Conversational Skills of Individuals With Fragile‐x Syndrome: A Comparison With Autism and Down Syndrome

Abstract

SUMMARY The conversational skills of 18 individuals with fragile‐X syndrome (FXS) were compared with those of two other matched groups with autism and Down syndrome. The FXS group used more eliciting forms in conversation than those with Down syndrome, and also used partial self‐repetition more often than the other two groups. The Down syndrome group had more speech dysfluencies than those with autism, but not more than those with FXS. The autistic group used more inappropriate phrases. Qualitative analysis of behavioral phenotype may reveal differences in communicative organization among subgroups whose retardation is based on different genotypes. In addition, analysis of verbal strategies during conversation suggests important differences between individuals with FXS and autism. RÉSUMÉ Capacité de conversation chez des sujets présentant un syndrome de l'X fragile: comparaison avec l'autisme et le syndrome de Down Les capacités de conversation de 18 patients présentant un syndrome d'X fragile (FXS) ont été comparées avec celles de deux groupes de patients présentant un autisme ou un syndrome de Down. Les patients avec FXZ utilisaient davantage de formes significatives dans la conversation que ceux atteints du syndrome de Down, et utilisaient également des auto‐répétitions partielles plus souvent que les deux autres groupes. Les patients avec syndrome de Down présentaient plus de ruptures de rythmes du langage que les autistiques mais pas plus que les patients avec FXS. Les patients autistiques utilisaient davantage de phrases inappropriées. L'analyse qualitative des phénotypes comportementaux peut révéler des différences dans l'organisation de la communication parmi des sous‐groupes dont le retard est liéà des génotypes différents. de plus, l'analyse des stratégies verbales durant la conversation sugge des différences importantes entre les sujets avec FXS et les autistiques. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Die Fählgkeiten, sich zu unterhalten, bei Patienten mit fragilem X‐Syndrom 18 Patienten mit fragilem X‐Syndrom (FXS) wurden hinsichtlich ihrer Fähigkeiten, sich zu unterhalten, mit Patienten mit Autismus und Down Syndrom verglichen. Die Patienten mit FXS benutzten komplexere Formen der Unterhaltung als die mit Down Syndrom und außerdem wiederholten sie sich häufger als die beiden anderen Gruppen. Patienten mit Down Syndrom unterbrachen sich häufiger als die mit Autismus, aber nicht häufiger als die mit FXS. Die autistischen Patienten benutzten mehr unpassende Phrasen. Die qualitative Analyse der Verhaltensform kann Unterschiede in der Kommunikation bei Untergruppen aufzeigen, deren Retardierung durch verschiedene Genotypen bedingt ist. Außerdem zeigt die Analyse des verbalen Vorgehens bei der Unterhaltung wichtige Unterschiede zwischen Patienten mit FXS und mit Ausitmus. RESUMEN Habilidades conversacionales en individuos con sindrome del cromosoma X frágil: comparación con el autismo y el sindrome de Down Se compararon las habilidades conversacionales de 18 pacientes con síndrome de cromosome X frágil (SFX), con las de dos...

Language development in Down syndrome: From the prelinguistic period to the acquisition of literacy

“…In the Abbeduto et al [2006b] study, age-, NVMA, and NVIQ-matched participants with FXS were as likely to produce ambiguous descriptions, but more likely to include linguistic scaffolding, as were the adolescents and young adults with DS. Individuals with DS also display relatively low rates of verbal perseveration (i.e., excessive repetition) and off-topic language, each of which is a serious problem for individuals with FXS [Sudhalter et al, 1990;Ferrier et al, 1991;Belser and Sudhalter, 2001;Roberts et al, in press]. And finally, compared with same-age individuals with WS, individuals with DS are less likely to initiate conversation in inappropriate ways or used stereotyped language in conversation, although the two groups do not differ in the extent of their impairments in conversational coherence, ability to establish rapport, or use of contextual information [Laws and Bishop, 2004].…”

Language development and fragile X syndrome: Profiles, syndrome‐specificity, and within‐syndrome differences

“…Ferrier et al [1991] compared expressive language skills in a conversational context in three groups of adult males: FXS, autism, and Down syndrome. Ferrier et al found that although males with FXS used more partial self-repetition and more eliciting forms than the other two groups, they did not differ from either comparison group in expressive morphosyntax.…”

“…Males with FXS produce high rates of selfrepetition of words, phrases, and topics [Sudhalter et al, 1990;Ferrier et al, 1991;Belser and Sudhalter, 2001]. Many in the field have argued that such perseveration is a unique and defining characteristic of individuals with FXS [Bennetto and Pennington, 1996;Abbeduto and Hagerman, 1997].…”

“…Many in the field have argued that such perseveration is a unique and defining characteristic of individuals with FXS [Bennetto and Pennington, 1996;Abbeduto and Hagerman, 1997]. Indeed, several studies have demonstrated that males with FXS produce more perseverative language than do typically developing children at similar linguistic levels [Levy et al, 2006] or developmental level-matched males with Down syndrome, autism, or other forms of mental retardation [Sudhalter et al, 1990[Sudhalter et al, , 1991[Sudhalter et al, , 1992Ferrier et al, 1991;Belser and Sudhalter, 2001], but see Paul et al [1987] for contrary results.…”

“…In support of this hypothesis is the finding that youth with FXS, particularly males, display higher cortisol levels than typical controls and show physiological and behavioral signs of an inability to adapt in a timely fashion to stressful or demanding situations [Belser and Sudhalter, 1995;Miller et al, 1999;Wisbeck et al, 2000;Hessl et al, 2006]. Third, it has been suggested that perseveration may reflect an attempt to deal with conversational demands in the face of limited linguistic capabilities [Ferrier et al, 1991]; however, support for this hypothesis is lacking [Sudhalter et al, 1992].…”