ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Prosodic marking of contrastive focus in Mandarin-speaking children with autism spectrum disorder.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Prosodic focus marking plays a central role in conveying information structure, yet little is known about how Mandarin-speaking children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) use acoustic cues to signal contrastive focus in a tonal language. Methods: Prosodic focus marking plays a central role in conveying information structure, yet little is known about how Mandarin-speaking children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) use acoustic cues to signal contrastive focus in a tonal language. This study examined pitch, duration, and intensity in sentence-initial and sentence-final focus produced by 20 Mandarin-speaking children with ASD and 20 age- and sex-matched typically developing (TD) peers. Using picture-based prompts, children produced simple subject-verb-object sentences, and acoustic measures of focus words (sentence-initial subject and sentence-final object) and post-focus verbs were analyzed with linear mixed-effects models. Results: Children with ASD showed significantly higher pitch than TD children in sentence-final focus, with no group difference in sentence-initial focus. Duration ratio was significantly reduced only with high-tone verbs. Intensity ratio was lower in sentence-initial focus, but higher in sentence-final focus with high-tone verbs. In the post-focus region, children with ASD exhibited higher pitch than TD children for both high- and low-tone verbs, but showed larger duration ratio and lower intensity ratio only for low-tone verbs. Discussion: These findings suggest that children with ASD are not globally impaired in focus marking, but show patterns that vary with focus position and tonal context.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.