Theory of Mind and Au0sm. Read: Baron- Cohen et al Happé 1993

Transcription

1 Theory of Mind and Au0sm Read: Baron- Cohen et al Happé 1993

2 Baron- Cohen et al Introduc0on Childhood au0sm 4 in 10,000 children (1985 es0mate). Impaired in verbal and non- verbal communica0on. Low level of social competence: Treat people and objects alike. Lesley 1984: Au0s0c children lack a Theory of Mind The ability to impute mental states to oneself and to others. Knowing that other people know, want, feel, or believe things. LING 481 2

3 Baron- Cohen et al. Introduc0on (cont.) Theory of Mind is impossible without the ability to form second- order* beliefs. This doesn t happen in typically developing children un0l age 2. Au0s0c children also don t engage in pretend play. Typically developing children have Theory of Mind by age 4. Wimmer & Perner 1983 s Sally- Anne Task. * NH: Sperber & Wilson would call these first- order beliefs/theory of Mind. LING 481 3

4 LING 481 4

5 Baron- Cohen et al. Subjects LING 481 5

6 Baron- Cohen et al. Procedures Naming ques,on: Which doll is Sally? Belief ques,on: Where will Sally look for her marble? Reality ques,on: Where is the marble really? Memory ques,on: Where was the marble in the beginning? Two trials were given, with the loca0on different in each trial: in basket, in box, in pocket. LING 481 6

7 Baron- Cohen et al. Results All children passed the Naming, Reality, and Memory ques0ons. Belief ques0on: Passed: 85% Normal children, 86% Downs Syndrome children. They pointed to where Sally would believe the marble was. Failed: 80% Au0s0c children. They pointed to where the marble really was. LING 481 7

8 Baron- Cohen et al. Conclusion Au0s0c children as a group fail to employ a Theory of Mind. This can be explained as a failure to ahribute mental states. The au0s0c subjects are unable to impute beliefs to others and are thus at a grave disadvantage when having to predict the behavior of other people. This can explain the lack of pretend play and the social deficits. Different from perceptual perspec0ve taking, which is not impaired. LING 481 8

9 Happé 1993: Introduc0on Au0s0c subjects don t ahribute mental states to others. Crucial in ahribu0ng false beliefs. Lesley: Represen0ng mental states along with pretence requires metarepresenta0on. Relevance Theory Ostensive- inferen0al communica0on which requires the recogni0on of inten0ons may be an unahainable goal for au0s0c people. Coded communica0on should be fine for them. LING 481 9

10 Happé: Introduc0on (cont.) A minority of children with au0sm do pass false- belief tasks. Some may understand first- order inten0ons (John doesn t know that ), but not second- order inten0ons (Mary doesn t know that John knows ) First order mental states: can recognize a speaker s informa0ve inten0on: To make mutually manifest the informa0on X. But not their communica0ve inten0on: To inform the hearer of his inten0on to make X mutually manifest. Should have difficulty with small talk (pha0c communica0on). LING

11 Happé: Introduc0on (cont.) Au0s0c subjects should have no trouble with similes: He was like a lion. Requires no Theory of Mind. But should have trouble with metaphors. He is a lion. The proposi0onal form of the uherance is a more or less loose interpreta0on of the speaker s thought. Needs a first- order Theory of Mind. LING

12 Happé: Introduc0on (cont.) Irony is even more demanding. Requires a thought about an ahributed thought. A second- order Theory of Mind. Sperber & Wilson 1981, 1986: ironic uherances quote or refer to an ahributed thought: Well that s very clever isn t it? Men0on a par0cular thought and then make mockery of it. Different from classical Gricean theory of irony. Compute literal meaning and then when this doesn t fit the context, compute the opposite. Would only require first- order theory of mind ability. LING

13 Happé Subjects Subjects had previously undergone a bahery of tests. To assess their first- order and second- order Theory of Mind abili0es on the basis of false belief and decep0on tasks. No Theory of Mind: 6 First- order Theory of Mind: 6 Ahribu0on of false beliefs. Second- order Theory of Mind: 6 Ahribu0on of false beliefs about beliefs. Subjects were matched for performance IQ and full- scale IQ, but not verbal IQ. Control group with Moderate Learning Difficul0es. LING

14 Happé Subjects (cont.) LING

15 Happé Experiment 1 Simile vs. Metaphor Predic0on: Au0s0c subjects with no Theory of Mind should have difficulty with loose usages Take implicature as literal meaning. Leading to pedan0c expression and a failure to understand figura0ve language. Similes, by including the word as or like render the comparison they express literally interpretable. Metaphors are very different. LING

16 Happé Materials Exp. 1 (1: Control) LING

17 Happé Materials Exp. 1 (2) LING

18 Happé Materials Exp. 1 (3) Metaphor Condi1on (1) The dancer was so graceful. She really was (2) Father was very very cross. He really was (3) Michael was so cold. His nose really was (4) Ian was very clever and tricky. He really was (5) Ann always felt safe with Tom. He really was Choose one item from the following list to complete: An icicle a fox a safe harbour a hat a swan a volcano LING

19 Happé Results Exp. 1 LING

20 Happé Results Exp. 1 LING

21 Happé Exp. 2 Irony may be defined as the use of words to express something other than, and especially the opposite of, the literal meaing of the uherance. Children even as old as 13 misunderstand irony as decep0on. Children under 6 consistently fail. Sperber & Wilson 1981, 1986: Irony involves men0oning some ahributed theory and then mocking it. Requires a second- order metarepresenta0on. Should require a second- order Theory of Mind. LING

22 Happé Exp. 2 Materials LING

23 Happé Results Exp. 2a. LING

24 Happé Results Exp. 2a. LING

25 Happé Results Exp. 2b. Normal children passing vs. failing 2 nd order belief tasks LING

26 Happé Results Exp. 2b. LING

27 Happé Discussion Relevance Theory allows us to explain well- known Theory of Mind deficits in au0s0c children. But also relates degree of meta- representa0onal ability with degree of communica0ve ability. Au0s0c communica0on thus serves as a valuable test- case for Relevance Theory. The experiments support Relevance Theory views of figura0ve language over Gricean views. Future research: explain the everyday impairments in verbal communica0on by au0s0c subjects who pass second- order theory of mind tests. LING