Embedding Interests of Individuals With Autism Spectrum Disorder a Quality Review Online First

Abstract

Poor metaphor comprehension was considered a hallmark of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), merely contempo research has questioned the extent and the sources of these difficulties. In this cantankerous-sectional study, nosotros compared metaphor comprehension in individuals with ASD (N = 29) and individuals with typical development (TD; North = 31), and investigated the human relationship between cadre linguistic communication and metaphor comprehension. Individuals with ASD showed more difficulty only also a more variable performance in both metaphor and literal items of the job used than individuals with TD did. This indicates that core language ability accounts for metaphor comprehension and should be considered in future research and interventions aiming to improve metaphor comprehension in individuals with ASD.

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is characterized by dumb social communication and stereotypical behaviours and interests (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Individuals with ASD prove considerable variability in their skills inside structural aspects of linguistic communication such as semantics and grammar. In dissimilarity, difficulty within language pragmatics (i.due east., the social use and understanding of language in contexts) is considered a authentication feature of ASD (e.chiliad., Lord & Paul, 1997; Tager-Flusberg & Joseph, 2003). Among difficulties within various pragmatic aspects, misinterpreting metaphors is considered universal in ASD (east.g., encounter Happé, 1993 for a pioneering study on metaphor comprehension in ASD).

Metaphor is a paradigmatic blazon of a figurative language in which in that location is a departure betwixt the encoded literal pregnant of words and their occasion-specific use (Carston, 2017; Noveck et al., 2001). Metaphors are an essential office of oral and written language and advice (Bowdle & Gentner, 2005), and children and adolescents are frequently exposed to metaphors through conversations, education, literature, media communication, and films (e.one thousand., Cameron, 2003; Colston & Kuiper, 2002; Golden, 2010; Katz, 2017; Nippold, 2016; Steen et al., 2010). Thus, not being able to understand metaphors tin accept a negative impact on daily life.

Although individuals with ASD have been shown to struggle with metaphor comprehension, neither the extent of difficulty within metaphor comprehension compared to individuals with TD nor the variables that can explain this difficulty has been investigated sufficiently and so far. The aims of this report are (a) to investigate the extent of difficulties in metaphor comprehension in ASD compared to typical development (TD), and (b) to examine the potential relationships betwixt metaphor comprehension and core language skills. The findings of this written report will inform hereafter enquiry and practice in identifying targets for interventions customized for individuals with ASD.

Metaphor Comprehension in ASD and in Typical Development (TD)

While children with TD are able to understand metaphors that are linguistically and cognitively age-advisable (Pouscoulous, 2011), metaphor comprehension has been shown to be a smashing challenge even for verbally fluent individuals with ASD (Adachi et al., 2004; Vulchanova et al., 2015). This intriguing difference between these groups in metaphor comprehension has been investigated for more than 3 decades (see Kalandadze et al., 2019 for a review), and findings of older studies have contributed to the view that metaphor comprehension is universally impaired in ASD (Gernsbacher & Pripas-Kapit, 2012). Even so, more recent studies take non shown statistically pregnant differences in metaphor comprehension between individuals with ASD and individuals with TD (e.thou., Golden et al., 2010; Hermann et al., 2013; Kasirer & Mashal, 2014; Mashal & Kasirer, 2011). Traditionally, compromised Theory of Mind (ToM) power, that is, the power to sympathise the mental states of others (Baron-Cohen et al., 1985) has been suggested as the chief explanation of difficulties in metaphor comprehension (e.g., Happé, 1993). However, some of the subsequent studies proposed that difficulties in metaphor comprehension individuals with ASD oftentimes prove, cannot be explained solely by impairments in ToM, rather by compromised cadre linguistic communication skills (Norbury, 2005; for a review run across Gernsbacher & Pripas-Kapit, 2012). Core linguistic communication in this study refers to the structural aspects of language such every bit semantics and grammar. However, the potential link between metaphor comprehension and core language skills take not been fully explored.

Is Core Linguistic communication Associated with Metaphor Comprehension in ASD?

To understand a metaphor, the shared semantic features or common footing between 2 different entities (the "topic" and "vehicle") need to be grasped (Bühler et al., 2018; van Herwegen & Rundblad, 2018). For instance, in the metaphor "Mary is a busy bee", Mary (the topic—a human being) shares semantic properties (beingness occupied with work) with a bee (the vehicle—an insect), and this commonality must be grasped to decipher the metaphorical meaning. In addition, metaphors are usually embedded in sentences and advanced control of syntax is necessary to empathise them (see Kalandadze et al., 2019).

The few studies that take investigated the association between core language skills and metaphor comprehension in ASD and TD remain inconclusive. Norbury (2005) plant that broader semantic knowledge was a meaning predictor of metaphor comprehension, but Rundblad and Annaz (2010) argued that this finding was an artefact of the figurative language items included in the measure used. In their own work, Rundblad and Annaz (2010) did not find whatever significant human relationship between core language skills as indexed by receptive vocabulary and metaphor comprehension. This might non be surprising equally they only measured word comprehension, which is necessary only not sufficient for metaphor comprehension (Gernsbacher & Pripas-Kapit, 2012). In a contempo meta-analysis, Kalandadze et al. (2018) concluded that core language was closely related to figurative language comprehension in ASD. Yet, since this meta-analysis examined dissimilar types of figurative linguistic communication (eastward.g., metaphors, idioms, and irony), and understanding each of these may depend on dissimilar aspects of core language, more studies on each of these figurative language types are needed. How metaphor comprehension is related to different aspects of core language skills has not been investigated systematically so far. Therefore, nosotros practice non know what the extent of difficulties in metaphor comprehension in individuals with ASD compared to those with TD is, and which variables can explain metaphor comprehension difficulties in individuals with ASD.

In this report, nosotros investigated how dissimilar aspects of core linguistic communication contribute to metaphor comprehension in individuals with ASD and TD. We operationalized metaphor comprehension in a within-subjects multi-detail experiment, where the literal and metaphorical meaning of words were tested. This immune us to directly assess the extent to which each participant could sympathise each metaphor. We expected moderate group-differences in metaphor comprehension that would be explained by different aspects of core language.

Methods

Participant Recruitment

Later on obtaining ethical blessing from the Norwegian Ideals committee, we recruited participants from across the country to obtain as big a sample as possible. Participation was voluntary, and the parents or legal guardians of all participants provided informed written consent. Verbal understanding was besides obtained from all participants prior to each examination session. Invitations to participate in the study were disseminated through the academy web page, autism associations, educational psychological services, and schools throughout the country. Command participants were deemed to have TD based on parental reports and nonverbal mental age tests used in this study. They were recruited from schools in the Eastern office of Kingdom of norway.

Inclusion criteria for participants were an ASD diagnosis (consistent with the ICD-ten criteria; World Health System, WHO, 1992), being verbally fluent meaning to take the ability to speak in sentences, and to understand the test instructions. To eliminate the potential impact of bi- or multilingualism, at least one parent of each participant in both groups had to exist a native speaker of Norwegian. In addition, the primary linguistic communication spoken at dwelling house had to be Norwegian. No exclusion criteria were practical in terms of comorbidities/co-occurring conditions.

Sample

A full of 29 children and adolescents with ASD and 31 children and adolescents with TD were recruited for the report. One individual with ASD had to be excluded because the tasks were too hard for this participant. The concluding sample consisted of 28 individuals with ASD (three females and 25 males; mean age 146 months (SD = 23 months) and 31 individuals with TD (22 females and 9 males; mean age 152 months (SD = 19 months) (run across Tabular array i for demographic information). Unfortunately, despite our efforts, a gender balance between the groups could not be reached.

Tabular array ane Descriptive statistics for the groups

Total size table

Validation of ASD Diagnosis

The parents or guardians were asked to consummate the Norwegian version of the Children's Communication Checklist (CCC-2) (Bishop, 2003a, 2003b) and the Social Responsiveness Calibration (SRS) (Constantino & Gruber, 2012). Both checklists are commonly used to appraise pragmatic and social communication skills and repetitive/stereotypical behaviours. The CCC-2 assesses the children's communication in everyday situations and is currently the virtually psychometrically sound and validated instrument for identifying atypical pragmatic development (Norbury, 2014). The SRS measured autistic symptoms with a higher score reflecting a higher level of autistic behaviours. Both the CCC-2 and SRS tin distinguish individuals with ASD from individuals with TD (Bishop, 2003a, 2003b; Constantino & Gruber, 2012).

Concrete and Mental Age

Physical age was measured in months and ranged from 120 to 196 months in the ASD group and from 120 to 199 months in the TD grouping. Mental age was measured using the Matrix subtest from the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV) (Wechsler, 2003). Matrix reasoning tasks are suitable for individuals with ASD who might have language and/or motor bug (Boucher, 2017). The participants are shown incomplete visual patterns, each of which has a missing chemical element and are asked to select the missing piece from five options. The number of correct scores was analyzed. The overall average internal consistency reliability of this subtest is .89 and information technology has been validated for individuals with ASD (Wechsler, 2003).

Examining Metaphor Comprehension

Considering in that location was no Norwegianvalidated or standardized metaphor comprehension chore, nosotros created a multiple-pick chore to assess metaphor comprehension. This multiple-choice format reduced the potential misreckoning touch on of verbal advice demands such as meta-linguistic and expressive language skills (Kalandadze et al., 2019 for a comprehensive review of metaphor job properties; Pouscoulous, 2011).

The chore included 24 metaphorical items and 24 literal items. Some metaphorical items in the test were translated from existing items in English, while other items were created by the outset author in collaboration with a linguist and the last author. The same words used in metaphorical items (e.g., bear = a physically stiff and large homo) were used in the literal items (e.thousand., deport = an beast), and so each literal item had a metaphorical analogue and vice versa.

All 48 items had the same syntactic structure (X = Y). Both the metaphorical and literal expressions were embedded in a short passage of ii sentences to aid comprehension. Below each metaphor were multiple-pick responses describing either (A) the intended metaphorical interpretation, (B) the literal estimation, or (C) an unrelated interpretation (filler/distractor). Beneath each literal expression were multiple-choice responses describing either (A) the correct literal interpretation, (B) an incorrect literal interpretation, or (C) an incorrect unrelated interpretation. Chore development is described in item in Appendix 1. Vi case items (3 metaphorical and three literal items) translated from Norwegian into English are presented in Appendix 2.

Examining Core Language

A multi-mensurate approach was used to measure different aspects of cadre linguistic communication: receptive and expressive vocabulary, abstruse semantic reasoning, and receptive syntax.

Receptive Vocabulary

Receptive vocabulary was assessed with the Norwegian version of the British Picture Vocabulary Scale (BPVS) (2nd edition; Dunn et al., 1997). After hearing a word, the participants indicated its meaning by selecting a picture from four alternatives. The overall average internal consistency reliability of the entire Norwegian version of the test is .98 in the norm sample (Lyster et al., 2010). Theoretical BPVS scores range from 0 to 144, with college scores indicating advanced receptive vocabulary. The raw number of correct scores across items was analyzed.

Expressive Vocabulary

The vocabulary subtest of the Wechsler Intelligence Calibration for children (WISC-IV; Wechsler, 2003) was used to measure expressive linguistic communication power and in-depth vocabulary. In this task, the examiner reads aloud words of increasing complication and asks the participant to ascertain the meanings of these word. The overall average internal consistency reliability is .89 and the tool is reliable for assessing individuals with ASD (.96) (Wechsler, 2003). Theoretical scores range from 0 to 68, with higher scores indicating advanced expressive vocabulary. The raw number of correct score across items was analyzed.

Abstract Semantic Reasoning

Abstract semantic reasoning was assessed with the similarities subtest of the WISC–IV (Wechsler, 2003). The participants are presented with two words that correspond mutual objects or concepts and is asked to draw how they are like. The overall average internal consistency reliability is .86, and this subtest is a reliable tool for assessing individuals with ASD (.97) (Wechsler, 2003). Theoretical scores range from 0 to 56 with college scores indicating avant-garde abstract semantic reasoning. The raw number of correct scores across items was analyzed.

Receptive Syntax

Receptive syntax was assessed with the Norwegian version of the Test for Reception of Grammar (TROG-two) (Bishop, 2003a, 2003b; Lyster & Horn, 2009). This test assesses sentence comprehension with a moving-picture show-pointing image and multiple-choice response format. Individuals hear a serial of sentences and are asked to select a picture show from amidst 4 alternatives. The test contains 80 stimulus items bundled in blocks of four items per block, which test 20 grammatical contrasts such as prepositions, pronouns, and relative clauses. All items in a block need to be right to score one point on that cake and theoretical scores range from 0 to 20. The blocks increase in grammatical difficulty, and higher scores indicate advanced syntactic knowledge. The overall average internal consistency reliability of the original (English) version is .88 (Bishop, 2003a, 2003b). The raw number of correct score across blocks was analyzed.

Procedures

Standard testing procedures, every bit recommended in the respective manuals, were followed. The procedures were kept every bit similar every bit possible for all participants. For all tests, except for the nonverbal fluid intelligence test, the test items were read aloud to the participants. The participants were asked to respond verbally or past pointing to pictures depending on the task. The test took identify in a serenity room at the research laboratory, participant's domicile, or school depending on their preferences. The parents, legal guardians, and/or school staff were invited to attend the testing sessions. To keep the participants motivated and willing to perform the tasks, they were told they could take every bit many breaks equally needed and were asked whether they needed a pause during the testing sessions. All testing occurred on the same day.

Before the metaphor comprehension test, a practice item was provided and feedback was given. None of the participants had previously performed the metaphor task. The social club of response options for the metaphorical and literal items was randomized for each participant.

The examiners were suitably trained to conduct the tests. Twenty percent of the test data were double-coded by a trained research assistant. The interrater reliability was as follows: receptive syntax (100%), receptive vocabulary (100%), abstract semantic reasoning (100%), expressive vocabulary (100%), mental age (100%), and metaphor task (95.83%).

Statistical Analysis

We computed group-wise descriptives for each measure and presented these as hateful (Thousand) and standard deviation (SD). For each measure, the deviation (Δ) between the ASD group and the TD group was tested using a randomization test approach (Edgington & Onghena, 2007; Pitman, 1937). Then total scores and subscores for the literal and metaphorical items were compared using the same randomization examination approach. Randomization-based techniques are optimal for pocket-sized data sets, tin can exist used to analyze non-random samples, are completely data-dependent, are free of distributional assumptions, and yield verbal probability values (Drupe et al., 2016). Effect size was measured with Cohen's d (Cohen, 1977).

Side by side, a random-item random-person explanatory item response modelling approach (De Boeck & Wilson, 2004) was used to relate task operation to individual characteristics such as mental and physical historic period, grouping (ASD or TD), and item characteristics. Assessing total scores and then item responses provides a finer perspective of metaphor chore functioning and accounts for the systematic design of the items. Each item has a literal and a metaphorical variant, allowing a within-subject area "metaphor effect" to be determined. Item type is included in the model as a random regression gradient to reflect differences in metaphor and literal comprehension betwixt individuals.

The items response models also incorporates the unlike core language variables to determine their effect on chore performance. Results are presented equally variance components and logistic regression coefficients and effect sizes equally odds ratios. All statistical analyses were performed using R software (R Core Squad, 2018). The reliability was calculated using SPSS (version 25.0.0.1; IBM, 2017).

Results

Participant Characteristics and Scores Between Groups

Differences between the ASD group and the TD grouping in the key measures are reported in Table 1 together with the Cohen'due south d event size, a standardized group mean divergence. The groups did not significantly differ in concrete age in months (Δ = − 5.95, p = .266, d = − .28) or mental age (fluid intelligence score Δ = .07, p = .946, d = .02). There were pregnant differences between groups in the CCC-two scores (Δ = 7.33, p = .020, d = .66) and the SRS scores (Δ = 34.92, p < .001, d = 3.17), validating the ASD diagnosis in our sample. The ASD group had lower scores than the TD group in all aspects of cadre linguistic communication: expressive vocabulary: Δ = − 8.02, p = .004, d = − .80; receptive vocabulary: Δ = − 7.57, p =. 049, d = − .53; abstruse semantic reasoning: Δ = − 4.17, p = .074, d = − .48; and receptive syntax: Δ = − .81, p = .202, d = − .35, although these differences were just pregnant for expressive and receptive vocabulary.

The ASD group had significantly lower and more than variable scores in the metaphor job than the TD grouping did (Δ = − 3.58, p = .091, d = − .46), with the TD group frequently scoring maximum points (i.e., 24) in the literal task items. The participants with ASD got six more than literal items correct than metaphorical items and the participants in the TD group got 5 more than literal items correct than metaphorical items. Hence, the TD group outperformed the ASD group overall, but not considering of more than advanced operation in the metaphor tasks.

Metaphor Comprehension at the Item Level

For explanatory particular response modelling, nosotros removed the data from two participants with ASD because the mental age and cadre language measures were missing. A full of northward = 2,832 item responses were given by the remaining 59 participants on the 48 items. All participants answered all items, resulting in 27 unique response patterns and an overall correct response rate of 79%.

Model 1

The start baseline model considered that a more able participant will be more probable to requite a correct response than a less able participant, regardless of the particular, and that a more than difficult item is more than likely to be answered incorrectly than an easier item is, regardless of the participant. Private differences among the participants accounted for most 39% (\({\sigma }_{person}^{2}=2.77\)) of the detail response variation, and differences between items accounted for 14% (\({\sigma }_{particular}^{2}=1.00\)) of the particular response variation (Table 2). This implies that knowing which participant is responding is more important for predicting the outcome on a detail item than knowing which detail is being responded to.

Table 2 Explanatory item response modelling of the metaphor job

Full size table

Model 2

The 2nd model incorporated covariate information on persons and items to further improve the detail response model (Δχⁱⁱ(5) = 341.46, p < 0.001). Instead of assuming a person's ability to practice the whole metaphor task, nosotros distinguished betwixt a personal literal baseline ability and an additional personal penalty that comes into play when solving the metaphorical items. The boilerplate odds of answering a metaphorical item correctly was near vii.5 times lower than the odds of answering the corresponding literal item correctly (β = − two.02 (0.47), p < 0.001). This metaphor-literal gap varied highly amongst participants (\({\sigma }_{Blazon}^{ii}=7.76\)) and correlated negatively (r = − 0.66) with private differences in literal baseline ability (\({\sigma }_{person}^{2}=iii.78\)). Differentiating betwixt literal and metaphorical items reduced the response variation due to systematic particular differences past most 98% (\({\sigma }_{item}^{2}=.09\)).

Mental and concrete age differences deemed for about twenty% of the systematic inter-individual differences in response variation (i.eastward., 23% for literal baseline ability, 12% for the metaphor-literal gap). Participants whose nonverbal intelligence scores were four points higher than a participant of similar historic period had double the odds (exp(4β) = 1.94; β = .17 (.05), p = .003) of responding correctly to an item. Participants were ane.29-times more likely (β = .02 (.01), p = .049) to reply correctly to an item than a participant with similar nonverbal intelligence who was ane yr younger.

Model 3

Participants with ASD had 3.5-times lower odds (β = − 1.25 (.40), p = .002) of responding correctly to an item than participants with TD of matched mental and concrete historic period. No interaction outcome between item type and diagnosis was constitute (Δχ²(one) = .40, p = .526). In addition, an ASD diagnosis accounted for ten% of systematic inter-individual differences (i.e., xiv% for the literal baseline ability, 6% for the metaphor-literal gap component) in metaphor task functioning (Δχ²(ane) = 8.63, p = .003). Importantly, about two thirds of the systematic individual differences cannot be explained because of unknown sources of variation between the participants.

Core Linguistic communication Aspects and Metaphor Comprehension at the Item Level

Differences in each of the core language variables accounted for an additional 4 to 21% of systematic individual differences in the baseline literal items functioning, and for two to 9% of systematic individual differences in the metaphor-literal gap. The relationships between expressive vocabulary and overall performance was statistically significant (β = .07 (.02), p = .002), and individual differences in expressive vocabulary explained a large part of the observed differences between individuals with ASD and TD (with expressive vocabulary: β = − .lxx (.41), p = .089 vs without any cadre language aspects: Tabular array 2, Model 3: β = − 1.25 (.46), p = .002). Individual differences in receptive vocabulary and abstract semantic reasoning both were related to the differences in overall performance in core language ability (β = .04 (.02), p = .028; and β = .06 (.03), p = .047), only the betwixt-group deviation was still meaning. The inclusion of either expressive vocabulary or abstract semantic reasoning accounted for the differences in task performance attributed to mental age differences. In contrast, no statistically pregnant support was constitute for a relation between receptive grammar and metaphor task operation (β = .14 (.09), p = .101). Individuals scoring one SD college on the core language attribute measures are too expected to have higher odds of giving a correct response (1.lxxx, 1.47, 1.46, and 1.24 higher for expressive vocabulary, abstract semantic reasoning, receptive vocabulary, and receptive grammer; Table 3).

Table iii Explanatory item response modelling of the metaphor task in relation to core language ability

Full size table

Discussion

In this study, we compared metaphor comprehension task performance betwixt individuals with ASD and TD, and investigated how dissimilar aspects of core language explain this performance. We constitute moderately lower scores in the group of individuals with ASD than in the group of individuals with TD. Nonetheless, dumb cadre linguistic communication skills explained metaphor comprehension difficulties in individuals with ASD.

Metaphor Comprehension is not a Hallmark of ASD

In line with previous studies (Kalandadze et al., 2019 for a review), individuals with TD generally showed more advanced metaphor comprehension skills than individuals with ASD did, merely this was not true for all participants with ASD. There was a high degree of variation in metaphor comprehension within both groups suggesting that difficulties understanding metaphors can be explained past factors other than the ASD diagnosis. Indeed, poor metaphor comprehension is not specific to ASD, and has been observed in individuals with for example schizophrenia (Rossetti et al., 2018) and Developmental Linguistic communication Disorder (Bühler et al., 2018). In the latter group, impaired core language has been proposed as an underlying variable of metaphor comprehension difficulties (Bühler et al., 2018). This could also be true in ASD as difficulties in different aspects of cadre language are mutual amidst these individuals (Brynskov et al., 2016; Tager-Flusberg & Joseph, 2003).

Variable Performance in Literal Items Indicates Difficulties in Core Linguistic communication Skills in Individuals with ASD

Although individuals with TD outperformed individuals with ASD in literal items too, both groups performed better in literal than in metaphor items, corroborating the view that comprehending metaphors and figurative linguistic communication is more enervating than comprehending literal language (Levorato & Cacciari, 2002; Noveck et al., 2001). This metaphor-literal gap was greater in participants with ASD, peradventure because these individuals discover it difficult to identify similarities between semantic features. This difficulty may also be caused by impaired cognitive abilities such as ToM (as suggested by Happé, 1993) or executive functioning. Impaired executive operation skills are as well often seen in ASD (see Hill, 2004 for a review). Executive functions such as the mental flexibility to select the mutual significant in words, to switch between literal and metaphoric pregnant, and to suppress irrelevant literal interpretation, all contribute to metaphor comprehension (Mashal & Kasirer, 2011).

Particular Characteristics, Age, and ASD do not Fully Explain Differences in Task Performance

Differences in task performance were primarily adamant by individual ability. While at that place was a meaning deviation in functioning between the literal and metaphor items, differences between individual items had less of an impact. The metaphor-literal gap was smaller in those participants who performed stronger in the literal variant, and larger in those who performed weaker in the literal variant. This is in line with the logical expectation that core linguistic communication skills are a prerequisite for metaphorical understanding (Pouscoulous, 2011).

Differences in mental and physical age and ASD did not account for all the differences in performance; the remaining differences were explained by differences in core linguistic communication skills. This finding fits well with the previous enquiry showing close relationships between metaphor comprehension and cadre language (Gernsbacher & Pripas-Kapit, 2012).

Vocabulary is the Most Prominent Language Variable Related to Metaphor Comprehension

One of the most notable findings of this study was that vocabulary, peculiarly expressive vocabulary every bit measured with the vocabulary subtest from the WISC-Iv (Wechsler, 2003), is central to metaphor comprehension. This finding agrees with previous research that vocabulary is essential for metaphor comprehension (Nippold, 2016; Pouscoulous, 2011). Expressive linguistic communication is an avant-garde skill involving conceptualization, formulation and articulation (Levelt, 1995; Norbury, 2014). These abilities are too important for metaphor comprehension. This suggests that individuals with ASD with more avant-garde vocabulary skills tin comprehend metaphors.

Abstract Semantic Reasoning is too Important for Metaphor Comprehension

Nosotros observed that abstruse semantic reasoning, every bit measured with the similarities subtest of the WISC–IV (Wechsler, 2003) was of import for metaphor comprehension. This is not surprising since a person needs to identify the shared properties betwixt ii elements (i.e., topic and a vehicle) before they can understand a metaphor (Pouscoulous, 2011). The test we used to measure abstruse semantic reasoning as well requires to identify the similarities between two words. The test too requires expressive language ability, farther indicating that participants who performed well in the metaphor task had advanced linguistic and non-linguistic abilities.

Receptive Grammar Alone cannot Explain Variation in Metaphor Comprehension

Individuals with TD and ASD both scored well on receptive grammar, and receptive grammar power did not affect metaphor chore performance. This may be because we used a uncomplicated X = Y syntactic structure in our job with little syntactic variation betwixt the items. A task with more than complex or different syntactic structures might have been more than strongly associated with metaphor comprehension. For case, predicate metaphors use a verb to create metaphorical meaning, eastward.g., "when Taro plays soccer, no one at his school comes close to him" (Adachi et al., 2004). Hither, an understanding of the conceptual features of a verb is needed (Chen et al., 2008). Furthermore, the examination nosotros used to examine receptive grammar (TROG test) may not be sensitive enough to detect subtle differences between individuals, and the sensitivity may vary between languages the test is translated into. Although TROG was the only sentence comprehension test in Norwegian that was standardised for adolescents upwardly to 16 years of age it may not be sensitive enough for the groups nether investigation. Indeed, the manual of the Norwegian translation of the TROG (Lyster & Horn, 2009) states that the scores plateau somewhat afterwards 8–9 years in individuals with TD, with small standard deviations for the oldest participants.

Limitations

One of the chief limitations of this study is the sample size that influenced how many potentially relevant associated variables we could examine. For example, we did non command for ToM, which previously was found to be an explanation of difficulties in metaphor comprehension in ASD (Happé, 1993). Modest sample size, in addition to the gender imbalance and the inclusion of merely verbally fluent individuals with ASD, may prevent generalization of our findings to all individuals with ASD. All the same, although our sample size is pocket-sized in the sense of statistics, the size of our sample is in line with other studies in the field. In particular, the mean sample size in studies on metaphor comprehension included in the recent meta-analysis was 24 (SD = xv.01) (Kalandadze et al., 2019). Also, co-existence of a range of comorbide/co-occuring conditions together with ASD is common (Boucher, 2017). Therefore, including verbally fluent individuals with ASD does not eliminate the chance that comorbid/co-occurring weather condition or difficulties in skills that we did not control for could have affected functioning on metaphor comprehension task.

Another limitation that should be considered when interpreting the results of this written report is that the metaphor job we used was created for this specific study due to the lack of such a measure in Norwegian. The task is therefore not a standardized examination. However, several aspects were considered to ensure the quality of the metaphor task (see the supplementary files for details).

Another measurement-related caveat is that, unfortunately, no standardized tests of expressive vocabulary and semantics in Norwegian suitable for our age group existed. Therefore, we used the WISC-IV subtests (Wechsler, 2003) to measure these skills. Our results therefore can also indicate that metaphor comprehension may be closely related to verbal mental historic period. Even so, nosotros do not take the sufficient data about the participants' non-verbal intelligence to draw any conclusions on the potential relationship betwixt the non-exact intelligence and metaphor comprehension in our sample.

One terminal attribute that should be mentioned here is that this study was conducted in a controlled setting and not in a naturalistic environment. The demand to interact with the examiner would potentially take influenced the functioning. Therefore, these results might not be generalisable to naturalistic contexts. Although we encourage the readers as well equally researchers who plan to carry similar studies to consider these limitations, we would like to emphasize that the current study fills the gap in the literature and contributes to the accumulation of cognition in the field of metaphor comprehension in ASD.

Potential Implications for Research and Practice

Our findings highlight the need to consider variability in core language skills when studying metaphor comprehension in individuals with ASD. Nosotros showed that Item response theory is a useful analytic approach to use with this respect. The wide variability we observed in performance on the language tasks underlines the demand for further research into the internal (e.g., executive functions) and external (e.g., socioeconomic status, exposure to metaphors) factors that might be related to metaphor comprehension.

When possible, future research should include more valid measures of different aspects of core linguistic communication than nosotros did in this report. Although pure linguistic communication measures are difficult to find, some language measures make it more possible than others to tease apart linguistic communication skills from other cerebral abilities.

Our results illustrate the importance of focusing on cadre language skills in add-on to teach individuals with ASD strategies to empathize metaphors in educational and clinical settings. Individuals with ASD and individuals with TD should receive educational support targeting their language including metaphoric language that is specifically tailored to their individual needs.

Conclusions

Although many individuals with ASD find it harder to understand metaphors than individuals with TD practise, these difficulties are not a hallmark feature of ASD. Instead, the ability to comprehend metaphors depends on the different aspects of the individual's core language skills. Future research on metaphor comprehension needs to focus on variability in core linguistic communication skills amongst individuals with ASD and TD.

References

• Adachi, T., Koeda, T., Hirabayashi, S., Maeoka, Y., Shiota, M., Wright, E. C., & Wasa, A. (2004). The metaphor and sarcasm scenario test: A new musical instrument to help differentiate high functioning pervasive developmental disorder from attending arrears/hyperactivity disorder. Encephalon & Development, 26, 301–306.

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical transmission of mental disorders (DSM-Five). APA.

• Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic kid have a 'theory of listen.' Cognition, 21(ane), 37–46.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Drupe, K. J., Mielke, P. Due west., Jr., & Johnston, J. E. (2016). 2016. Springer International Publishing Switzerland.

• Bishop, D. 5. (2003a). Examination for Reception of Grammar (TROG-two) (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.

• Bishop, D. (2003b). The children's communication checklist (2nd ed.). Harcourt Cess.

• Boucher, J. K. (2017). Autism Spectrum Disorder: characteristics, causes and practical bug (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.

• Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112, 193–216.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Brynskov, C., Krøjgaard, P., & Eigsti, I. M. (2016). Language and advice in children with autism: Do inquiry and clinical do converge in Kingdom of denmark? Nordic Psychology, 68(2), 100–113.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Bühler, D., Perovic, A., & Pouscoulos, Northward. (2018). Comprehension of novel metaphor in children with Developmental Linguistic communication Disorder. Autism and Developmental Linguistic communication Impairments, 3, 1–xi.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in educational discourse. Bloomsbury.

• Carston, R. (2017). Relevance theory and metaphor. In E. Semini & Z. Demien (Eds.), Routledge handbook of metaphor and language (pp. 42–55). Routledge.

• Chen, E., Widick, P., & Chatterjee, A. (2008). Functional anatomical organization of predicate metaphor processing. Brain and Language, 107, 194–202.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.

• Colston, H. L., & Kuiper, Thou. S. (2002). Figurative language development inquiry and popular children'southward literature: Why we should know, "where the wild things are." Metaphor and Symbol, 17(1), 27–43.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Constantino, J. N., & Gruber, C. P. (2012). Social responsiveness scale (2nd ed.). Western Psychological Services.

• De Boeck, P., & Wilson, M. (2004). Explanatory item response models: A generalized linear and nonlinear approach. Springer.

• Dunn, L., Dunn, L., Whetton, C., & Burley, J. (1997). The British Picture show Vocabulary Scale II. GL Cess.

• Edgington, E., & Onghena, P. (2007). Randomization tests. Chapman & Hall.

• Gernsbacher, M. A., & Pripas-Kapit, S. R. (2012). Who's missing the signal? A commentary on claims that autistic persons have a specific deficit in figurative language comprehension. Metaphor and Symbol, 27(i), 93–105.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Golden, R., Faust, M., & Goldstein, A. (2010). Semantic integration during metaphor comprehension in Asperger syndrome. Encephalon and Language, 113(three), 124–134.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Gilded, A. (2010). Grasping the point. A study of xv-yr-old students' comprehension of metaphorical expression in schoolbooks. In G. Low, Z. Todd, A. Deignan, & 50. Cameron (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor in the existent globe. Benjamins, J.

• Happé, F. K. Due east. (1993). Communicative competence and theory of mind in autism: A test of relevance theory. Cognition, 48(2), 101–111.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Hermann, I., Haser, Five., van Elst, L. T., Ebert, D., Müller-Feldmeth, D., Riedel, A., & Konieczny, L. (2013). Automatic metaphor processing in adults with Asperger syndrome: A metaphor interference effect job. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 263(Suppl. two), S177–S187.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Hill, Due east. Fifty. (2004). Evaluating the theory of executive dysfunction in autism. Developmental Review, 24(2), 189–233.

  Article  Google Scholar

• IBM Corp. (2017). IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 2.50. IBM Corp.

• Kalandadze, T., Bambini, V., & Næss, G.-A.B. (2019). A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on metaphor comprehension in individuals with autism spectrum disorder: Do task properties thing? Applied PsychoLinguistics, 40(6), 1421–1454.

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Kalandadze, T., Norbury, C., Nærland, T., & Næss, B. K. A. (2018). Figurative language comprehension in individuals with autism spectrum disorder: A meta-analytic review. Autism, 22(2), 99–117.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Kasirer, A., & Mashal, Due north. (2014). Verbal creativity in autism: Comprehension and generation of metaphoric language in loftier-operation autism spectrum disorder and typical development. Frontiers in Homo Neuroscience, 8, 615.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Katz, A. North. (2017). Psycholinguistic approaches to metaphor acquisition and utilise. In E. Semini & Z. Demien (Eds.), Routledge handbook of metaphor and language (pp. 472–485). Routledge.

• Levelt, Due west. J. 1000. (1995). The ability to speak: From intentions to spoken words. European Review., 3(1), 13–23.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Levorato, M. C., & Cacciari, C. (2002). The creation of new figurative expressions: Psycholinguistic prove in Italian children, adolescents and adults. Journal of Child Language, 29, 127–150.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Lord, C., & Paul, R. (1997). Language and communication in autism. In D. J. Cohen & F. R. Volkmar (Eds.), Handbook of autism and pervasive evolution disorders (2nd ed.). Wiley.

• Lyster, Due south.-A. H., & Horn, E. (2009). Test for reception og grammer (TROG-2), Norsk versjon. Pearson Cess.

• Lyster, S.-A. H., Horn, E., & Rygvold, A.-Fifty. (2010). Ordforråd og ordforrådsutvikling hos norske barn og unge. Spesialpedagogikk, 75(9), 35–43.

• Mashal, Due north., & Kasirer, A. (2011). Thinking maps enhance metaphoric competence in children with autism and learning disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32(half dozen), 2045–2054.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Nippold, M. A. (2016). Later language development: School-historic period children, adolescents, and young adults (4th ed.). Pro-Ed.

• Norbury, C. F. (2005). The relationship between theory of mind and metaphor: Evidence from children with language impairment and autistic spectrum disorder. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23(3), 383–399.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Norbury, C. F. (2014). Sources of variation in developmental linguistic communication disorders: Evidence from eye-tracking studies of judgement product. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 369, 20120393.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Noveck, I. A., Bianco, M., & Castry, A. (2001). The costs and benefits of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(i–ii), 109–121.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Pitman, Eastward. J. G. (1937). Significance tests which may exist practical to samples from whatever populations. Supplement to the Journal of the Royal Statistical Club, 4, 119–130 and 225–32 (parts I and 2).

• Pouscoulous, Due north. (2011). Metaphor: For adults but? Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 25, 51–79.

  Article  Google Scholar

• R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and surround for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Republic of austria. https://www.R-project.org/

• Rossetti, I., Brambilla, P., & Papagno, C. (2018). Metaphor comprehension in schizophrenic patients. Frontiers in Psychology, ix, 670.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Rundblad, Yard., & Annaz, D. (2010). The singular development of metaphor and metonymy comprehension in children with autism. Autism, fourteen(1), 29–46.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Steen, G., Dorst, A., & Hermann, J. (2010). Metaphor in usage. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(4), 765–796.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Tager-Flusberg, H., & Joseph, R. 1000. (2003). Identifying neurocognitive phenotypes in autism. Philosophical Transactions of the Imperial Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 358(1430), 303–314.

  Article  Google Scholar

• van Herwegen, J., & Rundblad, G. (2018). A cantankerous-exclusive and longitudinal study of novel metaphor and metonymy comprehension in children, adolescents, and adults with autism spectrum disorder. Frontiers in Psychology, nine, 945.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Vulchanova, Chiliad., Saldaña, D., Chahboun, Due south., & Vulchanov, V. (2015). Figurative language processing in atypical populations: The ASD perspective. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, nine, 24.

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Wechsler, D. (2003). The Wechsler intelligence scale for children—fourth edition. Pearson.

• World Health Organization. (1992). ICD-10: International statistical classification of diseases and related wellness bug (tenth revision). World Wellness Organization.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Our warmest cheers to all the participants and their parents, as well as schools and Educational Psychological services who made this report possible. We would also thank professor Morton Ann Gernsbacher, likewise as colleagues at the Section of Special Needs Education at the University of Oslo for their assistance with the metaphor task developed for this study. Professor Sølvi Lillejord, Acquaintance Professor Ingrid Lossius-Falkum, and Professor Arnfinn M. Vonen deserve thank you for their valuable back up.

Funding

Open access funding provided by Ostfold Academy College.

Author data

Author notes

1. Tamara Kalandadze

   Present address: Kinesthesia of Didactics, Østfold University College, B R A Veien 4, P.O. 700, Halden, Norway

Affiliations

1. Section of Special Needs Pedagogy, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

   Tamara Kalandadze & Kari-Anne Bottegaard Næss

2. CEMO: Centre for Educational Measurement, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

   Johan Braeken

3. Department of Nordic Studies and Linguistics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

   Cecilia Brynskov

Contributions

TK: Conceptualization, Design, Methodology, Information collection, Formal analysis, Writing original typhoon, Main responsibility for revising and resubmitting the manuscript after peer review, Project administration. JB: Formal analysis, Writing original typhoon, Writing-review & editing, Final approval of the paper. CB: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing-review & editing, final blessing of this paper. KBN: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing-review & editing, Supervision, concluding approving of this paper.

Corresponding writer

Correspondence to Tamara Kalandadze.

Additional information

Publisher's Annotation

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open up Admission This commodity is licensed nether a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits utilize, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long every bit you give advisable credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Artistic Commons licence, and signal if changes were made. The images or other 3rd party cloth in this article are included in the article'southward Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is non included in the article'southward Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/past/four.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

Almost this article

Cite this article

Kalandadze, T., Braeken, J., Brynskov, C. et al. Metaphor Comprehension in Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder: Core Language Skills Matter. J Autism Dev Disord 52, 316–326 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-021-04922-z

Download commendation

• Accepted: ten February 2021

• Published: 10 March 2021

• Result Date: January 2022

• DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-021-04922-z

Keywords

• Autism
• Figurative language
• Metaphor
• Pragmatics

furstthatect.blogspot.com

Source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10803-021-04922-z

Share this post