New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Finding Autism Earlier

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Most autistic children are not diagnosed as such until they are three years old, and by then valuable time has already been lost. But Patricia K. Kuhl, a neuroscientist at the University of Washington, and her colleagues have discovered that certain neural and behavioral differences can be spotted in autistic children as young as two. The researchers plan to test whether they can similarly distinguish babies at six months of age. The goal is to create a screening tool that could identify a risk of autism as early as possible, “when the brain is so plastic,” Kuhl says. “That's the time to get in and try to intervene.”

Children's brains are wired for language by roughly their third year. Their language aptitude depends significantly on their ability to detect phonetic cues during those years as well as to attend to adult voices, notably their mother's. Kuhl's group compared these two skills in autistic children and in typically developing children between the ages of two and four.

The autistic preschoolers' brains showed no response to a consonant change in a string of identical sounds (the phonetic cue). And they overwhelmingly preferred a computerized, nonspeech warble to samples of “motherese”—the expressive and elongated speech that mothers often use with young children, which, other research has shown, enhances language learning.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Kuhl thinks that certain infants will also show a clear preference for either motherese or the computer warble. If further research indicates that choosing a warble is predictive of autism, “then you would start really following those kids,” Kuhl says.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe