How Can Biomedical Factors in Babies Affect Language Development

• Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Environmental Factors Influence Language Development in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders

• Marine Grandgeorge,
• Martine Hausberger,
• Sylvie Tordjman,
• Michel Deleau,
• Alain Lazartigues,
• Eric Lemonnier

x

• Published: April 9, 2009
• https://doi.org/ten.1371/journal.pone.0004683

Figures

Abstruse

Groundwork

While it is clearly admitted that normal behavioural development is determined by the interplay of genetic and environmental influences, this is much less the case for psychiatric disorders for which more emphasis has been given in the by decades on biological determinism. Thus, previous studies take shown that Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASD) were not affected past parental way. Even so, beast research suggests that dissimilar behavioural traits tin can be differentially affected by genetic/environmental factors.

Methodology/ Principal Findings

In the nowadays study we hypothesized that amongst the ASD, language disorders may be more sensitive to social factors as language is a social human action that develops under social influences. Using the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised, we compared the early on characteristics of sensori-motor and linguistic communication development in a big sample of children with ASD (n = 162) with parents belonging to different levels of pedagogy. The results showed that children raised by parents with a high level of educational activity displayed earlier language evolution. Moreover, they showed earlier get-go words and phrases if their mother was at a high level of education, which reveals an boosted gender effect.

Conclusions/Significance

To our knowledge this study may trigger important new lines of thought and inquiry, assist equilibrate social and purely biological perspectives regarding ASD and bring new hopes for environmentally based therapies.

Citation: Grandgeorge Grand, Hausberger One thousand, Tordjman S, Deleau M, Lazartigues A, Lemonnier Eastward (2009) Environmental Factors Influence Language Development in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders. PLoS One 4(iv): e4683. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004683

Editor: Bernhard Baune, James Cook University, Australia

Received: September 5, 2008; Accepted: January 18, 2009; Published: April 9, 2009

Copyright: © 2009 Grandgeorge et al. This is an open-access article distributed nether the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted apply, distribution, and reproduction in whatever medium, provided the original writer and source are credited.

Funding: Funding for the research was provided by the Fondation Pierre et Adrienne Sommer. The funders had no office in study blueprint, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors take declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Although the nature/nurture debate may seem to vest to past history, the question of how genetic/experiential factors bear on behavioural evolution remains very vivid [ane]. Both genetic and ecology factors are involved in the determinism of aspects like temperament, simply their relative weights may vary according to the trait existence considered [e.g. 2]. Every bit mentioned by Gosling [three], fauna studies are very useful every bit they can reveal the interplay betwixt unlike factors. Thus, horses with highly sensitive phenotypes [east.g. 4] may develop aberrant behaviour (such as stereotypies) every bit a consequence of unfavourable environmental conditions [due east.g. 5] (Encounter [6], [7] for reviews).

These animal studies provide useful framework to report normal and pathological behaviours of humans every bit a result of such interplay. Thus, twin studies show that parenting influences children's prosocial behaviours and acts every bit a "modulation" of genetic influences. This is especially truthful in the instance of psychiatric disorders: despite a strong genetic footing [8], schizophrenia can been shown to exist influenced past parenting profiles [9] as well as past factors such as an communicable diseases during mid-pregnancy [x]. The weights attributed to genetic/environmental factors past authors are also often subject field to variations along with "science history", especially where psychiatric disorders are concerned [11].

Thus, Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASD) characterized by social and communication deficits and repetitive or stereotypic behaviour [12] have been for a long while attributed to ecology factors such as mothering (i.e. "fridge female parent" [xiii]) or diseases (eastward.g. congenital rubella [14]). Later on reacting against the theory of lack of maternal affection during the '50s and '60s, research radically turned towards a neural and cognitive hypothesis [e.g. xv]. Since developments of genetic and neurology technologies during the '90s, more emphasis has been conspicuously given to biological (i.e. genetic) bases for these disorders (see [xvi] for review). The well-known social withdrawal of children with ASD has been attributed lately to deficits in the superior temporal sulcus vocalization selective regions: hearing and processing impairments based on developmental biological deficits could lead to social withdrawal [17].

Hither again, animal studies suggest a much more complex situation. Thus, social experience is crucial for the development of the primal auditory surface area in young songbirds [18], [19]. More interestingly, social segregation may induce the aforementioned deficits in a central auditory surface area as concrete isolation and/or auditory deprivation [xx]. Direct social contact with adults and the quality of interactions may strongly influence both vocal and perceptual evolution both in birds and humans [21], [22].

Researchers by and large acknowledge that ASD are not affected by parental style only one can wonder whether every bit in animals [2], unlike behavioural traits are differently affected by genetic/environmental factors. The in a higher place mentioned results suggest that language development may be strongly affected by social factors and language abnormalities are the first observed arrears observed in more than half the families of children with ASD [23], [24].

Normally linguistic communication evolution of children raised by parents with a loftier level of educational activity is faster than that of children raised by parents with a low level of education (e.g. lexical richness [25]). In addition, parents' monitoring of language interactions with children differs according to their socioeconomic status [east.g. 26]. Moreover, mothers and fathers appear to influence children in different ways [27].

In the present written report, we hypothesized that parental characteristics influenced language development in children with ASD. Nosotros compared early on characteristics of language development (using Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised, ADI-R; [28]) for a large sample of children with ASD of parents with unlike levels of teaching. These information were compared on similarly caused items on other not language variables. Our results demonstrate for the kickoff time that parental characteristics (i.e. level of education and gender) tin can influence language development of children with ASD. This finding may trigger of import new lines of thought and research (on the mechanisms underlying this influence, stimulate investigations on verbal links between parents' level of education and their language inputs to their children), help equilibrate social and purely biological perspectives regarding ASD and bring new hopes for environmentally based therapies.

Methods

Children

All children were recruited from the "Eye de Ressource Autisme", Brest, France (n = 162, 135 males and 27 females, mean historic period at assessment, in months ±SD (min–max): 98±54 (37–373); other demographic information in Table 1). They all met the criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Transmission of Mental Disorders four^th edition [12] and International Classification of Diseases [29] for ASD. All the recruited children were French natives, lived in intact families, were physically salubrious and were at least 33 months old.

Parents

The level of education of each parent was scored independently (Table 1). According to the French INSEE 2003 classification, three categories were considered: (one) low level of didactics (depression education status or LES mother and LES father; a professional schooling or no education), (2) mid level of education (mid education status or MES mother and MES father; loftier school and first years at college) and (three) high level of education (high education status or HES female parent and HES father; completed college and graduate school). Mothers and fathers could have different or like levels of education.

Measures

Behavioural assessments were performed using the Autism Diagnostic Interview–Revised (ADI-R) for the children with ASD [28]. The ADI-R, an extensive, semi-structured parental interview, was conducted by trained psychiatrists and administered to the parents together. As both parents responded together, their answers were not contained and the kid'southward score correspond to their common joined response. The ADI-R scale assessed the three major domains of autistic impairments: reciprocal social interactions, verbal and non-exact advice, stereotyped behaviours and restricted interests. Based on direct clinical observation of each child by independent child psychiatrists, a diagnosis of ASD was fabricated according to the DSM-IV [12] and ICD-10 [28] criteria and was confirmed past the ADI-R ratings.

Parents were asked questions about their children'south language and sensori-motor development.

Linguistic communication criteria used were.

(a) Historic period of kickoff unmarried words (in months, first unmarried words refer to words used repeatedly and consistently for the purpose of communication with reference to a particular concept, object or upshot and keep out "dad" and "mum"; children were considered as delayed when they used their outset single words after 24 months old and as normal or non delayed when they used their get-go unmarried words before 24 months onetime). (b) Age of first phrases (in months, first phrases must be consist of two words, one of which must be a verb and keep out attribute-substantive combinations nor echolalic spoken communication nor phrases that might accept been learned every bit a single word to convey a single meaning; children were considered as delayed when they used their get-go phrases after 33 months old and every bit normal or not delayed when they used their commencement phrases earlier 33 months old). (c) Overall level of language used by the children was coded in two categories: they either possessed sufficient verbal skills (daily, functional use of three-discussion phrases that sometimes included a verb) or they did not (no functional use, more often than not single words phrases or fewer than five words used on a daily footing). Finally (d) abnormality of evolution axiomatic at or before 36 months ; each kid was given a score that added (ane) the historic period when parents first noticed something was non quite correct in their child'due south language, relationships or behavior (if observed <36 months, score 1), (two) the historic period when abnormalities first became evident (if observed <36 months, score ane), (3) the interviewer's judgement on the age when developmental abnormalities probably showtime became manifest (if observed <36 months, score 1), (4) the age of the kickoff single words uttered (if observed >24 months, score 1), and (5) the historic period of the first phrases uttered (if observed >33 months, score ane). The higher is the score, the higher is the abnormality of development evident at or earlier 36 months.

Sensori-motor criteria used were.

(a) Age of sitting unaided on flat surface (in months; the age when the child offset sabbatum, without support, on a flat surface. Children were considered every bit delayed when they start sat after 8 months former and as normal or non delayed when they first saturday 8 months erstwhile). (b) Age of walking unaided (in months; the age when the child walked without holding on. Children were considered as delayed when they walked unaided after 18 months old and equally normal or not delayed when they walked unaided before 18 months old). (c) Age of bladder command conquering during daytime (in months; the historic period when the child was first dry out for 12 months without accidents), (d) Age of float control acquisition during the nighttime (in months; the age when the kid was outset dry out for 12 months without accidents). Finally, (east) age of bowel control conquering (in months; the age when the child was first continent for 12 months without accidents).

All the information are confirmed by the health bill of fare of each child, a medical document filled out at each phase of the life (e.g. weight, superlative, age of the first walk, diseases). Verbal informed consent was given by parents and the protocol was approved by the ideals committee of Bicêtre Hospital.

Statistical analyses

The analyses were conducted in 4 steps, using Minitab© software and an accepted p level of 0.05. Kruskal-Wallis tests compared ages of sitting unaided on flat surface, walking unaided, float control acquisition during daytime, bladder control conquering during the night, age of bowel command conquering, first single words, get-go phrases according to the three levels of instruction of both mothers and fathers. Postal service hoc pair-wise comparisons were and then applied using Mann–Whitney U-tests. Chi-square tests assessed the relationships between the iii levels of education of both mothers and fathers and the post-obit qualitative variables: first single words and first phrases (non-delayed and delayed children). ANOVA test and mail service hoc Tukey's test assessed the relationships between the 3 levels of education of both mothers and fathers and the quantitative date of abnormality of development evident at or earlier 36 months (scale with six levels coded 0 to 5). Binary logistic regression assessed the relationships between the overall level of language and the three levels of education of both mothers and fathers, taking into account the age of children at cess. Factors were used both in independence and in interaction (age×level of instruction).

Results

A articulate influence of the educational levels of parents appeared on language development while no such effect was observed on sensori-motor evolution.

Language development

Age of first unmarried words.

One hundred and forty-8 children (91.four%) had used their first single words and this had occurred on average at 26.iv±15.5 months (min: 6; max: 84). Lxx-five children (46.3%) uttered their first single words before 24 months (i.e. non delayed) and 73 children (41.1%) uttered their first single words later on 24 months (i.e. delayed). Fourteen children (8.6%) of the cohort had non yet pronounced their start single words when they were assessed even though they were 82.0±68.3 months erstwhile (min: 37; max: 309) (Tabular array 2).

Table 2. Range, mean age ±SD of first single words and kickoff phrases pronounced by children, the number and percentage of associated categories (delayed, non delayed and not accomplished) according to the level of instruction of mothers and fathers.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004683.t002

Fathers' levels of pedagogy did not influence significantly age of get-go single words (Kruskal-Wallis examination: n = 147, H = 3.09, p = 0.21; Figure 1A) simply mothers' levels of pedagogy did (Kruskal-Wallis examination: n = 147, H = seven.12, p = 0.03; Figure 1A). Thus, LES mothers' children pronounced their kickoff single words later than HES mothers' children and MES mothers' children (X̅ = 32.1±18.5 months, X̅ = 24.0±14.0 months, X̅ = 23.0±9.viii months respectively, n_L = 48 due north_H = 74 U = 3428 p = 0.01, n_L = 48 n_M = 25 U = 1942 p = 0.05; Effigy 1A) MES mothers' children and HES mothers' children did not differ significantly (n_M = 25, north_H = 74, U = 1289, p = 0.76; Figure 1A).

Figure 1. Mean age of the children for first unmarried words (A), start phrases (B) sitting unaided on flat surface (C) and walking unaided (D) according to level of education of mothers and fathers.

Error bars bear witness standard deviation. Black bars represent the grouping of low level of education. Grayness bars represent the grouping of mid level of educational activity. White confined represent the grouping of high level of education. Level of significance: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 (Isle of mann Whitney U-exam).

https://doi.org/x.1371/journal.pone.0004683.g001

Eighty-seven children (53.7%) of our cohort appeared to be delayed. The non delayed grouping and the delayed group differed co-ordinate to levels of pedagogy of both mothers and fathers under random distribution (all χⁱⁱ tests p<0.001). Children of the non delayed grouping were mostly raised by HES mothers and HES fathers, whereas LES fathers' children, MES mothers' and MES fathers' children were less represented under random distribution (all χⁱⁱ tests p<0.001; Figure 2A). Children of the delayed grouping were mostly raised past HES mothers', LES mothers', and LES fathers' whereas MES mothers' and MES fathers' children were less represented under random distribution (all χ² tests p<0.05).

Figure two. Hateful percentages of children A: using their offset single words earlier 24 months (non delayed group), B: using their first phrases before 33 months (not delayed grouping).

Black bars correspond the grouping of depression level of teaching. Grey bars represent the group of mid level of didactics. White bars stand for the group of high level of didactics. Black line indicates the mean percent of children in each category according to level of education of mothers or fathers under random distribution. Values beneath the line indicate group the less represented in the category, values to a higher place the lines indicate grouping the more represented in the category. Level of significance: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 (Chi square tests were fabricated on real numbers).

https://doi.org/ten.1371/journal.pone.0004683.g002

Age of kickoff phrases.

One hundred and xx-3 children (75.9%) had uttered their first phrases and pronounced them on average at 39.8±18.0 months (min: 11; max: 120). Twoscore-eight children (29.6%) uttered their commencement phrases earlier 33 months (i.e. not delayed) and 75 children (46.3%) uttered their first phrases after 33 months (i.e. delayed). Thus, 39 children (24.1%) of the accomplice had not pronounced their first phrases when they were assessed even though they were 78.2±48.ii months old (min: 37; max: 309) (Table 2).

Ages of showtime phrases did not differ significantly with fathers' level of pedagogy (Kruskal-Wallis test: n = 123, H = 4.01, p = 0.13; Effigy 1B), but did differ significantly with mothers' level of education (Kruskal-Wallis test: due north = 123, H = 12.38, p = 0.002; Figure 1B). Thus LES mothers' children uttered their first phrases significantly later than did HES mothers' children (X̅ = 45.3±14.9 months, X̅ = 34.7±fourteen.5 months respectively, n_L = 41, north_H = 62, U = 2653, p<0.001; Figure 1B), whereas MES mothers' children were intermediate (due north_M = 20, n_L = 41, U = 1355, p = 0.xx and north_M = 20, due north_H = 62, U = 951, p = 0.xix, respectively; Effigy 1B).

One hundred and 14 children (70.iii%) of our cohort appeared to be delayed. The non delayed group and the delayed group differed significantly co-ordinate to level of pedagogy of both mothers and fathers under random distribution (all χ^two tests p<0.001). Most children in the non delayed group were raised by HES mothers' and HES fathers', while LES fathers' children, MES mothers' and MES fathers' children were less represented nether random distribution (all χ² tests p<0.001; Figure 2B). Most children in the delayed grouping were raised by HES mothers', LES mothers', and LES fathers' while MES mothers' and MES fathers' children were less represented under random distribution (all χ² tests p<0.05).

Overall level of linguistic communication.

According to ADI-R, children could be divided into two categories of overall level of language. I hundred and 4 children (64.ii%) appeared to have acquired sufficient verbal skills by the time they were assessed and they were then 109.0±56.nine months old (min: 37; max: 373), whereas 58 children (35.8%) used mostly single words or fewer than five words on a daily footing and were assessed when 77.0±42.v months old (min: 37; max: 309).

A meaning effect of the historic period was observed on the overall level of language (p = 0.01 for both mothers and fathers; Table 3) just both level of instruction of mothers and fathers and interaction with age did not take influence on the overall level of language (p>0.05; Table iii).

Table 3. Ordinal logistic regression of clan betwixt historic period of children at assessment and both mothers and fathers level of teaching (factors used both in independence and in interaction; with * in table).

https://doi.org/ten.1371/journal.pone.0004683.t003

Abnormality of development evident at or earlier 36 months.

Co-ordinate to ADI-R, the aberration of evolution axiomatic at or before 36 months of children could be scored between 0 and 5. 149 children (91.9%), that is most children, were clearly impaired at assessment with scores of 3 and more than.

The score of aberration of development evident at or before 36 months differed co-ordinate to both mothers (F(2,159) = iii.36, p = 0.037) and fathers level of education (F(2,159) = 3.96, p = 0.021). Thus LES mothers children had college scores than HES mothers children (X̅ = four.189±0.942, X̅ = three.651±one.338 respectively, Tukey's test p<0.01) and than MES mothers children (X̅ = iv.189±0.942, X̅ = 3.885±1.071 respectively, Tukey's test p<0.01) whereas HES mothers children and MES mothers children did not differ. Thus LES fathers children had higher scores than HES fathers children (X̅ = 4.231±1.142, X̅ = 3.583±one.254 respectively, Tukey'south test p<0.01) while MES fathers children did not differ (X̅ = iv.031±1.083, X̅ = iv.231±1.142, and X̅ = 4.031±i.083, X̅ = 3.583±1.254, both Tukey's test p>0.05).

Sensori-motor development

Female parent's and father'south levels of pedagogy did not influence significantly the age of sitting unaided on apartment surface (Kruskal-Wallis test: n = 159, H = 0.23, p = 0.89; H = 0.28, p = 0.86 respectively; Figure 1C), the age of walking unaided (Kruskal-Wallis test: n = 159, H = 0.69, p = 0.71; H = 0.81, p = 0.67 respectively; Effigy 1D), the age of bladder control conquering during daytime (Kruskal-Wallis test: due north = 114, H = ane.49, p = 0.48; H = 0.35, p = 0.84 respectively), the age of bladder control acquisition during the night (Kruskal-Wallis examination: northward = 102, H = ii.90, p = 0.23; H = 0.35, p = 0.84 respectively) and the age of bowel command acquisition (Kruskal-Wallis test: northward = 105, H = 2.66, p = 0.26; H = 1.xviii, p = 0.56 respectively). No significant departure was found between LES, MES and HES mothers' and fathers' children (all Isle of mann Whitney tests p>0.05)

Discussion

Our written report of early characteristics of language development in a large sample of children with ASD revealed the influence of parents' level of education and a differential influence of mothers and fathers on these characteristics. In add-on, general abnormalities appeared to exist influenced by parents' level of education. Thus the language of children raised by high level of education parents adult earlier and showtime single words and first phrases were uttered earlier by children with loftier level of instruction mothers. Although some genetic transmission of cognitive abilities cannot be totally excluded at that stage [thirty], these results strongly suggest the importance of environmental factors, such as parental influence, on behavioural development of children with such disorders. However these influences conspicuously related to language every bit sensori-motor stages were non afflicted. This study constitutes, to our knowledge, the commencement demonstration of such an influence.

I could argue that this evaluation of dates of showtime words and phrases may be biased by the retrospective aspect of the survey: parents may not exist certain of when these occurred. This is certainly true but was common for all classes of parents and therefore would not explicate the differences observed. Also, the general features of language outputs in the ASD children studied here agree with previous reports showing that almost one-half such a population never acquires functional language [31] and confirming that linguistic communication impairments are one of the first signs of ASD [due east.g. 23]. Our large sample shared global deficits with all the other populations studied, which may reveal shared biological sources. However, as in normal children population, inter-private variation was high and, opposite to expectations from earlier studies [32], strongly associated with parents' socioeconomic condition, included level of instruction. Thus, an earlier review [32] showed simply 4 of 12 studies aiming to relate ASD and social class supported the possibility of such a link but concluded that social class was non a take a chance cistron. Our findings suggest indeed that other chance factors are probably important equally global deficits are found in children with ASD of parents from all levels of pedagogy (deficits are related to the overall level of linguistic communication only not to course). However our results show that environmental factors such as parent's level of education may influence more than refined aspects such equally age of outset single words or first phrases. Reports testify that some behavioural traits in animals may exist more open up to environmental influences than others and that individual variations event from the interplay between genetic and environmental influences [2].

Considering environmental factors may act on very precise aspects, only detailed studies such as our present study could reveal their influence. The electric current predominance of genetic models for psychiatric disorders may also explain that such aspects have been disregarded [11]. Our results emphasize the importance of remaining focused on this dual influence. As Robert [11] mentioned, "at that place is no such thing every bit a genome without a organisation".

The fact that external factors, especially social environs, has been institute to influence language characteristics is not surprising, linguistic communication existence "a social human activity" [33]. Social influences may help both humans and animals to overcome inhibitions, and to achieve exceptional learning in song advice processes [34]. Children need both communicative opportunities and a language model in order to develop language [35], [36]. For example, mother's and father'south levels of teaching are pregnant predictors of child language [37], [38]. Recent studies advise that children with ASD share an inherent basis with typical language learners in at least some aspects of language acquisition and that therefore delays might result more from social disinterest than from a core language inability [39]. Tager-Flusberg [forty] suggested that language impairments may reverberate the lack of attending of these children to their social environs. ASD children can exist so unresponsive to voices and speech that they are starting time believed to be deaf [forty].

Perceptual deficits may indeed exist as a consequence of impairments of voice processing in the STS central surface area [17], but social withdrawal and lack of social attending may well be involved in these cardinal abnormalities [20]. Individual variations in language impairments may therefore reflect variations in social attention/involvement [41].

How could level of education, and more generally socioeconomic status, explain these differences? Socioeconomic condition is a chemical compound variable [35] that creates "different basic conditions of life at different levels of the social order" [42]. It involves instruction level of parents, their income, social network (other people encountered past children) and the individual effects of these components are not well known [43]. However socioeconomic status has a strong touch on typical language learners. High socioeconomic status mothers talk more to their children, use a more varied vocabulary, read books to their children more readily [44], [45]. According to Hoff [46] and Huttenlocker et al. [47], socioeconomic status-related differences in richness of maternal speech explain socioeconomic condition differences in the development of immature children'southward vocabulary and syntax (review in [35]). In our report, mothers' level of education appeared to have a major consequence on the age of first words and phrases, showing that children with ASD, similar normal children, might be sensitive to maternal inputs. Interestingly, fathers' level of education appeared as well to have an effect, equally being delayed or non delayed in the production of starting time words and phrases depended on both parents' level of education. Fathers' parenting behaviours have been shown to be predictive of young children's language evolution [48] and fathers' outputs accept been shown to predict linguistic communication scores of children [37]. Nevertheless, very few studies have investigated the influence of fathers' socioeconomics condition on their language inputs to their children [37]. Our data showed that at least the level of education is probably of import for children with ASD as well.

Nonetheless, the processes involved in stimulating language outputs in children with ASD of high level of didactics parents remain unknown: could these processes include more perceptual stimulations, more triggering of social attention, enriched environments, more language inputs from family unit members and exterior friends [41]? At this stage, the respond is unknown but, our study, which to our knowledge, demonstrates for the beginning time an touch on of parents' level of education on linguistic communication outputs of children with ASD, should trigger important new lines of idea and research. It suggests an openness of some traits to environmental conditions, and probably social influences that would reveal greater plasticity than expected in these children. The next crucial step involves understanding the processes at stake (social attending, perceptual experience, brain plasticity…?): is perception improved, selective attending developed, what aspects are crucial (book reading? focused language outputs?). The finding that more general "abnormalities of development" are also influenced suggests that environmental weather condition, fifty-fifty though they cannot overcome the profound basic biologically-based impairments, may help amend a series of finer behavioural disturbances.

It is the beginning evidence that linguistic communication development of children with ASD is at to the lowest degree in part under the influence of social factors. This study may trigger of import new lines of thought and research (on the mechanisms underlying this influence; stimulate investigations on the exact links between parents' socioeconomic status and their linguistic communication inputs to their children), help equilibrate social and purely biological perspectives regarding ASD, and brings new hopes for environmentally based therapies.

Acknowledgments

Nosotros are thankful to Dr. Ann Cloarec for improving the English language, to families for their participation and to Fondation Adrienne et Pierre Sommer for their support.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: MG MH ST Doctor el. Performed the experiments: MG el. Analyzed the data: MG MH el. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: MG MH al el. Wrote the paper: MG MH ST el.

References

1. 1. Plomin (2001) The genetics of M in human and mouse. Nat Rev Neurosci two: 136–141.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
2. two. Hausberger M, Bruderer C, Le Scolan N, Pierre JS (2004) Interplay between environmental and genetic factors in temperament/personality traits in horses (Equus caballus). J Comp Psychol 118: 434–446.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
3. 3. Gosling SD (2001) From mice to men: what can we learn about personality from animal research? Psychol Bull 127: 45–86.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
4. 4. Luescher VA, Mc Keawn DB, Dean H (1998) A cross exclusive study on compulsive behaviour in horses. Equine Vet J 27: fourteen–xviii.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
5. v. Mc Greevy PD, French NP, Nicol FJ (1995) The prevalence of abnormal behaviours in dressage, eventing and endurance horses in relation to stabling. Vet Record 137: 36–37.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
6. 6. Houpt KA, Kusunose R (2001) Genetics of behavior. In: Bowling AT, Ruvinsky A, editors. The genetics of the equus caballus. CABI Publishers. pp. 281–306.
7. vii. Hausberger M, Richard MA (2005) Individual differences in the domestic equus caballus, origins, development and stability. In: Mills D, McDonnell Southward, editors. The domestic horse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 33–52.
8. 8. Tienari P, Wynne LC, Sorri A, Lahti I, Läksy Chiliad, Moring J, et al. (2004) Genotype–environs interaction in schizophrenia-spectrum disorder: long-term follow-up written report of Finnish adoptees. Br J Psychiatry 184: 216–222.
   • View Commodity
   • Google Scholar
9. 9. Tienari P, Wynne LC, Moring J, Lahti I, Naarala Chiliad, et al. (1994) The Finnish adoptive family unit study of schizophrenia: implications for family research. Br J Psychiatry Suppl 16420–26.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
10. 10. Franzek E, Stöber G (1995) Maternal infectious diseases during pregnancy and obstetric complications in the etiology of distinct subtypes of schizophrenia: further evidence from maternal infirmary records. Eur Psychiatry 10: 326–330.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
11. eleven. Robert JS (2000) Schizophrenia epigenesis? Theor Med Bioeth 21: 191–215.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
12. 12. American Psychiatric Association (2000) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; Volume 4-TR. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
13. 13. Kanner L (1949) Problems of nosology and psychodynamics of early infantile autism. Am J Ortho 19: 416–426.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
14. 14. Chess Southward (1977) Follow-upward report on autism in built rubella. J Autism Child Schizophr 7: 69–81.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
15. xv. Rimland B (1964) Infantile autism: the syndrome and its implications for a neural theory of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
16. xvi. Muhle R, Trentacoste SV, Rapin I (2004) The genetics of autism. Pediatrics 113: 472–486.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
17. 17. Gervais H, Belin P, Boddaert Northward, Leboyer Yard, Coez A, et al. (2004) Abnormal cortical voice processing in autism. Nat Neurosci 7: 801–802.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
18. xviii. Cousillas H, Richard JP, Mathelier Thousand, Henry 50, George I, et al. (2004) Feel-dependent neuronal specialization and functional organization in the central auditory surface area of a songbird. Eur J Neurosci 19: 3343–3352.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
19. xix. Cousillas H, George I, Mathelier M, Richard JP, Henry L, et al. (2006) Social experience influences the development of a central auditory expanse. Naturwissenschaften 93: 588–596.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
20. 20. Cousillas H, George I, Henry L, Richard JP, Hausberger G (2008) Linking social and vocal brains: could social segregation prevent a proper evolution of a key auditory area in a female songbird? Plos One three(5): e2194.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
21. 21. Kuhl (2003) Human speech and birdsong: Communication and the social brain. PNAS 100: 9645–9646.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
22. 22. Goldstein MH, Rex AP, West MJ (2003) Social interaction shapes babbling: testing parallels betwixt birdsong and speech. Proc Nat Acad Sci Us 100: 8030–8035.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
23. 23. De Giacomo A, Fombonne E (1998) Parental recognition of developmental abnormalities in autism. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatr 7: 131–136.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
24. 24. De Myer MK (1979) Parents and children in autism. Washington DC: Winston and Sons.
25. 25. Hoff E, Naigles L (2002) How children use input in acquiring a lexicon. Child Dev 73: 418–433.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
26. 26. Hoff E, Laursen B, Tardif T (2002) Socioeconomic status and parenting. In: Bornstein MH, editor. Handbook of parenting second ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association. pp. 231–252.
27. 27. Hart B, Risley T (1995) Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of immature. American children. Baltimore: Brookes.
28. 28. Lord C, Rutter M, Le Couteur A (1994) Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised - A revised version of a diagnostic interview for caregivers of individuals with possible pervasive developmental disorders. J Autism Dev Disord 24: 659–685.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
29. 29. World Health Organization (1994) The composite international diagnostic interview, Version 1.ane. Geneva: Researcher's transmission.
30. 30. Pinker S (2002) The blank slate: the modern denial of homo nature. New York, NY: Viking.
31. 31. Bailey A, Phillips Westward, Rutter One thousand (1996) Autism: towards an integration of clinical, genetic, neuropsychological, and neurobiological perspectives. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 37: 89–126.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
32. 32. Fombonne E (2003) Epidemiological surveys of autism and other pervasive developmental disorders. J Aut Dev Disorders 33: 365–382.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
33. 33. Locke JL, Snow C (1997) Social influences on vocal learning in human and not human primates. In: Snowdon CT, Hausberger Yard, editors. Social influences on vocal development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 274–292.
34. 34. Snowdon CT, Hausberger Chiliad (1997) Social influences on vocal development. Cambridge: Cambridge Academy Printing.
35. 35. Hoff E (2006) How social contexts back up and shape language development. Dev Rev 26: 55–88.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
36. 36. Sanders LD, Stevens C, Coch D, Neville HJ (2006) Selective auditory attention in 3-to-5-year-old children: An event-related potential study. Neuropsychologia 44: 2126–2138.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
37. 37. Pancsofar Northward, Vernon-Feagans L (2006) Mother and father language input to young children: contributions to later language development. J App Dev Psychol 27: 571–587.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
38. 38. Hoff-Ginsberg Eastward (1991) Female parent–kid conversation in dissimilar social classes and chatty settings. Child Dev 62: 782–796.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
39. 39. Swensen LD, Kelley E, Fein D, Naigles LR (2007) Processes of language acquisition in children with autism: evidence from preferential looking. Kid Dev 78: 542–557.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
40. 40. Tager-Flusberg H (2000) Differences betwixt neurodevelopmental disorders and acquired lesions. Dev Sci 3: 33–34.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
41. 41. Stevens C, Fanning J, Cocha D, Sandersa L, Neville H (2008) Neural mechanisms of selective auditory attention are enhanced by computerized preparation: Electrophysiological show from language-impaired and typically developing children. Brain Res 1250: 55–69.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
42. 42. Kohn ML (1963) Social form and parent-child relationships: An interpretation. Am J Sociol 68: 471–480.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
43. 43. Ensminger ME, Fothergill M (2003) A decade of measuring SES: what information technology tells us and where to go from hither? In: Bornstein VA, Bradley RH, editors. Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
44. 44. Hoff Ginsberg E (2000) Soziale Umwelt und Sprachlernen. In: Grimm H, editor. Sprachentwicklung. Bern: Hogrefe. pp. 463–494.
45. 45. Fletcher KL, Reese E (2005) Picture book reading with young children: A conceptual framework. Dev Rev 25: 64–103.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
46. 46. Hoff East (2003) The specificity of environmental influence: socioeconomic status affects early on vocabulary development via maternal speech. Child Dev 74: 1368–1378.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
47. 47. Huttenlocher J, Vasilyeva M, Cymerman E, Levine S (2002) Linguistic communication input at dwelling and at schoolhouse: relation to child syntax. Cogn Psychol 45: 337–374.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
48. 48. Tamis-LeMonda CS, Shannon JD, Cabrera NJ, Lamb ME (2004) Fathers and mothers at play with their 2- and 3-year-olds: contributions to language and cognitive evolution. Kid Dev 75: 1806–1820.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar

wardlovid1987.blogspot.com

Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0004683

Share this post