Valdosta State University The Effects of Presentation Modality and Rate on Word Recall Abilities In Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders Melanie Hyde, B.S.Ed. Valdosta State University

Disclosures None of the authors had any financial relationships relevant to the content of this presentation. This research was conducted for Science and Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders, a course required as part of the graduate program at Valdosta State University.

Background Sensory abnormalities are included in the differential diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders. Adverse effect on mainstream learning Children with ASD have differences in sensory integration and stimulus perception Impacts learning, attention, processing speed Word recall: simplistic measure of learning In-tact skill in children with ASD Easily manipulable

Background Modality: Rate: Courchesne et al. (1994) – poor modality coordination and deficits in attention shifts between modalities Iarocci and McDonald (2006) – multisensory interactions enhance the “final fused precept” Rate: Tardif et al. (2007) – decreased speed of processing (SOP) in ASD requires a decreased rate of presentation Breznitz et al. (2009) – increasing processing speed through accelerated presentation Preservation of cognitive resources

Experimental Questions 1) How does presentation modality affect word recall abilities in children with autism spectrum disorders 2) How does presentation rate affect word recall abilities in children with autism spectrum disorders? Hypotheses 1) The researcher hypothesized that a relationship would exist between presentation modality and word recall abilities. 2) The researcher hypothesized that as rate decreased, word recall abilities would increase.

Statement of the Purpose The present research sought to establish the variables most positively correlated with word recall abilities in children with ASD as a measure of attention and short-term memory. The purpose of the current study was to determine the methods best utilized in effectively supporting learning within a heterogeneous population.

Methodology Participant: 10 year-old Caucasian male with a confirmed diagnosis of autism Documented IEP No secondary diagnosis or compromising medications Recipient of ongoing speech and language services Sensory observations: hand flapping, excessive fidgeting, full-body rocking Stimuli: 4 words lists comprised of 12 words 5 monosyllabic, 7 bisyllabic

Methodology Procedures: QuickTime Player sound recording and moving recording features Recordings controlled for extraneous input BPM metronome used to control presentation rate Increasing and decreasing the interstimulus interval 120 BPM, .5 second ISI  increased rate 30 BPM, 2 second ISI  decreased rate Administration: Clinical environment Single data-collecting session Explicit instructions Responses recorded for playback and analysis Accuracy and comparison between trials

Results Accuracy of word recall across modality and rate

Discussion Modality and word recall: Current study- No relationship between modality and recall Consistent with literature’s inclusivity Differences in stimuli, environments, methodologies Modality effectiveness may be dependent on: Higher vs. lower levels of cognitive demand Controlled vs. complex environment Lack of benefits for single vs. simultaneous input on simple tasks

Discussion Rate and word recall: Tardif et al. (2007)- Slower SOP requires decreased rate of presentation Slowed presentation shows benefits for complex classroom learning but may not benefit all learning tasks. Word recall is a low endurance activity Simplicity may lend to greater benefits in increased rate Deficits in processing speed = increased cognitive demands Increased rate may conserve cognitive resources and prevents decay (Shiran & Breznitz, 2011)

Implications No differences in auditory and auditory+ visual recall abilities: Simplicity of the task  intact performance (Heaton, 2003) Controlled environment  increased ability to attend (Teder- Salejarvi et al., 2005) Suggestions: Work toward input integration Focus on bimodal integration and rapid learning in simple/conditioned environments (treatment room) On tasks of attention and memory, increased presentation may benefit recall accuracy. Rote memorization ≠deep processing Findings may not generalize to more complex learning tasks.

Limitations Single-subject design The ASD population is heterogeneous in composition Future studies: Varying ages, genders, severities Word list stimuli Possible cognitive overload related to quantity (12 words) If cognitive overload occurred due to the presentation of too many words, recall abilities may have been compromised Inclusion of less words Higher level of importance placed on the recall of each individual word

Clinical Recommendations Implement methods of instruction that best help with coping and processing of the environment. Control for competing factors to better determine sensory preferences. Auditory + visual stimuli vs. auditory stimuli Consider word recall effective in strengthening attention, short-term memory, storage, and retrieval. Increased rate may decrease cognitive delay and lead to increased gains in performance. Vast classroom implications ( working and short-term memory) Explore within the therapeutic setting.

Conclusion Altering the presentation modality and rate of information has the potential to benefit the child with ASD. Tasks of word recall, which measure short-term memory and attention, may benefit from an increased rate of presentation. Conservation of cognitive resources  improved performance (Breznitz et al., 2009) Short-term memory abilities are foundational to learning and abilities of working and long-term memory. Improvements in short-term memory may enhance overall classroom performance and learning efficacy.

References Breznitz, S., Sagroun, T., Shatil, E., & Rodriguez, C. (2009). Cognifit personal coach ™. New York, NY: CogniFit Ltd. Courchesne, E., Townsend, J., Akshoomoff, N. A., Saitoh, O., Yeung-Courchesne, R., Lincoln, A.J., . . . Lau, L. (1994). Impairment in shifting attention in autistic and cerebellar patients. Behavioral Neurosciences, 108, 848-865. Heaton, P. (2003). Pitch memory, labeling, and disembedding in autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44, 543-551. Iarocci, G., & McDonald, J. (2006). Sensory integration and the perceptual experience of persons with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36, 77-90. Shiran, A., & Breznitz, Z. (2011). The effects of cognitive training on recall range and speed of information processing in the working memory of dyslexic and skilled readers. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 24, 524-537. Tardif, C., Lainé, F., Rodriguez, M., & Gepner, B. (2007). Slowing down presentation of facial movements and vocal sounds enhances facial expression recognition and induced facial-vocal imitation in children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorder, 37, 1469-1484. Teder-Salejarvi, W. A., Pierce, K., Courchesne, E., & Hillyard, S. A. (2005). Auditory spatial localization and attention deficits in autistic adults. Cognitive Brain Research, 23, 221-234.