Today we have @SarahGriff90 discussing her recently published paper 'Early language competence, but not general cognitive ability, predicts children’s recognition of emotion from facial and vocal cues'.

Although most children with Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) do not develop mental health problems, they are at greater risk compared to their typically developing peers.
If we want to intervene to minimise this risk, we need to understand why DLD is associated with poorer mental health.
One possibility we are exploring in SCALES is that poor language reduces the ability to recognise and reason about emotions, which in turn increases risk of mental ill health.
Our first step to testing this theory was to test whether early language competence predicts emotion recognition (ER).
When the SCALES children (N = 369) were in Year 6 they completed 2 tasks measuring ER from facial expression and vocal sounds (e.g. laugh/cry). Children that met the criteria for DLD in Year 1 were less accurate in their ER in Year 6 than their typically developing peers.
We also found that, across the whole sample, language competence in Year 1, but not general cognitive ability, predicted emotion recognition accuracy in Year 6.
This study provides good evidence that ER is a challenge for children with DLD and that this seems to be directly related to their language skills.

We suggest that ER and more specifically, the language around emotion, should be a target for interventions for children with DLD.
Our next step is to look at whether emotion recognition ability in Year 6 mediates any relationship between language competence in Year 1 and mental health outcomes in secondary school.
You can check out our OSF page here: https://t.co/Ui0TpFTmPb
@threadreaderapp unroll

You May Also Like

The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.