Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40220113›Full record

ArticleJournal of autism and developmental disorders2026

Prosodic Focus Effects on Covert "Only" Reading of Scalar Quantifiers in Autistic and Non-autistic Children Under Tonal Language Background.

Yuhan Jiang, Ting Wang

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Yuhan JiangSchool of Foreign Studies, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200092, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7156-7296
Ting WangSchool of Foreign Studies, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200092, China. 2011ting_wang@tongji.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3792-1260

Funding

National Social Science Fund of China 20CYY038
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous research on prosodic focus comprehension in non-autistic children has yielded inconsistent results, often attributing their difficulties to the presence of the word "only". However, studies on autistic children's understanding of focus are limited and often methodologically rigid. This study builds on previous work by investigating how prosodic focus influences the covert "only" interpretation of scalar quantifiers among Mandarin-speaking children aged 3-8, both autistic and non-autistic, using engaging and dynamic tasks. The present study combined a computer-based Picture-Sentence Judgment and a computer-based Selection Task. Samples included 25 autistic (3 F, 22 M) and 29 non-autistic children (17 F, 12 M) for the judgment task, and 20 autistic (3 F, 17 M) and 25 non-autistic (13 F, 12 M) for the selection task. Results indicated that non-autistic children showed prosodic focus sensitivity, requiring ToM and EF skills but not fully eliciting covert "only" inferences. Prosody enhanced clarity, reducing reliance on advanced reasoning, though vocabulary mattered. Autistic children's comprehension was unaffected by prosody, even with basic ToM and EF skills. Individual traits' influences on their interpretation were minimally affected by focus, highlighting reduced sensitivity. These findings suggest that non-autistic challenges may stem from cognitive capacities, not mere inclusion of "only". Autistic children's diminished sensitivity reflects autism's intrinsic aspects, likely linked to information integration impairments or decreased social motivation.

Indexed as

Autistic DisorderComprehensionLanguageReadingSpeech PerceptionChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansMaleAutistic childrenCovert “only”Individual traitsMandarin ChineseProsodic focus

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.