ps) whose recordings were coded perceptually for auditory and facial depiction of affect (Auditory and Facial Analysis group; AFA group)
  • Apparently, some Ps were analyzed in both the AA group and the AFA group.

 

  • Did all groups maintain membership throughout the investigation? Yes, there was only one session.

 

 

AA GROUP:

 

  • total # of Ps:  29
  • # of groups: 2
  • List names of groups and the number of Ps in each group:

     – High-Functioning Autism (HFA) = 18

– Typically Developing (TD) = 11

                                                                                

— CONTROLLED CHARACTERISTICS                                                

  • cognitive skills: within normal limits for HFA and TD
  • reading: : within normal limits for HFA and TD
  • native and primary language: English
  • receptive vocabulary: within normal limits for HFA and TD (1 HFA and 2 TD Ps were not administered the PPVT; it was not clear if these from AA and/or AFA groups)

 

— DESCRIBED CHARACTERISTICS

  • age:

     HFA = mean 13;10

     TD = mean 15

     Overall range for combined AA, AFA, HFA, TD = 8;2 to 19;9

  • gender:

     HFA = 17m; 1f

     TD = 11m; 0f

  • cognitive skills:

     HFA = mean 109.17

     TD = mean 116.09

  • verbal IQ:

     HFA = mean 108.44

     TD = mean 117.09

  • nonverbal IQ:
    HFA = mean 106.94

     TD = mean 110.64

  • receptive vocabulary:

     HFA = mean 117.65

     TD = mean 119.09

  • literacy:

     HFA = mean 109.39

     TD = mean 110.36

 

AFA GROUP:

 

  • total # of Ps: 26
  • # of groups: 2
  • List names of groups and the number of Ps in each group:

     HFA = 14

TD = 12

  • Did all groups maintain membership throughout the investigation?  

Yes _x___   No   _____   Unclear _________

 

 

— CONTROLLED CHARACTERISTICS                                                

  • cognitive skills: within normal limits for HFA and TD
  • reading: : within normal limits for HFA and TD
  • native and primary language: English
  • receptive vocabulary: within normal limits for HFA and TD (1 HFA and 2 TD Ps were not administered the PPVT; it was not clear if these from AA and/or AFA groups)

 

DESCRIBED CHARACTERISTICS

  • age:

     HFA = mean 14

     TD = mean 14

     Overall range for combined AA, AFA, HFA, TD = 8;2 to 19;9

  • gender:

     HFA = 14m; 0f

     TD = 11m; 1f

  • cognitive skills:

     HFA = mean 108.57

     TD = mean 116.25

  • verbal IQ:

     HFA = mean 109.43

     TD =   mean 113.67

  • nonverbal IQ:
    HFA = mean 104.86

     TD = mean 114.25

  • receptive vocabulary:

     HFA = mean 115.57

   TD = mean 115.20

  • literacy:

     HFA = mean 111.36

     TD = mean 112.08

 

– Were the groups similar? Yes

                                                         

– Were the communication problems adequately described? No

  • Mean scores for all groups on tests of verbal IQ, receptive vocabulary, and literacy were within normal limits. Ranges and individual scores were not provided.

 

 

  1. What were the different conditions for this research?

                                                                                                             

  • Subject (Classification) Groups? Yes

Diagnostic status:

  • HFA
  • TD

                                                               

  • Experimental Conditions?

– Emotion state (including happy, fearful, angry, positive surprise)

 

  • Criterion/Descriptive Conditions? Yes

– Nature of data analysis:

  • AA
  • AFA

 

 

  1. Were the groups controlled acceptably? Yes

 

 

  1. Were dependent measures appropriate and meaningful? Yes

 

– Dependent measures:

 

  • OUTCOME #1: Accuracy of expressed emotion
  • OUTCOME #2: Perceived Intensity of expressed emotion
  • OUTCOME #3: Awkwardness/naturalness of expressed emotion
  • OUTCOME #4: Maximum Fo associated with the production of a targeted emotion
  • OUTCOME #5: Minimum Fo associated with the production of a targeted emotion
  • OUTCOME #6: Mean Fo associated with the production of a targeted emotion
  • OUTCOME #7: Minimum intensity associated with the production of a targeted emotion
  • OUTCOME #8: Maximum intensity associated with the production of a targeted emotion
  • OUTCOME #9:   Mean intensity associated with the production of a targeted emotion
  • OUTCOME #10: Intensity range   associated with the production of a targeted emotion
  • OUTCOME #11: Pitch range associated with the production of a targeted emotion

 

– The dependent measures that are subjective:

  • OUTCOME #1: Accuracy of expressed emotion
  • OUTCOME #2: Perceived Intensity of expressed emotion
  • OUTCOME #3: Awkwardness/naturalness of expressed emotion

 

– The dependent measures that are objective:

  • OUTCOME #4: Maximum Fo associated with the production of a targeted emotion
  • OUTCOME #5: Minimum Fo associated with the production of a targeted emotion
  • OUTCOME #6: Mean Fo associated with the production of a targeted emotion
  • OUTCOME #7: Minimum intensity associated with the production of a targeted emotion
  • OUTCOME #8: Maximum intensity associated with the production of a targeted emotion
  • OUTCOME #9: Mean intensity associated with the production of a targeted emotion
  • OUTCOME #10: Intensity range associated with the production of a targeted emotion
  • OUTCOME #11: Pitch range associated with the production of a targeted emotion

 

 

  1. Were reliability measures provided?

                                                                                                            

  • Interobserver for analyzers? Yes

 

– The interobserver reliability for Outcomes 1, 2, and 3 was at least 0.85 (Cohen’s kappa.)

 

  • Intraobserver for analyzers?   No

 

  • Treatment or test administration fidelity for investigators?

 

 

  1. Description of design:

 

  • Forty Ps with the diagnosis of HFA (N = 22) and TD (N = 18) peers were enrolled in the investigation. The age range of the participants was 8;2 t0 19;9 years.
  • Ps sat in a quiet room and individually viewed a video of an actor telling a narrative with sentences representing 4 different emotions. Ps were told was they were to retell the narrative as if to children.
  • There were 4 brief narratives about a character who was taking pictures on a wildlife safari. Each of the narratives contained at least one sentence with each of the targeted emotions

– happy

– fearful

– angry

– positive surprise

  • The experimenter (E) stopped the video and directed P to retell the narrative after P had viewed it. E provided a script to assist P and recorded P’s production.
  • Due to technical problems with the recording instrumentation, the video of some the Ps was of not sufficient quality for the accurate coding of facial representation of emotion. When the recording instrumentation was changed, although it was possible to code perceptually facial and prosodic production for most of the Ps, some of the audio was not sufficient to allow for acoustic analysis. Therefore, the Ps responses were analyzed in 2 different ways:

– Acoustic analysis only (total 29 Ps)

– Perceptual coding of facial and prosodic representation of targeted emotion (total 26 Ps.)

 

 

  1. What were the results of the statistical (inferential) testing?

 

RESULTS

 

  • OUTCOME #1: Accuracy of expressed emotion
  • AFA – using video as the data

∞ HFA was significantly more accurate in prosodically producing emotion than TD peers.

 

  • OUTCOME #2: Perceived Intensity of expressed emotion
  • AFA

∞ using Freeze frames as the data—there were no significant differences between HFA and TD in the intensity of facial productions of emotion

∞ using video as the data

– There was not a significant difference between HFA and TD in the intensity of facial production of emotion.

– HFA was significantly more intense when prosodically producing emotion than TD peers.

 

  • OUTCOME #3: Awkwardness/naturalness of expressed emotion
  • AFA –

∞ using Freeze frame as the data—there were no significant differences between HFA and TD in awkwardness/naturalness of facial production of emotion

∞ using video as the data –HFA was significantly more awkward in the facial production of emotion.

 

  • OUTCOME #4: Maximum Fo associated with the production of a targeted emotion
  • AA – HFA produced a significantly higher maximum Fo

 

  • OUTCOME #10: Intensity range   associated with the production of a targeted emotion
  • AA – HFA produced a significantly wider intensity range than TD.

 

  • OUTCOME #11: Pitch range associated with the production of a targeted emotion
  • AA – HFA produced a significantly larger pitch range than TD

 

– What were the statistical tests used to determine significance? ANOVA, MANOVA:

 

– Were effect sizes provided? Yes

 

  • OUTCOME #1: Accuracy of expressed emotion – Ps diagnosed with HFA were more accurate in the prosodic expression of emotion than TD peers. Eta = .201 (large)

 

  • OUTCOME #2: Perceived Intensity of expressed emotion– HFA were more intense when prosodically producing emotion than TD peers– Eta = 0.213 (large)

 

  • OUTCOME #3: Awkwardness/naturalness of expressed emotion– HFA Ps significantly more awkward in the facial production of emotion–   Eta = 0.179 (large)

 

  • OUTCOME #4: Maximum Fo associated with the production of a targeted emotion- HFA produced a significantly higher maximum FoEta = 0.134 (moderate)

 

  • OUTCOME #10: Intensity range associated with the production of a targeted emotion– HFA produced a wider intensity pitch range than TD– Eta = 0.133 (moderate)

 

  • OUTCOME #11: Pitch range associated with the production of a targeted emotion – HFA produced a significantly larger pitch range than TD — Eta = 0.65 (large)

 

Were confidence interval (CI) provided? No

 

 

  1. Summary of correlational results:

 

  • No significant correlations for any of the acoustic measures with the social communication scores (on ADOS) of Ps with HFA.

 

  • Significant correlations for HFA Ps between social communication scores on ADOS and
  • video rating of awkwardness of facial production of emotion (r = 0.67)
  • video rating of awkwardness of prosodic production of emotion (r = 0.60)

 

 

 

  1. Summary of descriptive results: Qualitative research —NA

 

 

  1. Brief summary of clinically relevant results:

 

  • The accuracy of Ps with HFA and TD Ps in representing emotion using facial gestures is similar; however, Ps with HFA are more accurate then TD peers when using prosody to represent emotion.

 

  • HFA Ps were also rated as being more expressive than TD peers. This led the investigators to suggest that with the TD peers being closer to neutral expressiveness, they may have been more difficult to interpret.

 

  • Although Ps with HFA were more awkward facially than TD peers, their prosody was not judged to be more awkward.

 

  • The results cannot be used to describe behavior of females with HFA because there were no females with HFA in the sample.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: