Discourse comprehension in autism spectrum disorder: Effects of working memory load and common ground.
Extra working-memory demand—not just social-thinking gaps—slows and scrambles discourse for autistic learners.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team asked teens with and without autism to follow short conversations.
While the teens listened, the researchers added extra memory tasks.
They then checked who could still answer questions about the talk.
What they found
Autistic teens answered more slowly and made more errors when the memory load was high.
Even after accounting for social-thinking skills, the memory load still hurt performance.
How this fits with other research
Malkin et al. (2018) saw the same thing in younger kids, so the problem starts early.
Dudley et al. (2019) tracked the same teens for two years and found their brain activation never matured under load, backing the behavioral result.
Cardillo et al. (2020) found visuospatial memory looked fine in autism, so the weak spot is language plus memory, not memory alone.
Mazza et al. (2017) showed social-thinking gaps matter too, yet this study proves memory load hurts even after you control for that.
Why it matters
When you pile on verbal directions, background chatter, or extra rules, comprehension can crash even in bright autistic learners.
Cut memory noise: give one sentence at a time, use visual cues, and pause before the next cue.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Present one verbal instruction, wait five seconds, then show the next visual cue.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Pragmatic language impairments are nearly universal in autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Discourse requires that we monitor information that is shared or mutually known, called "common ground." While many studies have examined the role of Theory of Mind (ToM) in such impairments, few have examined working memory (WM). Common ground impairments in ASD could reflect limitations in both WM and ToM. This study explored common ground use in youth ages 8-17 years with high-functioning ASD (n = 13) and typical development (n = 22); groups did not differ on age, gender, IQ, or standardized language. We tracked participants' eye movements while they performed a discourse task in which some information was known only to the participant (e.g., was privileged; a manipulation of ToM). In addition, the amount of privileged information varied (a manipulation of WM). All participants were slower to fixate the target when considering privileged information, and this effect was greatest during high WM load trials. Further, the ASD group was more likely to fixate competing (non-target) shapes. Predictors of fixation patterns included ASD symptomatology, language ability, ToM, and WM. Groups did not differ in ToM. Individuals with better WM fixated the target more rapidly, suggesting an association between WM capacity and efficient discourse. In addition to ToM knowledge, WM capacity constrains common ground representation and impacts pragmatic skills in ASD. Social impairments in ASD are thus associated with WM capacity, such that deficits in domain-general, nonsocial processes such as WM exert an influence during complex social interactions. Autism Res 2016, 9: 1340-1352. © 2016 International Society for Autism Research, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research, 2016 · doi:10.1002/aur.1632