BRIEF RESEARCH REPORT article
Front. Hum. Neurosci.
Sec. Speech and Language
Volume 19 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2025.1633013
This article is part of the Research TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder: Exploring the speech and language continuumView all 4 articles
From Encoding to Remembering: Pragmatic Inferences Reveal Distinct Routes of Word Learning in Autistic Children
Provisionally accepted- Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Mentalizing skills—the capacity to attribute mental states—play critical roles in word learning during typical language development. In autism, mentalizing difficulties may constrain word-learning pathways, limiting language-acquisition opportunities. We ask how autistic children encode and retrieve novel words and what drives individual differences. We test whether autistic children’s word learning benefits from pragmatic inferences, as in non-autistic (Trice et al., 2025). Forty-nine 6-to-9-year-old verbal autistic children participated. During learning, four novel words in the direct-mapping condition (DM) could be uniquely mapped to one novel object and four in the pragmatic-inference condition (PI) required children to assume speaker intent. Immediate recall and retention (15-minute delay) were tested via four-alternative-forced-choice-task. Autistic children showed above-chance PI mapping, no immediate recall differences, and PI retention advantage. However, individual difference analyses suggest a bimodal PI-retention pattern: 55% showed above-chance PI word recognition (PI-Retained) and 45% at-or-below-chance (PI-Limited). Retention profiles don’t reflect general memory—most PI-Limited children remembered DM words well. Instead, profile was associated directly with learning success. For PI-Limited specifically, learning performance was at-chance. Eye-movement during learning showed converging evidence: only PI-Retained consistently diverged between looks-to-target and competitor. Only nonverbal IQ in conjunction with initial mapping reliably differentiated groups, not mentalizing or language measures. This suggests distinct pathways of word-meaning acquisition in autistic children with otherwise similar profiles. While PI resolution may facilitate word-meaning acquisition for some, DM better serves others. This underscores the importance of characterizing learning processes as a pathway to understanding the heterogeneity of language in autism.
Keywords: autism, Mentalizing, pragmatics, word learning, individual differences, Eye-tracking
Received: 22 May 2025; Accepted: 30 Jul 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Trice and Qi. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Katherine Marie Trice, Northeastern University, Boston, 02115, Massachusetts, United States
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.