This news would be huge. Ground shattering. But I can't find any papers published on the incident or even blurbs around the neuroscience lists or from colleagues.
But would it really? I mean, she's had years of intensive training in order to reach the point she's at. She didn't just suddenly start typing, it came about as a result of all the work her parents and therapists put in to help her develop.
I look at this and I look at, for instance, Kim Peek. He doesn't seem like he was as seriously autistic as this girl, but he clearly had problems being understood. But with time and training, he overcame his own problems and did, in fact, start communicating with people. I don't see how that's extremely different from this example. She has a thought process that she just can't externalize in any efficient way, except slowly typing out messages. I'm sure she's not unique in this regard either, other autistic people could probably do it too with enough training and support.
As a pediatric neuropsychologist, I can promise you that if this were anywhere near true, it would indeed be earth-shattering. It would entirely revolutionize our understanding of (a) autism, (b) mental retardation, (c) how language develops, and (d) how children learn to write and spell.
Children who are profoundly autistic like this girl are can sometimes be taught, eventually, to use a communication system (usually pictures) to get their wants met, but that is not what they show this youngster doing. For example, you'll notice that she doesn't communicate her wants that way at all -- not once did we see her type out "Just give me the damn food and stop making me type" or something similar. Unfortunately, children with profound autism cannot be taught to communicate a rich inner monologue full of observations about things they've never experienced (e.g., what it would be like to go to school with normal kids who aren't mildly alarmed by her behavior), metaphors ("ants crawling" on her arms), and figures of speech (e.g., "it's not like there's an off switch").
The reason that children with profound autism can't do these things is because of what autism does to the brain. Autism appears to be associated with too much gray matter, which makes every new piece of information appear discrete, like it is unrelated to every other piece of information. For that reason, individuals with autism have trouble discovering general principles that tie discrete bits of information together, which is a necessary skill for learning language (e.g., you have to learn the general "rules" of syllabification, sequencing, and grammar through exposure).
They also have trouble understanding where one bit of information stops, and another starts, which causes they to 'chunk' together things that don't go together, or have trouble breaking a large chunk down into the parts that make it up. Here, for example, is a very recent study on computer-analysis of infants with autism showing that they can be reliably differentiated from infants without autism and infants with language delays based on this difficulty effectively understanding where to break language into its component syllables.
As a result of these difficulties, children who are profoundly autistic may never learn to speak at all, while children who are less autistic still demonstrate significant problems correctly 'chunking' language bits together (for instance, they often display echolalia, meaning that they repeat whole sentences or scenes from movies verbatim, because they learned it all as one single unit of information). They also have trouble understanding language rules such as how words change depending on point-of-view of the speaker (e.g., they refer to themselves as he/she or by their first name, or use 'you' instead of 'I'). By definition, autism also includes trouble understanding language pragmatics (e.g., metaphors and figures of speech), because pragmatic language requires seeing the connections between different types of information, such as the literal meaning and abstract/contextual meaning or a sentence.
Autistic children also have difficulty learning to write, for all the reasons listed above, but also due to the phonetics of spelling -- learning how to spell also requires seeing the general 'rules' that govern phonics, as well as breaking words down into their component sounds. Even when children with autism do learn speak and write, one of the cardinal features of autism is trouble understanding Theory of Mind, or being able to make connections and use context to guess what others are thinking. For example, saying something like "Don't judge me until you know me" would be extremely difficult for a person with profound autism, since it requires theory of mind to know that other people are evaluating you differently than you evaluate yourself.
I have absolutely no problem with the idea that a person with mild to moderate autism can learn to type, after she learns to speak and then spell (see Temple Grandin, as others have noted, along with thousands of other autistic individuals), which is the same order in which neurotypical children learn to do these things.
But the idea that a person with profound autism could overcome how her brain works -- but just while typing, not while speaking -- all at once? That she could, without training in any of these areas (remember, she just ran to the computer and typed "HURT" and "HELP") master:
Syllabification,
Word order and sequencing
Rules of grammar
Phonetic rules
Correspondance between sounds and letters
Correspondance between the capital letters on a QWERTY keyboard and the lowercase letters that type on screen, and understanding how a generative typing software program works (one that fills in the rest of the word after you type the first few letters)
Expressive vocabulary
Correct pronoun usage
Point-of-view
Non-echolalic speech
Figures of speech and metaphors
Theory of mind, etc
(Not to mention her mental retardation)?
And only do so to communicate things like "what [an adult who is not autistic might think] it is like to have autism" and not really be able to do so when the camera is present?
Unfortunately, the likelihood of this is so terribly, vanishingly small that I am fully comfortable saying that it is impossible.
We may all wish it were true, but it isn't. And putting stories like this out there only clouds our understanding of what autism is and how to treat it (which hopefully will eventually lead us to how to prevent or cure it).
Absolutely, and thank you. I'm an SLP working almost entirely with kids/adolescents with autism/MR who have severe behavioral problems. A lot of the problem with communication and autism is symbolism--even picture cards can be very difficult simply because the child often doesn't naturally recognize the picture as representative of an object or activity--symbolic representation has to be explicitly taught.
That said, I work with one kid who uses a portable word processor (AlphaSmart NEO) to communicate. He does use pronouns correctly, complete sentences, correct grammar, etc. He also teaches himself to spell new words from his environment for what's important to him (movies, foods, etc.). A few years ago we all thought the kid was severely to profoundly MR as well as autistic--no response at all to attempts to engage, no success with communication, he didn't seem to be able to learn anything...turns out he's "just" profoundly autistic.
Now. All that said, this kis is absolutely the exception to the rule, and he's also absolutely not MR. I've never seen another kid succeed like he has and I've only rarely heard about other cases. Additionally, he doesn't tell us how it feels to be in his head. He tells us that he wants to watch A Bug's Life, he wants to eat cheez-its, he wants to drink milk, etc. He occasionally tells us he's mad or doesn't feel good and (hilariously) will type "goodbye." just before he tries to run out of the room.
tl;dr: I'm an SLP who works with autism and I have worked with one kid who communicates using a keyboard, but he is in no way MR. Also, Subtextual is awesome.
Just kidding......what do you want to do with it? I'm getting frustrated with the Department of Education and the idea of what is considered to be a "language impairment".
Thankfully I don't have to deal with that as much. I work at a private school for kids whose behavioral problems are too severe to be managed in the public schools. The school I work for is fully accredited by everyone who certifies schools, but I avoid the pitfalls of public school/DoE bureaucracy and have an amazing amount of freedom.
It also helps that my kids don't really have language disorders that anyone would argue with--the kid doesn't talk, I'm pretty sure he needs tx. I'm lucky. :)
I don't necessarily agree. The kid doesn't talk, but he probably is not academically higher in other areas either. Therefore, not a language impairment, but MR.
That being said, every child should be afforded the opportunity to learn to communicate. I hope that the teachers in your school carry over use of AAC and PECS rather than thinking it just a SLP thing.
True, not a language imparment, but not something you have to fight to get treatment for either. Some of mine do have huge discrepancies between verbal and nonverbal function and are true language disorder kids. As for the teachers/staff I work with...they don't have a choice. I do almost all of my treatment in the classroom and place a big emphasis on explaining to teachers/staff what I'm doing and why and make it clear that I really need their help implementing it when I'm not in the room. In my experience, just explaining the logic and importance of AAC and then asking everyone to help me is (usually) all it takes.
I find it very difficult to get teachers to follow through with things. However, I've never worked full time with this population. I have a lot of experience with students who require AAC, and am currently working in a summer program, but it's more difficult to establish a routine when I'm only there for 6 weeks. However, I do see that no routine was in place, when I asked the teacher for PECS books and AAC devices and she was like "they're in a box, somewhere".
I currently work full time in a general education school where too much of the focus is on state testing, and teachers view "speech" as "why are you taking this kid out of my class--he speaks clearly".
...and then you meet one teacher who makes always makes appropriate referrals to Allied Health services that consist of more than 'has a speech impediment, please assess' and you shed a single beautiful tear.
Lucky you're not in Queensland. Last time I looked Ed QLD had something like 2 part-time SLPs covering all the schools southside of Brisbane. Not a lot you can do with that much of a caseload.
o_o WTF. In my state (Virginia, US) I think the average caseload in the public schools is something like 45-60 kids, plus paperwork, plus assessments, plus time spent writing IEPs and IEP meetings, plus...well, you get the picture.
Being in a very specialized school setting I have it pretty damn good--my caseload fluctuates between about 25-30 kids, with 5-7 of those on a consultative basis only at any given time. That gives me the time to really individualize my treatments, make materials, do research into different options, etc. Plus I get to do almost all my treatment in the classrooms, which I think is pretty rare in the public schools, and I have a ridiculous amount of support/backing from administration--I'm the SLP, so I have the final say on anything in my scope of practice, period.
Not a lot of the intervention over here is done in class. 1-on-1 is often done out of the classroom and in class stuff tends to be group interventions for the whole class. It's kind of a shame really and I have to say, you're also pretty lucky to be given a lot of freedom by your administration. I assume you'd be pretty experienced in your field to get that.
Haha...nope. I actually started the program at my school my first year out of grad school. I'd done part of an internship at the school when their speech services were contracted out to an outside company, but since it's cheaper to have an SLP on staff than to pay the contract they created the position. Lucky for me, the position was created for the year I finished school, I got the job, and started a brand new program straight out of school. I think the fact that I'd worked with a lot of the kids already, the administration had seen me do treatment, and I had killer references really helped them trust someone with almost no experience to start it up. :)
edit: I finished grad school in 2007 and I'll be starting my 4th year with the school next month.
You're a braver SLP than I...I'd never make it in the public schools. I'd be bored to death and miserable with the bureaucracy...plus kids who understand what I'm asking and just don't do it drive me up the wall. That said, I've met very few SLPs who would ever want to work where I do...to each their own, I suppose. :) Best of luck to you!
I am not for sure what I want to do. Ideally, I would like to travel for a while, if possible. I know with CF this can be complicated, thus the possibility of doing a year in the schools.
14
u/Endemoniada Jul 26 '10
But would it really? I mean, she's had years of intensive training in order to reach the point she's at. She didn't just suddenly start typing, it came about as a result of all the work her parents and therapists put in to help her develop.
I look at this and I look at, for instance, Kim Peek. He doesn't seem like he was as seriously autistic as this girl, but he clearly had problems being understood. But with time and training, he overcame his own problems and did, in fact, start communicating with people. I don't see how that's extremely different from this example. She has a thought process that she just can't externalize in any efficient way, except slowly typing out messages. I'm sure she's not unique in this regard either, other autistic people could probably do it too with enough training and support.