Can we talk Central Coherence Theory?

[PeterPan]

https://jillkuzma.wordpress.com/receptive-language-ideas/

 

If you scroll through the article, she talks about this. She says weak Central Coherence will have them collect lots of interesting points without being able to organize it into a whole.

 

So how does this apply to our special learners and topics like history or science?  And does it even matter?  

 

If we do lots of interest-driven stuff with a typical child, they would gather data points and form it into a whole.  My ds seems to gather lots of data points and relate them to other data points, but I would agree he's *not* likely to form them into a whole.  I would relate this back to myself and the way I literally had no clue that there was overlap in history.  It was just lots of dots, all in a row, not comprehensible.  

 

I think what bugged me about the VP for him was that it was a lot of TIME on that, which would leave him unable to pursue those dots for himself.  Because of his disability, he's really not going to learn history on his own by reading.  Or maybe I'm all wet on that?  Are dyslexic 2nd graders learning history for themselves?  No.  So then anything he learns will have to be in the time and in preferred modalities.

 

So I'm just working this out in my mind, but I think *some* attention to central coherence in the subject would be good, but not *so much* that you eliminate their time and energy to collect dots their own way. 

 

Are people with weak central coherence unusually good dot collectors?  That's how it seems to me.  It is possible that a WCC person needs LESS framework than typical people because they'll LEAP faster or go deeper when the framework DOES click due to so many dots?  

 

Anything else you apply Central Coherence theory to or want to discuss?  Know anything more detailed about it or have fascinating sources?  And since I KNOW Different Minds will get mentioned, I'll say I know it's in there a bit but Lovecky is like reading cardboard.  Too thick, too dry, snoozarific.  So you'll have to explain it if she said anything fascinating.  :)

[Lecka]

This is my understanding.

 

Okay, you have a characterization with dyslexia where there are some brain connections that are farther apart. This makes it harder to learn rote skills and to connect letters with letter sounds. It makes it harder to learn to blend. Math facts. Etc. The flip side is that they are very good at making connections

 

With autism the connections are closer. It is easier to be an expert. Connections are within a smaller area of knowledge more than across big areas.

 

This that I am talking about is based on some (it seems to me) fairly limited information about something (I can't remember the name).

 

It is what is (iirc) in Dyslexia Advantage saying how autism and dyslexia are different bc of (I can't remember the name).

 

Then I have read a little thing by Temple Grandin where she connects it to a man who (iirc) won the Noble prize in chemistry.

 

So that is not getting into Central Coherence Theory with autism, but just something that comes up where it is presented sometimes like autism and dyslexia are opposites in this area.

 

I don't know that much about it.

[Lecka]

Oh, for me personally, I do see it as explanatory for difficulties with generalizing that I have seen with my son.

 

That is -- generalizing something he has learned from one situation, and applying it to another situation.

 

But it is more that I apply it based on knowing my son, than that I make a prediction about my son based on the theory. It is more like I already know something, and then here is something to explain it.

[Lecka]

Okay, I still don't know what the things are called (rods? short and long rods? something like that) that get mentioned specifically. It comes across to me like it is something where the information is fairly limited and a lot of conclusions may be drawn from limited information.

 

But anyway, I am going to try to quote from an article with Brock and Fernette Eide. The things I quote are the things that, sometimes, are presented like "this is the opposite of autism."

 

Now ----- I am not really "in" to this, I have just seen it mentioned. It is one where I think if something clicks with a parent, that is great, but I would not use it to judge or make expectations about a child.

 

http://www.wired.com/2011/09/dyslexic-advantage/

[Lecka]

Quotes from the Wired article that are talking about dyslexia in the way where it is like the opposite of autism wrt Central Coherence Theory (from my understanding):

 

"Dyslexic brains are organized in a way that maximizes strength in making big picture connections at the expense of weaknesses in processing fine details."

 

For some reason my copy/paste is not working.

 

The entire paragraph beginning "Interconnected reasoning is another kind of strength."

 

...."their strengths in big-picture processing".....

 

"Minicolumns" ------- this is the word I couldn't think of. This whole area (not Central Coherence Theory, but the "dyslexia and autism are opposites" comes from the minicolumns thing, from what I understand).

[wapiti]

I have absolutely no idea and I haven't finished my coffee yet in any event, but just glancing at your post and without reading the link, what jumped out at me is big picture vs details.  In the overly-simplistic continuum of VSL/right-brain strengths vs auditory-sequential/left-brain strengths, it may be more difficult for the stereotypical VSL having sequential weaknesses to connect the dots into the big picture unless the teaching approach provides the context first.

 

ETA, Lecka beat me to it - big picture.  I didn't know about this opposite theory.  Thinking out loud, it seems like there should be at least some overlap between individuals who are dyslexic and those with autism.  Just from what very little I've seen here and there, perhaps with autism some combination of overwhelming sensory input (not even getting to output concerns) and possible neuropsychiatric stuff in the mix (e.g. overwhelming anxiety, ocd) would seem likely to interfere with the general thinking needed to utilize big-picture connection-making strengths.  (I am spouting off here with no real knowledge of anything, just intuition)

Edited June 4, 2016 by wapiti

[Lecka]

http://autismdigest.com/brain-cortex-structure-similar-in-brilliant-scientists-and-autism/

 

And this is the thing I read by Temple Grandin, where she mentions minicolumns.

 

Here is a quote: "A brain can form either fast, efficient processing of information between different, distant regions or fast efficient processing of information in a local region."

 

So -- there is some information.

Edited June 4, 2016 by Lecka

[Lecka]

"Oversimplistic continuum" ----- that is my opinion also, I couldn't figure out a way to say it!

[wapiti]

While it (ETA, VSL right vs AS left) really is overly-simplistic and I think it's very important to keep in mind a continuum rather than a dichotomy, I do find the idea helpful.  When I first read Silverman's Upside Down Brilliance, so much in there resonated.  Then a friend was visiting who was having issues with her child - as she sat and read the book, tears poured out as it described her child so well.

Edited June 4, 2016 by wapiti

[Lecka]

"Are people with weak central coherence unusually good dot collectors? That's how it seems to me. It is possible that a WCC person needs LESS framework than typical people because they'll LEAP faster or go deeper when the framework DOES click due to so many dots?"

 

Wrt this quote ---- I think it would play out in individuals.

 

If a child just has vastly more information about an area, maybe that means there is a lot more possibility to fit things together. I think this happens with some individuals who have an interest, and they are just going to find out everything about it, and spend so much time thinking about it, that they are probably going to figure things out really well.

 

But for me, with my son, I feel like "the framework" is something where he will need explicit teaching, b/c it is hard for him. I would certainly not expect to provide him with less framework.

 

But he has also had teaching that is partially meant (or hoped) to improve the ability to group things together, and it is hoped that this will be something the child can apply on their own to new situations/information once the skill is developed.

 

This is: feature, function, and class. Sorting by feature, function, and class.

 

This is in the "cognitive skills" (or whatever) section in the "Teaching Your Child With Love and Skill" book. http://www.amazon.com/Teaching-Your-Child-Love-Skill/dp/1849058768

 

I do also go back to the famous thing from Temple Grandin, where she says she had to collect so many images of dogs, to analyze them, and figure out the key features of "what is a dog."

 

For me, reading that with a child who had a language delay, I read that and I go: "let's help the child make those connections."

 

I also had a low moment where my son had a goal to have 30 items/objects where he could identify 5 items as being the same thing.

 

For example -- 5 different chairs around the house, can he identify all of them as chairs? Does he see that they are all chairs, even though they look different?

 

He had a hard time with that, at the time, and that was a big moment for me. So for me -- I personally am not going to go from "my child has a hard time realizing what the gestalt is to label an item as a chair" and from there go to "he needs less framework to make connections."

 

But it could make sense for a child who is seen to do it.

 

And -- my son is a lot better now, with having more life experiences and exposure to information, and experience with having frameworks where things are grouped together. And I think Temple Grandin is very inspiring, too.

 

My son makes some jokes now that are showing he makes connections, so it is not like some strict thing where you go "kids don't make connections." But without being rigid about it, I do think maybe I get some insight into how to explain things to him in a way that will click with him more easily.

Edited June 4, 2016 by Lecka

[Lecka]

Oh, yes, I agree with Wapiti.

[wapiti]

But for me, with my son, I feel like "the framework" is something where he will need explicit teaching, b/c it is hard for him. I would certainly not expect to provide him with less framework.

 

But he has also had teaching that is partially meant (or hoped) to improve the ability to group things together, and it is hoped that this will be something the child can apply on their own to new situations/information once the skill is developed.

 

This is fascinating and I have some thoughts trying to collect themselves on this.

 

As a total aside, I recall back when dd had some language processing therapy (like Visualizing and Verbalizing) years ago, one of the goals was for her to "make a movie" in her mind while she read, i.e. make her own framework/big picture.  She is very VSL but still had difficulty with that skill until it was taught explicitly.  (For reference, she is neither dyslexic nor autistic but had a tricky time with inferences)

 

ETA, random thought on the opposite theory:  much depends on how dyslexia is defined.  If we require phonemic issues, that weakness may not be present in everyone who has dyslexic strengths.  More thinking out loud:  are there language issues that overlap among dyslexic and autistic individuals?  And what is the deal with inference weaknesses - that is common with autism, correct?  What about dyslexia (I can't recall)?  It seems to me that inference is not limited to language.

 

ETA more, about this brain structure.  It's very interesting but I find myself not willing to get too definitive about it.  In my world, so much of neuropsychiatric functioning depends on additional stuff at the microscopic level, biochemical intracellular processes (and the genetics that influence them), extracellular processes, the effect of the immune system on the nervous system (especially with signaling mechanisms involving specific carbohydrate molecules), and on and on (enormous can of worms).  It's so complex that I also have trouble with the DSM boxes.

Edited June 4, 2016 by wapiti

[Lecka]

There is an idea/paradigm for early learning with autism, where you are trying to teach the child the skills that will allow them to learn from their environment.

 

Then they can have opportunities to learn like other children.

 

There is an idea like some kids just automatically "know" certain things. The kids with autism may need to be "taught" various things.

 

But the hope is that you teach a skill explicitly, and then the child learns the skill, and can take that skill and use it and apply it independently.

 

Like for my son, now he can learn new words from the environment. Can he learn new words from the environment as easily as a child who never struggled? Probably not. Is it a million times better than it used to be? Yes.

 

What happens a little bit is, you can directly teach a child something. Or you can teach a child something that allows them to then go forward and learn on their own.

 

Teaching the framework/skill/whatever that lets kids learn on their own, is the holy grail. Directly teaching a child something ---- we need to do it too, but it is not the holy grail that will let them learn on their own. (This is kind-of how this is paradigm is presented, where they want kids to have the ability to "learn from the environment.")

 

So I know some older kids, who have not made so much progress in the "learning skills." But they have been directly taught things through their life, and so they have a really good repertoire of things they can do and are good at. And then there is always hope for improving in "learning skills," bc they are abstract and that can improve with age, or they require a lot of little steps, and kids are working their way through the steps just at a slow pace.

 

But if you can learn the "learning skills," then you can have the opportunity to learn on your own.

 

But yeah -- there are a lot of things where they are trying to teach kids "learning skills" and not just specific information for a specific context, even though that is good and can really add up over time.

 

But the "learning skills" are what you really hope for.

 

So I think, if "sequencing" and "categorizing" are examples of these "learning skills," then if a child has GOT these skills, you don't have to worry so much about "we have to make sure we present this and teach this in a way so that we know the sequencing and categorizing elements are clearly understood." If the child is not as strong in these skills, I think you do want to keep in mind, hey, those are weaker skills.

 

So then I think from the link from the original post, "Inferential comprehension also comes in various categories. Types of inferences to make are: Problem-Solution, Cause-Effect, temporal indicators, setting indicators, character’s emotions/intentions, and author’s purpose, to name just a few."

 

I think if you know a child can make these types of inferences, then you don't have to worry about it.

 

If you know a child has more difficult with these types of inferences, I don't think you can count on knowing a lot of details, to make up for having a hard time in the type of inference that may be needed to understand some connections.

 

Those are all new to me, I know a lot more about the more basic kinds of categorizing.

 

But ime -- if a child does not have a certain skill, you teach it. But if they have been taught a skill and can use it, then you don't have to worry about it. Maybe you know it is a weaker area and take that into account. Or maybe they have gotten really good at it, and it is no big deal.

[Lecka]

Back to the question, and looking at this quote from the original link: "Many students with Social Thinking challenges may display difficulty with inferential comprehension in fiction and texts focusing on character depth and change. Some students will be able to be quite proficient in making logical inferences and deductions given non-fictional, scientific or factual types of material. This manner of forming deductions is more linear and evidenced based, where as fiction pieces focusing on character change and interpersonal dynamics is more emotive and subjective in interpretation. It is important when addressing receptive language needs for students, to be diligent in assessing inferential comprehension needs in various contexts. Such contexts may include logical, deductive reasoning types of tasks, short fictional, social scenarios, more complex inferential scenarios involving character change, emotive motivational factors in a story, or the morale or lesson that author intends for readers. Older students with Social Thinking challenges may struggle more with these kinds of comprehension patterns."

 

Well, I read this, and it seems like she is saying, what kind of inference is needed? Is a logical inference needed? And, is the student proficient in logical inferences?

 

Okay, my son is not proficient in logical inferences. That is fine, he is a little kid, etc.

 

But if you want to turn a student loose on information, then I think you ask, "is my kid proficient in logical inferences?" And if the answer is yes, then you ask yourself, "is this an area where logical inference is the required skill/strength?" and if the answer is yes, then it seems like: yes, turn your kid loose on the information, and have a reasonable expectation they will make the logical inferences on their own.

 

But if the skills they would need are not skills they have, then no, I don't think that just information is going to lead to reaching conclusions we might want kids to reach.

[wapiti]

That sounds correct to me though I still feel a little unsure about the Social Thinking label, maybe because I'm dealing with different types of kids; I don't know... quite possibly my thoughts aren't relevant.

 

I will note that when my ds is experiencing his issues (ocd or anxiety or, separately, extreme sound sensitivity), logical thinking is crowded out.  He has really great logical strengths but the part of the brain dealing with the ocd (presumably the basal ganglia but I wonder if it isn't brain stem instead) totally overrides the logical part (what is that, frontal lobe or something else?  can't remember).  It's so frustrating to watch someone so logical behave in a way that he knows isn't logical but is compelled to.

 

As another aside so that I can procrastinate more on what I really need to do (reading about sialylation and anti-lysoganglioside antibodies and calmodulin kinase ii):  in school I always hated analyzing fiction - it felt so fake, plus I experienced poor instruction that leaned heavily on the subjective; what a shock it was to later discover as an adult that I really enjoyed writing - legal writing, nonfiction that required loads of analysis and such to come up with the big picture and then spit it out in a logical, linear format, not without attention to the emotional effects of language.  Maybe I have Social Thinking deficits too.

Edited June 4, 2016 by wapiti

[Heathermomster]

Maybe Geodob will explain this.  I understood the major brain difference with autism was the brain's inability to synaptically prune.  I am pulling on long term memory here, but major synaptic pruning occurs around ages 11 and 18 yo.  The major difference between logic and grammar staged thinking is that grammar stage kiddos struggle to abstract and are very concrete thinkers.  Synaptic pruning enables the abstractions because unused dendrites are ruthlessly cut via normal brain development.

 

The other brain difference with autism has been wrt to mini column spacing in the brain.  Mini column spacing was discussed in the DA; however, Geoff had major issues with the Eides' conclusions about the brain differences of the dyslexic and autistic individuals.  

 

 

Overall, I have no opinion about theory of mind info. 

  

[wapiti]

 major synaptic pruning occurs around ages 11 and 18 yo.

 

It would be interesting to know how individual this is - say a child tends to have a later developmental track all along the way, might this pruning occur later than normal.  Are there different types of abstraction like Lecka was describing above, logical vs social?

Edited June 4, 2016 by wapiti

[Heathermomster]

It would be interesting to know how individual this is - say a child tends to have a later developmental track all along the way, might this pruning occur later than normal.

Good questions...We need Geodob to explain this.

 

I have read that children with ADHD have differences with cortical thickness, so maybe that plays a role as well?

Edited June 4, 2016 by Heathermomster

[Lecka]

That is very interesting that Geoff doesn't necessarily agree with the conclusions about the mini-columns.

 

I think there is abstract, and then there is abstract.

 

My son was originally diagnosed in the severe range for autism. Abstract then meant: anything you can't physically, concretely label.

 

For example, my son called our house "new house," and our neighbor's house "yellow house," when he started ABA. The therapist told me she didn't think he understood the word "house," he was using separate labels for the two houses, and saying "new house" as a label, without understanding the individual words "new" and "house."

 

At first I didn't believe her, but then I was convinced he was having trouble with individual labels for words.

 

So THAT is abstract, saying "what is a dog" is abstract, instead of just "this dog, this dog, this dog, this dog," which can be memorized.

 

Okay ----- so if you are talking about that level of "abstract," it is a whole different level of "abstract" than talking about "the kind of learning that kids start to do around 4th grade" or "abstract social concepts" etc.

 

The way I think of it, there is abstract at every level, and if you know abstract is a weaker area, you are looking for those abstract areas at whatever level you are at.

[Heathermomster]

Here's the link that I am thinking off wrt minicolumns and connections. Look at post 83.

Edited June 4, 2016 by Heathermomster

[PeterPan]

http://autismdigest.com/brain-cortex-structure-similar-in-brilliant-scientists-and-autism/

 

And this is the thing I read by Temple Grandin, where she mentions minicolumns.

 

Here is a quote: "A brain can form either fast, efficient processing of information between different, distant regions or fast efficient processing of information in a local region."

 

So -- there is some information.

 

I had forgotten about the mini-columns!  I read DA what seems like so long ago, and at the time I was thinking about my dd.  I remember the whole "can't be dyslexic and have autism" idea, and yet we meet plenty of people on the board where it is diagnosed as happening.  I really don't know.  Have there been MRIs since to sort that out?  

 

If the research doesn't expand to explain what's being diagnosed (autism + dyslexia), then I don't know what to do with it, kwim?  So far we just have these b&w, either/or explanations.

 

And if they're doing research on microcolumns in ASD, is it corresponding to levels of autism?  

 

And to what degree is that mini-column development affected by things?  We all know exposures, therapies, instructions change the brain.  So when my ds was *not* using parts of his brain, other parts were getting a lot more energy.  So if those parts get more energy, those parts might make more mini-columns.  Or are they doing scans on infants to say they were BORN that way?  And are the mini-column spreads even?  

 

I have no clue.  I've just not had an explanation for the disparity, and the research was old (as research goes, 10-15 years?).  It's interesting to think about, but I don't know.

[PeterPan]

I'm going to try to do some more research on this tonight.  You've opened up a can of worms, and I don't know, lol.  See he's not really a typical dyslexic.  He has the comprehension problems from the autism, where dyslexics tend not to have comprehension issues.  He learns exceptionally quickly and doesn't forget reading skills once learned, like you'll see other people mention about their dyslexics.  He just has to have really explicit instruction to get there.  So it's there, but it's very atypical in that sense.  And yet even the ps said yes, dyslexia.  He said SLD reading, and then he said yes if you want to use the word dyslexia, that's what it is.  

 

I haven't had DA from the library in a while.  I guess it's such a hyper-happy approach to disabilities that it hasn't really fit where we're at.  And I'm really flummoxed to say is his extremely localized or extremely broad, because he's neither.  I almost wonder if there are things going on that cancel each other out?  You'd have to have MRIs to see.  He doesn't generalize well, so that's indication of your more local.  But he *does* make some connections in really odd ways.  He uses his perseverative interests to make connections across his brain.  Someone else had pointed out this to me, that these kids use their perseverative interests to organize their brains.  So maybe there's something MORE going on that TG's b&w statement doesn't really encapsulate?  

 

There's no disagreement on EITHER of his diagnoses, so the theory has to go broader or the research is inadequate.  

 

Edited June 4, 2016 by OhElizabeth

[Lecka]

Thanks for the link, Heathermomster.

 

Elizabeth -- one of my favorite (most clear) things to look at is at autisminternetmodules.org, dashboard, cognitive differences.

 

A lot of this is just theories. They are only helpful as far as they are helpful.

 

And then -- under dashboard, recognizing autism ----- there are multiple sections in addition to "cognitive differences."

 

I like how it is laid out, because in things where they are focusing on one area, it seems like that area is the most important. But on this website, it lists several areas under "recognizing autism" like they are all fairly equal, so it is easier to see that they are fairly equal in general.

 

I have my ideas about which sections most apply to my son, and which sections don't seem to apply very much right now.

[PeterPan]

Ok, I'm looking at this, and yes this is actually what I needed!  You're right, it's all so much theories.  When I look online, I get sucked into research articles on minicolumns and bouquets of this and that (I kid you not, bouquets in the brain!) and it's just too much.  I like the way this AIM videos are approaching this, because that's exactly the issue, to sort out what is a weakness and what is actually a STRENGTH and not to confuse them.  

[MistyMountain]

That was interest to read. I have one child who is good at seeing the big picture and the main idea and one that gets bogged down by the bits and often misses the whole. She does not have autism though.

 

Ds always seemed to process like a dyslexic even though he never got diagnosed. He has the list of strength and weaknesses they tend to have though. In the book Bright Kids Who Can't Keep Up it did mention that low processing speed is often caused by a bigger gap between synapses in the brain. Dyslexia and slow processing occur together a lot.

 

It really fascinates me how brains are process things differently and have different strengths and weaknesses.

 

They do say that kids with add tend to mature later so I wonder if the pruning that occurs in the adolescent years and the ability to generalize occur later too.

Edited June 5, 2016 by MistyMountain

[PeterPan]

Misty, you've hit on something really interesting there, and that may have clarified things for me!  Indeed, dd (adhd, no SLDs, no ASD), DOES have that crazy low processing speed.  She fits one of the DA profiles very well.  I forget which one, but I think it was a narrative learner.  She has this broadly connected thinking and AMAZING brain for narrative.  Then you have ds.  Dramatically higher processing speed (like 75th percentile!), and his brain pretty much only thinks about his special interest all the time.  Any connections he makes are because of his special interest, and any larger connections across topics are ALWAYS connected to his special interest.

 

So I agree with you that it could be (could be) that processing speed there could be a really gross (basic, general) reflection of mini-column distance.  That actually makes a lot of sense!

 

I tried reading a study last night on corpus collosum thickness, where the hypothesis was that thinness there would indicate using more diverse paths (ie. that dyslexia, widely-spaced mini-column approach).  My dd has definite midline issues, so I thought that was interesting.  My ds really doesn't seem to have a lot of midline issues.  He had a glitch from a retained reflex.  Other than that, nothing on the dramatic level of dd.

 

I would need to reread/scan DA and see if he fits any of their profiles.  

 

I think what I've concluded is that his brain is seeking order and patterns and ways to organize by his area of special interest.  So VP self-paced is a framework that didn't make sense for him.  I might be able to *make* it work, by modifying it, but just done straight it's not right.  I think we could take those cards and paste onto them (or make new cards with) pictures of his areas of special interest.  THAT would actually make sense for him.

 

It's tricky, because I'm always looking for something I can latch onto and just have it work a while.  

[PeterPan]

It strikes me that when I say the most important part of the history, for him, will be the LESSON he's supposed to learn from it, I think that's the POINT, the reflection that I'm grasping his weak central coherence.  Many programs are focused on having kids learn the details.  He'll get that easily.  But to get to the POINT, why those details are IMPORTANT, why they nourish our soul and were worth LEARNING, that's what he'll miss.  

[geodob]

The subject of 'Columns' has been raised?

Where perhaps we could make some of this?

 

You would know that our brain is composed of Neurons.

Which we have about 100 billion of.

 

Though they grouped together, in groups of around 100. 

Which are shaped together, and form a 'vertical column'.

These 100 neurons form connections with each other, inside the column.

 

Which form what is called a 'Mini-Column'.

But then, these Mini-Columns, can be grouped together to form 'Macro-Columns'.

 

As an analogy, we could think of a word as a Macro-Column?

With each of the 'phonemes' that form the word, as different Micro-Columns.

When brought together, form a Macro-Column for the word.

 

Though these Micro-Columns, aren't randomly placed inside the Macro-Column?

Left and Right, as well as, Above and Below, is used to arrange the Micro-Columns, within a Macro-Column.

 

But these Micro-Columns, are 'Ontogenic'. Which means that we are born with them.

What a study into Autistic brains showed, is that the Micro-Columns are smaller in size, with a corresponding greater number of them?

 

Where an important thing about being smaller, is that it reduces the 'surface area'?

The surface is where connections to other Micro and Macro-Columns are formed. 

So that it reduces the synaptic connections that can be formed.

 

Synaptic 'pruning' occurs on the surface of these Columns.  Where the reduced Pruning ability identified with Autism?   

Could be a consequence of a smaller surface area to form new synaptic connections?

Though this is just speculation? 

[PeterPan]

Geodob, what do you think of Lecka's suggestion that the differences in the micro-columns affect central coherence weaknesses in autism?  

 

And if the micro-columns are ontogenic, then are they the same (smaller) for ALL types of autism?  I've heard suggestion that there are at least 12 types of autism.  

 

Also, are there *other* conditions that also have the characteristic of smaller micro-columns but *don't* present as autism?

Edited June 5, 2016 by OhElizabeth

[kbutton]

Since you brought it up, Different Minds talks about 2e ASD kiddos as needing both the big picture and the details, but you present the big picture first. I know my 2e ASD kiddo is like this (usually). He can make intuitive leaps, but then he can't fill in the details. Other times, he really misses by a wide margin. It's all or nothing, lol! 

 

I know someone who fits a NVLD profile really well who has very poor central coherence. She has trouble following the plot of a movie or book and consequently does not like books or movies for the most part. I think she'd probably need a chart or something in order to do well with that, or maybe a cliff notes version of things and then watch the movie or read the book. 

 

Both my son with ASD, and the person with the NVLD profile can have trouble generalizing things and trouble with abstractions (my son has trouble with higher level abstractions), but they also overgeneralize easily. You say something once, and they make a rule out of it, when it should have been the exception. The generalization thing really bites both ways.

 

I would say my ASD kiddo has decent central coherence except when he doesn't, and then you never know what you're going to get.

 

I think CAPD would probably mess with central coherence as well as the author mentions. I know my CAPD kiddo comes to some interesting conclusions once in a while because he's taking things in incorrectly. I had some trouble with that as a child as well (I have some CAPD symptoms myself that were worse as a kid). I would put pieces of things together that didn't belong together because I heard them incorrectly, though I sometimes knew something was "off" and just didn't know what.

 

I take issue with the idea that NT kids take in information as a whole automatically. Some do, some don't. I think I read somewhere that VSL and auditory sequential people are about the same in number, but we tend to cater more to auditory sequential people in education. In any case, I read that most people can process both ways, and it depends on what they are supposed to be processing. Usually one modality is preferred over the other, but most people can process both ways. For someone to be a lot higher in one than the other is more of an outlier and usually indicates that the preference is a relatively gifted area, or the non-preferred is a relative deficit area. (Sorry that i have no link for that, but I remember being rather surprised by it.)

[PeterPan]

Ok, a couple things I'm really not sure about.

 

One, is there an article or something that explores WCCT and relates it to these other terms or applies it more deeply?  

 

Two, are there therapy materials that attempt to work on this?

[PeterPan]

nt

Edited June 6, 2016 by OhElizabeth

[PeterPan]

Cognitive Theories Explaining ASD | Interactive Autism Network  This article says good at details because of superior local processing (the mini-columns thing).

 

https://www.nlp.ch/newpdf/MS15_24_Hirnmuempfeli_Sanity_LucasDerks.pdf  Sorta long, but really interesting.  Discusses Frith's work on CCT as "difference in the formation of abstraction in the background cognition" and Vermeulen's "context blindness."  Mentioned mirror neurons, an interesting rabbit trail.  Gets more interesting as you read on.  I don't know anything about the NLP it mentions.  Oh this is interesting.  It talks about coping strategies in AS and mentions biking and running.  My ds has gone NUTS for biking recently.  It's kind of long, so I'll finish later.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PeterPan]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232511240_Reduced_Generalization_in_Autism_An_Alternative_to_Weak_Central_Coherence

 

I don't mean to be over-parsing here, but I'm really not sure the central coherence theory = generalization.  If you look at this article, she discriminates them.  She uses central coherence to mean focusing on details to the point of not getting to the gist.  She gives her explanation of of the differences at the top of page 2.  I think she's explaining generalization issues as not recognizing why same/different so not able to draw pieces of information together.  She then wants to postulate that weak generalization encapsulates and explains the weak central coherence.

 

Nuances, yes.  I haven't finished reading the article.  Apparently this is stuff people sit around dickering over.  :D

Edited June 6, 2016 by OhElizabeth

[Lecka]

Well, you are the one who brought it up.

 

I agree, central coherence theory IS a pretty weak "one true theory that can be used to explain autism." I agree.

 

But we are discussing it anyway.

 

Just going from this title: "Reduced Generalization in Autism: An Alternative to Weak Central Coherence"

 

It seems that these are two associated concepts.

 

It is totally fine with me to re-word "weak central coherence" as "reduced generalization" and assume some little (pretty inconsequential imo) differences between the two phrases.

 

But if you start a conversation about "weak central coherence," then yeah, I am going to also use that wording, even if I also mention generalization.

 

But just b/c the Weak Central Coherence Theory is a little lacking in explanatory power across all areas, it doesn't mean it is horrible. But it is good to know it does not always predict things the way it seems like they should be according to the theory.

 

If that means it is better to say "generalizing" then I am happy with that, I really am.

 

But to some extent, it is like ----- if we read things from a couple of years ago, maybe this "weak central coherence" phrasing was more popular. Now maybe this "reduced generalization" phrasing is more popular.

 

But I don't think it is that big of a deal, I guess.

[PeterPan]

Continuing to read through that researchgate article.

 

-called "central" because they expect it to affect multiple levels (perception=lower level, conception=higher level)

-then question of what those processes are

-if mental, would affect attentional control, ie. selecting and inhibiting input

-if perceptual, then affects getting to gestalt

-but then gestalt processes are their on field with "principles of perceptual organization"

--> they attempt to *test* weak central coherence in autism with mental with portions of IQ and perceptual with other types.  Then debate which are actually accurate tests.

-tests draw holes in theory, fine-tuning it to statement "This implies that individuals with autism should be able to perceive a gestalt, but have a tendency to attend to the local parts of the stimulus."  They did a test making larger letters composed of smaller letters.  ASD and NT populations responded alike, looking at the whole, which they took to mean that CAN.  Then fine-tuned it to reveal the WCC effect. Frith 1989 apparently said it was about not seeing the NEED.

-author summarizes Frith: "in the absence of a drive for global meaning, individuals with autism have a tendency to attend to the local level", then points out it only explains what is happening, not why.

 

-Then it goes into a long discourse on visual/spatial stuff that is kind of zooming over my head.  They're trying to explore whether pointing out the whole/gist/point AHEAD of the exercise improves ability to notice the whole, which in fact is what the tests demonstrate.  So on an educational level, that's really practical.  It's not that there's no ABILITY to get to the gist, but that they're not ATTENDING to it.  So they're finding that simply putting it on their radar ahead turns their attention to it.  That's on page 7.  It sounds like good teaching to me, pretty obvious when you think about it.  

 

-Also there's a discussion of dots in math, which I found fascinating.  That's also page 7.  Might explain why the RB Dots is working so exceptionally well for ds, because it gives him that detail level of focus he's going to be looking for.

 

-page 10 teases apart the homograph pronunciation test results, concluding was connected to IQ, not weak central coherence as they initially thought

 

-mentions 1st and 2nd order theory of mind tasks

 

-generalization requires processing similarities

-suggests over-focus on unique details results in poor transfer (generalization) to new situations. 

=> need to focus on features that overlap, not unique to transfer/generalize effectively

=> strength when task is to discriminate based on unique details

 

-page 13 quote on generalization--unique features were less important, common/shared features more important to link to previous situations.  "Any reduction in the processing of common features will cause a deficit in ... extracting the meaning or gist of a current experience."  So the weak central coherence (hyperfocusing on less important details) LEADS TO the generalization problems.  

 

-associative exictation=connecting the dots

-but latent inhibition can reduce further connections (disputed), and habituation hinders ability to elicit associatitive through repeated exposure

 

-perceptual generalization (visual) and then conceptual generalization (categories, concepts) (page 15)

-but conceptual relies on perceptual!

 

-page 17 seems to discuss vocabulary and semantic processing issues due to decreased associative excitation

-reduced associative excitation underlies problems connecting ideas (TML skills)

 

-applying to social skills-page 18--miss common features because focusing on unique (WCC), therefore struggle to abstract of social rules (generalization?), therefore less associative excitation, therefore problems.

 

********************

Well I think that article sorted out a lot for me!  So from an educator standpoint, our kids *can* get to the whole, but require a prompt.  They will be more prone to notice unique details and need prompts to notice the more common features that will help them make connections.  Although it's a STRENGTH to notice unique features, it's not working against their neurology to ask them to notice more common or shared features as well.  Without that, they will be more likely to miss how it connects to the larger picture.

 

So it seems like the WCC idea itself is pretty discrete, limited to in the moment, and when you look at how those details are going to connect to new situations, that's going to be generalization.

 

I need some time to reread Kbutton's post on generalization, now that I've wrapped my brain around WCC.  :D

 

 

[PeterPan]

Since you brought it up, Different Minds talks about 2e ASD kiddos as needing both the big picture and the details, but you present the big picture first. I know my 2e ASD kiddo is like this (usually). He can make intuitive leaps, but then he can't fill in the details. Other times, he really misses by a wide margin. It's all or nothing, lol! 

 

I know someone who fits a NVLD profile really well who has very poor central coherence. She has trouble following the plot of a movie or book and consequently does not like books or movies for the most part. I think she'd probably need a chart or something in order to do well with that, or maybe a cliff notes version of things and then watch the movie or read the book. 

 

Both my son with ASD, and the person with the NVLD profile can have trouble generalizing things and trouble with abstractions (my son has trouble with higher level abstractions), but they also overgeneralize easily. You say something once, and they make a rule out of it, when it should have been the exception. The generalization thing really bites both ways.

 

I would say my ASD kiddo has decent central coherence except when he doesn't, and then you never know what you're going to get.

 

I think CAPD would probably mess with central coherence as well as the author mentions. I know my CAPD kiddo comes to some interesting conclusions once in a while because he's taking things in incorrectly. I had some trouble with that as a child as well (I have some CAPD symptoms myself that were worse as a kid). I would put pieces of things together that didn't belong together because I heard them incorrectly, though I sometimes knew something was "off" and just didn't know what.

 

I take issue with the idea that NT kids take in information as a whole automatically. Some do, some don't. I think I read somewhere that VSL and auditory sequential people are about the same in number, but we tend to cater more to auditory sequential people in education. In any case, I read that most people can process both ways, and it depends on what they are supposed to be processing. Usually one modality is preferred over the other, but most people can process both ways. For someone to be a lot higher in one than the other is more of an outlier and usually indicates that the preference is a relatively gifted area, or the non-preferred is a relative deficit area. (Sorry that i have no link for that, but I remember being rather surprised by it.)

 

Does Loveky (DM) use technical terms or the more general big picture/detail learners?  I'm just asking, because I don't even know if there are terms and how they connect to this.  You had said there were variations that some of it is personality, that it's not necessarily homogenous across diagnostic labels.  Your older ds is big picture, details, big picture again.  That's his learning style for how he wraps his brain around a concept.  Do you think that could function *independently* of a tendency to hyper-focus on unique details, or do you think they inter-relate?  Do you think that in fact it's INDICATIVE of WCC or a sophisticated compensation process?

 

The movie thing I need to think about a bit. Comprehension is a complicated topic.

 

I need to think about your discussion about over-generalization.  I *think* I see what you're saying, that they're not *noticing* in the moment that the list of shared features only includes unique features latched onto by their WCC and not the more common features necessary for a good transfer. I think it's reasonable to ask how much of that is volitional, like whether they *realize* the list of shared features is small and they merely want it to correlate.  

 

Your description of your ds' instances of good coherence is unclear to me.  So you're saying he has times when he DOES go into a situation and notice the salient details, not just latching onto unique?  Or you're inferring it because he's generalizing? Those research tests were using really funky, non-life scenarios, not academics.  So you're saying he generalizes well at some times and not others?  But generalizing is across situations.  Or he reads an article and comes out with the whole and didn't get stuck on some nuance?  That would be a good example, I suppose.  How are you seeing this in real life?

Edited June 6, 2016 by OhElizabeth

[PeterPan]

Now to educational applications!  I think there's a sense in with violating the strengths WCC brings can be frustrating for a child, implying what he notices or finds interesting isn't worth knowing.  I think teaching without getting to generalization will leave a child missing important lessons that he might not have learned on his own but would find valuable. 

 

WCC probably explains why my ds enjoys hidden pictures SO much.  It probably explains why RB is a particularly good fit for him.

 

Any more academic applications of WCC and generalization?

Edited June 6, 2016 by OhElizabeth

[PeterPan]

I'm going through Lovecky (Different Minds) on amazon to see all her hits for central coherence.  

 

p.137--works together with theory of mind, because to take perspective/feelings must understand context, leading to problems making social inferences

p. 137--difficulty going from hypothetical (where have skill) to real life, because can't see whole situation only part

p. 138--difficulty with social referencing, ie. realizing is different situation and that previous doesn't apply

p. 138--difficulty focusing if not getting to gist and hence meaning

p. 152--lists a bunch of things but says they could be central coherence or EF.  The most interesting is part-to-whole, but it's not clear here whether she's specifically linking them.

p. 167--jigsaw puzzle by shapes instead of pictures. What's funny is I've been told many strong puzzlers do this, so I'm not so sure it's an ASD thing.  

p.202--prediction, because have to go from details to whole/outcome/point. This is very interesting!  She mentions it perjoratively (like not realizing the bad thing, the bad consequence) but our behaviorist uses it to point out that he doesn't anticipate/predict the GOOD!  He doesn't realize he'll get to use the toy again later, etc. etc.  

p. 223--leads to strength in arts and anything that benefits from attention to or skill with details

p. 270--blocked out

p. 344-345--leads to the common phenom of kid not grasping affects of his behavior on others

p. 346--rigidity is due to lack of ability to predict.  Here she actually equates trouble see the whole with weak central coherence.  Points out that this inability to predict leads to thinks being a surprise, unpredictable, and hence having anxiety.

p. 451--blacked out

p. 496--index, where cites Parts and Wholes by Happe in the Baron-Cohen book.

 

 

 

[kbutton]

OhE, I am going to have to come back to this maybe next week. Sorry! I like hearing you guys hash this out, and I think your questions are interesting. I also don't have the Lovecky book at hand right now.

[PeterPan]

Oh don't worry about it.  I largely figured it out, and I realized that the rest of the question (understanding what Lovecky means by whole/parts learning, etc.) I can sort out using amazon's search.  And I requested the book again through the library.  :)

[geodob]

Though 'Weak Central Coherence' theory, is basically an attempt to define a term to symptoms of 'reduced generalization abilities'?

As their is no internationally recognized diagnostic term?

So that WCCT was suggested as a diagnostic term?

But the actual definition, was yet to be clearly defined?

 

Though the use of the word 'Central',  reflects a lack of understanding?

With its suggestion of a 'center point' ?

Where Cognitive Coherence, is more of a Pattern forming process.  That brings various elements together, to form a cohesive relationship.

As a network of associations.

 

 

[Tiramisu]

Thanks , Geoff, for putting this into very clear terms for me that I can relate too very well.

 

Patterns and networks of association have been an area of strength for me that I got satisfaction from, and I think I got a lot of positive attention from those abilities in school. Yet I remember struggling with main idea questions. I think the demands of family life have changed things so I have less time and fewer resources to explore associations and have been pushed to improve my main idea skills for real life. That shows me that there can be effective therapies for working on this.

[Lecka]

Yes, thank you for that :)

 

Clear and concise!

Edited June 7, 2016 by Lecka