E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Florida Atlantic University
On their way to learning to talk, babies, like this one in a study at Florida Atlantic University, become good lip readers, new research shows. That discovery could help doctors detect autism earlier.
By Joan Raymond
For years, the conventional wisdom was that babies learned how to talk by listening to their parents. But a new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that our little angels are using more than their ears to acquire language. They’re using their eyes, too, and are actually pretty good lip readers.
The finding could lead to earlier diagnosis and intervention for autism spectrum disorders, estimated, on average, to affect 1 in 110 children in the United States alone.
In the study, researchers from Florida Atlantic University tested groups of infants, ranging from four to 12 months of age and a group of adults for comparison.
The babies watched videos of women speaking either in English, the native language used in the home, or in Spanish, a language foreign to them. Using an eye tracker device to study eye movements, the researchers looked at developmental changes in attention to the eyes and mouth.
Results showed that at four months of age, babies focused almost solely on the women’s eyes. But by six to eight months of age, when the infants entered the so-called “babbling” stage of language acquisition and reached a milestone of cognitive development in which they can direct their attention to things they find interesting, their focus shifted to the women’s mouths. They continue to “lip read” until about 10 months of age, a point when they finally begin mastering the basic features of their native language. At this point, infants also begin to shift their attention back to the eyes.
The researchers believe this second shift in attention is due to the emergence of speech, and their burgeoning ability to better understand “social cues shared meanings, beliefs, and desires,” explains lead author David J. Lewkowicz, a professor of psychology.
In a second part of the study, the researchers looked at the role of early experience with a specific language and how it relates to lip reading in infancy.
Videos of a Spanish speaking woman were shown to English-learning babies between 4 and 12 months of age. The researchers found these infants also shifted their attention to the mouth by 8 months of age, but they continued to lip read as late as 12 months of age, unlike the babies who were exposed to the English video.
“These babies were experts at English, and now when they heard Spanish, it was like ‘Ok, this is weird, I better start looking at the mouth again, instead of the eyes, so I can figure out what’s going on.'”
The study data suggest that infants who continue to focus most of their attention on the mouth past 12 months of age, “... are probably not developing age-appropriate perceptual and cognitive skills and may be at risk for disorders like autism,” Lewkowicz says.
Although more research is needed, the finding may be able to provide about six months of earlier intervention for autism, which currently can be diagnosed with behavioral testing beginning at about 18 months of age. “The earlier we can diagnose it (autism), the more effectively we can ensure the best possible developmental outcomes,” says Lewkowicz.
Leave a Comment:
If you had trouble understanding one stream of communication (sound) might you not look towards any other clues? The moving mouth offers, after all, the highest amount of new information that might potentially be related to what you are hearing. [OK, adults might look towards context clues because we understand a lot of universal body language and circumstances, but the point is it seems the babies are just looking towards what appears to give them the most clues.]
Well, well, this study assumes that all children are born with autism. However, there is no such thing as a genetic epidemic. If autism is acquired in the child's early months of life, then I believe it would be more worthwhile to do that study on fully vaccinated vs totally unvaccinated s children. This way there would be no confusion in an eye study, The reason being that tens of thousqnds of parents report that their children were developing normally(most past a year of age) until a series of vaccines where afterwards they lost speech, eye contact etc . Besides, starting earlier with speech etc won't do anything for the biological affects of autism--like oxidative stress, immune dysfunction, inflammatory bowel disease etc. It seems to me that this is simply another dead-end study to put off longer the really iimportant environmental studies that the CDC and drug companies don't want to see done.
Maurine meleck SC
grandmother to 2 vaccine injured boys-one recovered thru bio-med treatments.
The study that linked vaccines with Autism has been found to be a complete fraud. My fellow 34 year old friends and I all were vaccinated as children, so why aren't any of us diagnosed with Autism? I suppose nobody was looking to find anything wrong with us. Why does it seem like today, a child can't do anything out of the ordinary without someone trying to "diagnose" them with something?
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/index.html
My oldest child received the standard vaccine schedule, and does not have autism. My younger two children followed a selective, delayed schedule. One has autism and the other does not. The autistic child never had any "regression", she just developed very slowly. In retrospect, we can see the signs of what we now know to be autism very early on but we didn't recognize it at the time.
I do think that some children develop regressive autism as a result of some trauma to their body (including vaccine components). However, other children really are autistic from infancy or even birth.
Julie .. you do understand the number and timing of today's vaccine schedule is a lot different than the schedule that you received 34 years ago? For instance .. did you receive the HEP B vaccine within hours of birth .. followed by a "booster" prior to two months .. to name just ONE .. of many .. vaccines that you probably did not receive so many years ago?
Perhaps a better idea would be for you to evaluate the overall health of children prior to age six or seven that you personally know .. asking yourself how many of those children who received the recommended and approved schedule of today's vaccines have a chronic autoimmune disorder .. such as .. autism, allergies, asthmas, juvenile type 1 diabetes, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, ADD, ADHD, seizures, etc.
Personally, I know of one child who has warned her school of her life-threatening allergy to peanuts as well as one boy who has juvenile type 1 diabetes that requires constant monitoring with emergency plans to use the epi-pen he must carry at all times to prevent him from suffering a life-threatening diabetic shock.
How many of these types of autoimmune disorders do you remember having in your elementary school?
Bob, autism isn't an autoimmune disease, nor are seizures. Do you have any evidence to link vaccines to any of those diseases you listed? Or do you just have a hunch? Hunches are nice, but they're meaningless unless you back it up with evidence.
@bob Moffitt
I'm sorry that I don't accept personal anecdotes about what people feel cause diseases. The scientist in me is too strong. Prove it or keep your heartfelt stories to yourself.
@ trip*toe*fan
Unfortunately, there is no .. blood test .. scan .. or laboratory analysis .. that can determine a diagnosis of autism in a child. Instead .. the diagnosis of autism is based solely upon "behaviors" that a child exhibits over a certain period of time.
However, many of the "behaviors" required for a diagnosis of autism are CAUSED by vaccines .. especially neurological and gastrointestinal damage from vaccines .. which "cause" the child to exhibit bizarre autistic "behaviors" that warrant a diagnosis of autism.
Disagree if you want .. but .. my explanation is as valid as the present "we simply don't know what causes autism" explanation that has prevailed for decades.
@ Eric97
I was responding to Julie who had posted her own PERSONAL annechdote of not suffering any adverse reactions when she received her vaccinations 34 YEARS AGO.
But .. since the scientist in you was moved to respond .. perhaps you can give me a reasonable scientific explanation for the CDC's report .. NOT MINE .. that 1 in every 6 American children suffer some type of early childhood development problem .. problems that were far less common in all previous .. LESS vaccinated generations.
By the way .. maybe the scientist in you will ask the CDC to update their report .. now ten years old .. to alert parents if the trend of early childhood development problems has improved .. say 1 in 10 today .. or .. more likely .. has it worsened .. say 1 in 3 today?
I agree that "personal anechdotes" are not reliable when judging whether the "benefits outweigh the risks of vaccines" .. but .. hopefully .. the scientist in you would agree .. it is just as unreliable to continue to ignoring reports that less than 10% of doctors and pediatricians "voluntarily" comply with the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System to report ANY adverse event following vaccination.
At the very least .. would you agree the present VAERS is too "passive" .. and .. VAERS desperately needs to assume a more "aggressive" position in monitoring vaccine safety?
Again: Where is your evidence that is true. A vaccine may cause a neurological symptom like seizures, but that doesn't mean vaccines cause autism. You need to show that a child's autism diagnosis is caused by the vaccine. No one has done that. In fact, there are several studies that show population data doesn;t support a link between vaccines and autism.
Nope your explanation isn't scientifically valid. To be scientifically valid, you would need to present evidence supporting your claim. Scientists say "We don't know all the time." What scientists try to avoid is baseless speculation, which is what you're engaging in.
Simple: Better awareness and changes in diagnosis criteria. Autism is the perfect example of both. Neurodevelopmental disorders don't carry the stigma they once did. So parents seek out diagnoses for their children when they don't develop in the normal range. Also psychiatrists and doctors have changed the autism diagnosis in the past couple decades. Here is a researcher explaining part of this: http://www.npr.org/2011/12/20/144022386/autism-rates-have-spiked-but-why
"Besides, starting earlier with speech etc won't do anything for the biological affects of autism--like oxidative stress, immune dysfunction, inflammatory bowel disease etc. It seems to me that this is simply another dead-end study to put off longer the really iimportant environmental studies that the CDC and drug companies don't want to see done."
100% spot on!
I am happy to see that some people are actually aware that autism may be caused by ongoing biomedical issues. Let's start looking at these issues. Stop the foolish studies like the one in this article.
Tip*Toe*Fan
I give up .. you win. It is more scientifically valid not to know the cause of anything .. because .. scientists say that all the time.
1) This study wasn't designed to answer the question "What causes autism?" It was done to understand speech development in children. One of its consequences could be help in understanding autism.
2) As I stated earlier, there is no scientific evidence connecting autism to vaccines. There have been several population studies that show no link between MMR and autism or thimerosal and autism.
3) People are looking at the biological underpinnings of autism, including the genetics of the disease. This study doesn't take anything away from those biological studies. So no need to attack this study for slowing progress on understanding autism. That wasn't its goal and plenty of people are doing such research.
It is more scientifically valid to say "I don't know" when you have no evidence then to make something up and proceed on the assumption that it's true. If you want to make your case in science, you need evidence. The autism-vaccine crowd hasn't produced any credible scientific evidence to link the shots to the disease.
Sorry that's how science works. You can't just make something up cause it feels like it's true. You must have evidence.
And you must not ignore/disregard evidence because it interferes with an agenda.
That cuts both ways, you know.
@Bob Moffit- a diabetic of any age in insulin shock needs immediate GLUCOSE, not epinephrine. Epipens are to treat a severe allergic reaction characterized by difficulty breathing. if a child with type 1 diabetes is carrying an Epi-pen, it is NOT to treat his diabetes. and if he is in insulin shock ('diabetic shock'), he will exhibit symptoms similar to being drunk, along with cool clammy skin. anaphylactic shock is quite different
"Bob, autism isn't an autoimmune disease, nor are seizures. Do you have any evidence to link vaccines to any of those diseases you listed? Or do you just have a hunch? Hunches are nice, but they're meaningless unless you back it up with evidence."
I see. Where is your evidence that autism isn't an autoimmune disease? How did you reach that conclusion without understanding what causes autism? It cuts both ways you know.
Bob Moffitt
Where is your data that has been peer reviewed and accepted by the scientific community? The studies that alleged to show an association between autism and vaccinations were from many years ago and shown to be fraudulent. All I see from you are anecdotal extrapolations of your personal opinions. This isn't science. By the way "diabetic shock" (I'll assume you mean diabetic keto acidosis) is not treated with an epi-pen. It is treated with insulin. An epi-pen has epinephrine in it and is used to prevent/treat anaphylactic shock. Do you have any understanding of what you are talking about?
And, if it weren't for vaccinations and Public Health measures, you probably wouldn't be alive. So get a life and do something that helps the public improve their health rather than trying to scare them into abandoning practices that protect their health (like vaccinations) and the health of everyone else in society.
This study means nothing until you answer the question, why do we have a real increase in autism? that's the question, not baby lip reading.
It could be any number of things in the environment or maybe it's genetics. Or maybe doctors are too eager to diagnose a child with something. Like I posted above, I'm in my mid 30's and had all of my vaccinations. Out of all of the friends and acquaintances I have who are my age, I've NEVER heard anything about any of them being Autistic. As soon as there is a label for something, people start to look to who might fit in that box. The umbrella of Autism is so huge, most of us could probably fall under it to some degree.
Julie, I am in my mid 40's and we didn't have the label of autism either. Kids who were non-verbal were put in special care institutions. Even higher functioning kids have a clinical presentation, and cannot function without accomodations. You wouldn't have known those kids, as they were either in "special classes" (frequently with behaviorally problem kids) or educated in a different institution. I am sure it is overdiagnosed to a degree, but I would rather have the over diagnosis than the absolute lack of support for parents and autistic spec kids that we had back then.
If you ask any real autism researcher, the increase in autism numbers is due to better awareness and changes in diagnosis. There is zero, none evidence to support a link between autism and vaccines or other environmental factors.
Really? Does that hold true for the increase in regressive types of autism?
"If you ask any real autism researcher, the increase in autism numbers is due to better awareness and changes in diagnosis."
You mean part of the increase right? I've spoken with "real autism researchers" that agree that the regressive form of autism is increasing at an alarming rate. So which researchers have you spoken with that would support your statement?
"There is zero, none evidence to support a link between autism and vaccines or other environmental factors."
Again, list the names of "real autism researchers" that would claim environmental factors do not contribute to autism causation. Then I'll list many whom would argue with that position.
trip toe fan, are you an autism expert? I didn't think so. It doesn't stop you from stating what may or may not cause autism. I am not an expert, but until we know what does play a role in causation, I'm not going to disregard vaccination injury or environmental factors.
I am definitely not an expert. But I read what experts say and the majority of autism researchers dismiss the vaccine-autism connection. They do so because there have been several studies that show no link between vaccines and autism.
Basically, these experts say there is no evidence in the scientific literature to support the vaccines-autism hypothesis. So they've rejected it. I mean there is no evidence that clowns cause autism, so should are you going to refuse to disregard clowns as a possible causative factor of autism?
As a parent of 3 children (one falling into the autism spectrum) I can tell you that there is ANOTHER reason why a child will continue to look at your mouth, and that is if the child is having problems with hearing. I had always had difficulty hearing and learned to lip read very early on. My youngest also became a proficient lip reader and we found he had significant hearing problems due to fluid behind his ear drums. He got tubes put in, but his language suffered as a result. Jumping to autism for lip reading shouldn't be the first stop! My son who does fall into the autism spectrum didn't learn to read lips, and never had the behaviors of looking at your mouth when you were speaking like my youngest with the hearing problem. Childhood hearing difficulties are still widely over looked unless the child is profoundly deaf. My nephew was totally deaf in one ear and it wasn't caught until he was nearly in his teens! Although autism is an issue, I think the failure to mention possible hearing difficulties in these kids does a disservice to those children living with it.
Thank you for pointing this out...I have a now-deaf five year old (he has CIs now) but as a baby, toddler and on into preschool he was OBSESSED with watching mouths - it was because of the worsening of his hearing loss/auditory neuropathy, NOT because of any cognitive or socialization problems (not that we ever worried about that). He just couldn't hear very well and wanted to know what the heck we were saying. On the upside, now that he is completely deaf w/out his processors, he is a terrific lip reader, even with no formal instruction. I don't think jumping to autism as a reason for a child's continued lip reading should be a FIRST jump. A simple hearing test could save some parents a lot of stress.
Assuming the authors of this study are not total morons -- and in lieu of any real evidence to suggest they are, I will choose to give them the benefit of the doubt -- I would imagine they did account for hearing factors (such as conducting hearing tests to be sure that was not the cause). This is why science reporting in the general media is so frustrating. This report is very simple, very superficial. That does not mean the study was simple or superficial. People read what mass media science writers have written and assume that is all there is to know about the actual study. I'm sure there was much more to the study and the conclusions than is being reported here.
While there was no autism or hearing problems in my family, I gotta say, my great grandmother told me this back in the 50's......Science is still catching up huh ?
Glad to see we are getting closer to understanding what may cause autism. How about seriously investigating biomedical issues rather than studying lip movements. Who funds this research, the NIH?
The two aren't mutually exclusive. And both are necessary, if we want to understand the cause of the disease.
Nope. The NSF and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute. And why is NIH funding a bad thing? They fund much of the biological and medical research in this country.
I actually thought it was funded by Ernie and Burt. How does this research bring us closer to understanding the biomedical issues associated with autism? I can understand how it could result in earlier detection. No, not really, but I was trying to extent some credit towards this worthless study.
Autism is a serious illness, no need to be flippant.
Well obviously it could help with earlier detection. If the findings are correct, then children start language development by reading lips. So if a pre-talking child isn't watching lips, maybe that's a sign they have a disorder on the spectrum. It alone wouldn't diagnose a child, but it's more data.
But I bet it could help understand the cause, because whenever you study a disease you want to know what else is happening in a person when they start to exhibit symptoms. Maybe those other events are related. So if you lip-reading deficits signal early stages of the disease, researchers could see what else is happening in the child around that time.
Of course, I'm not an autism researcher, so I'm just tossing an idea out there RE the last part. But I think it's pretty clear that it could help with early detection.
Calling it worthless isn't fair. Also remember the researchers probably didn't set out to study this phenomenon solely to cure autism. They probably also wanted to just understand language development--an intrinsically interesting subject, since we're the only critter on the planet that does it.
You're right, worthless isn't accurate. Waste of research funding fits better.
So you think it is pointless to understand language development? I'm not saying in terms of autism research, since this study wasn't designed to understand autism.
this study wasn't designed to learn anything about autism- it is to understand the process of language development. and as an aside, any disorder of unknown cause needs many different kinds of research in order to get a basic grasp of where it comes from. there needs to be substantial data coming in from many sources to narrow where the roots lie. then focusing in on narrowed intensive research makes sense. using a narrow focus in autism research is not yet warranted, because there is still so much that needs to be learned about multiple aspects of it. but maybe you're just another 'it's all about me' person, who probably didn't give a crap about autism until your child turned up with it, and now you're screaming that they have to find a cure now da**it! there are plenty of other diseases and disorders that also deserve research and money
It would be refreshing to see a study examining specific biomedical issues instead of baby babble. You know, examine mitochondrial abnormalities,digestive issues or oxidative damage found within the brain. Examine how autistic-like symptoms have developed after vaccination injury. Instead so much time and money is wasted on useless BABY BABBLE.
Once again, if you read the actual study, you'd find that the point of this study wasn't to understand what causes autism. Although the data are useful for understanding autism, that wasn't the study's goal.
"but maybe you're just another 'it's all about me' person, who probably didn't give a crap about autism until your child turned up with it, and now you're screaming that they have to find a cure now da**it!"
Yeah, that's it Allie. That's how parents with disabled children feel. It's all about them. Maybe you're just another "those damn parents with autistic children, always complaining about no answers"
"Although more research is needed, the finding may be able to provide about six months of earlier intervention for autism, which currently can be diagnosed with behavioral testing beginning at about 18 months of age. “The earlier we can diagnose it (autism), the more effectively we can ensure the best possible developmental outcomes,” says Lewkowicz."
So what is the actual point of the study? My guess is that more research money is needed for more studies that don't reveal much of anything about autism. Nice to use the autism word though when applying for funding. Then nothing is really expected from your research because we don't understand autism.
Go read the actual study! The actual point is to better understand how language develops in children, specifically why children seem to need to focus on the source of speech as they're learning language. They predicted the reason was to watch the person's lips.
Autism is only one of many disorders that involves speech deficits. So when they applied for funding, they probably listed more than just autism. And research to understand language development is worth it independent of anything it adds to understanding autism or other disorders.
But seriously, again, go read the study and stop dismissing the study without any knowledge of it.
not at all Mike. there are 3 autistic children in my family. there is also a Type 1 diabetic, several with Cystic Fibrosis (2 of them my late siblings), multiple people with dyslexia and dysgraphia so severe they were labelled retarded, a smattering of bipolar cases, and a few asthmatics. I just don't happen to think that any one of them is more deserving of research or a 'cure' than any other. I am also aware of the fact that advances in all of these disorders/disease processes has been through chance discoveries made while researchers were following leads on other issues. if you really know so much about what precisely needs to be done, then why don't you become a researcher, and write and get funding for a study of your own priority issues? instead of running down every other type of research under the sun for being unworthy
Great brief article, easy to read application of developmental research. Have shared with my psychology student network. And yes, baby babble very important considering how it influences the development of the brain and world views.
I think they are onto something with an early diagnosis process; many autistic adults continue to look at people's mouths when conversing. I know I do.
Many people look at other people's mouths when they are talking. They make whitening strips and toothpaste because of it.
"I think they are onto something with an early diagnosis process; many autistic adults continue to look at people's mouths when conversing. I know I do."
Yeah, I'm sure a few people tend to look at other people's mouths when they speak. I'm sure this break through in research deserves more funding. All aboard the autism research gravy train.
For some babies, the world has grown so ugly/intimidating it's a wonder they can countenance it at all. And when they do, perhaps they demonstrate more wisdom than we credit them with by ignoring eyes distorted by hate, anger, and despair.
This is something very interesting and new information for me and not astonished with these powers of children which are gradually revealing through continuous research in these fields.
Hope this helps autistic children some day!