Thank you Dr. Mark Sundberg and Western Michigan University's Autism Center of Excellence (ACE) for such an excellent video. I hope to see more of these in the future.
As SLPs we know those assessments don’t account for mands or requesting. We are trained to supplement standardized tests with language samples and we analyze all functions of language through language samples.
Fascinating @ approx. 47:00 in video Sundberg has it almost correct, as he is talking about the importance of the emotional (or affective) understanding, e.g., with respect to wantingthe child not just to tact )label) "Oh yes you have a cut!" but rather his feeling-understanding response (i.e. ability to empathize). However, he proceeds to turn it upside down and indicate that if the child has not mastered the other (more basic) verbal operants, mand intraverbal and so forth then he (Sunberg) doesn't care about the child's emotional or empathic understanding as he "must first master these verblal operants." Language emergence, as I nidcated in posts below operates entirely the other way around. A child first actually learns to emotional identify with an experience, simplest example, desire for an apple or candy, is associated with affective feelings of desire, pleasure, curiosity and so forth, these then in turn allow for affective (emotional) association to coalese/form as a foundation with the child's desired object in concert with dyadic co-regulation/engagement (communicating/requesting with the parent). The latter first and foremost forms the substrate for all the other "language components." This involved the ability to form ideation of say associated affective curisoity and pleasure and thus separtate the desire for apple or bus, etc from ALL or NOTHING limbic/amygdala based reactions (i.e.,meltdowns) and language to proceed to emerge. It is these emotional subcortical substrates which involves greater internal regulation/co-regulation (ideation) and then the seamless capacity to then begin to request etc. , that are completely ignored or minimized as best, e.g., regarded as later or secondary. It is the other way around!
"Language is not just more behavior!" My God! Language involves all our faculties affetcively intertwined, that is in a deepening affective reciprocal emotional manner (i.e., visual-facial, auditory-prosodic, tactile-gestural). It is a dynamic dance and flow, and again my dear misinformed Sir, only 7 percent is verbal and for it to become social-pragmatic and MEANINGFUL rather than robotic the aforementioned 93% which is affectively experientially and dynamically imbued through and through must be intact! We are talking again about teh right brain emotional subcortical foundations. It is this (93%) that many chidlren on the spectrum have challenges with. Once intact (meaning experientially integrated and regulated) then the other 7% (verbal) syntax and grammar seamlessly begin with modeling as needed (as regulatory/co-regulatory reciprocal engagment remain challenges) ILanguage is not just a series of reinforced antecedent or motivating operations that can be or ever should have been dumb-down into a series of verbal operants. In the words of Alfred Korzybski, "The Map is not the territory!"
NO! Language is not an orderly [mechanical] driven process! It is an affect-driven process! It is NOT about developing skiils or procedures but a repertoire ofaffect reciprocal social-emotional engagement. Something quite outside your education! The Behaioral analyses of language was rightly placed in its final trash bin about 25-30 yrs ago with the paradigmatic shift to Developmental Affective Neuroscience. You can draw all the ad nauseam micro-managing of artifically dvided up, echoic, tact, mand intraverbal but that my dear friend is like putting legs on a snake or regarding the equator as an actual physical boundary. Snakes do not need legs and the equator while indeed usful as point of navigational reference is not an actual concrete reality.
“Does the nonverbal stimulus evoke the response we want” does not show anything. If the child produces the correct response over multiple instance you gave merely demonstrated your ability to stimulate declarative memorized responses, not true understanding, not a social pragmatic understanding or an implicit procedural right to right brain affective awareness.
Mahalo to Dr. Sundberg for sharing his expertise on this matter!
Thank you very much Dr.Mark Sundberg!
Thank you, you are so vital for this community. Keep it up!!!
Thank you Dr. Mark Sundberg and Western Michigan University's Autism Center of Excellence (ACE) for such an excellent video. I hope to see more of these in the future.
Good seminar, it has opened me up to a better understanding of verbal behavior.
Dr. Sundberg at his best!
thank you so much Dr. Mark
Geat video! Thanks for sharing :)
Untrained but wow you just put words to what was making me uneasy about the “test”
Thank you for putting words to it!
great!!! how I can have access to the second part of the conference ?
As SLPs we know those assessments don’t account for mands or requesting. We are trained to supplement standardized tests with language samples and we analyze all functions of language through language samples.
I need captioned closed because I cannot hear the descriptions on your video. I am sorry due to my disability, deafness.
You're able to enable closed-captions within the lower right hand corner of the video. Click on the "CC" icon in order to do such.
@@efish991 Right now, the video only offers Spanish captions.
Fascinating @ approx. 47:00 in video Sundberg has it almost correct, as he is talking about the importance of the emotional (or affective) understanding, e.g., with respect to wantingthe child not just to tact )label) "Oh yes you have a cut!" but rather his feeling-understanding response (i.e. ability to empathize). However, he proceeds to turn it upside down and indicate that if the child has not mastered the other (more basic) verbal operants, mand intraverbal and so forth then he (Sunberg) doesn't care about the child's emotional or empathic understanding as he "must first master these verblal operants." Language emergence, as I nidcated in posts below operates entirely the other way around. A child first actually learns to emotional identify with an experience, simplest example, desire for an apple or candy, is associated with affective feelings of desire, pleasure, curiosity and so forth, these then in turn allow for affective (emotional) association to coalese/form as a foundation with the child's desired object in concert with dyadic co-regulation/engagement (communicating/requesting with the parent). The latter first and foremost forms the substrate for all the other "language components." This involved the ability to form ideation of say associated affective curisoity and pleasure and thus separtate the desire for apple or bus, etc from ALL or NOTHING limbic/amygdala based reactions (i.e.,meltdowns) and language to proceed to emerge. It is these emotional subcortical substrates which involves greater internal regulation/co-regulation (ideation) and then the seamless capacity to then begin to request etc. , that are completely ignored or minimized as best, e.g., regarded as later or secondary. It is the other way around!
"Language is not just more behavior!" My God! Language involves all our faculties affetcively intertwined, that is in a deepening affective reciprocal emotional manner (i.e., visual-facial, auditory-prosodic, tactile-gestural). It is a dynamic dance and flow, and again my dear misinformed Sir, only 7 percent is verbal and for it to become social-pragmatic and MEANINGFUL rather than robotic the aforementioned 93% which is affectively experientially and dynamically imbued through and through must be intact! We are talking again about teh right brain emotional subcortical foundations. It is this (93%) that many chidlren on the spectrum have challenges with. Once intact (meaning experientially integrated and regulated) then the other 7% (verbal) syntax and grammar seamlessly begin with modeling as needed (as regulatory/co-regulatory reciprocal engagment remain challenges) ILanguage is not just a series of reinforced antecedent or motivating operations that can be or ever should have been dumb-down into a series of verbal operants. In the words of Alfred Korzybski, "The Map is not the territory!"
NO! Language is not an orderly [mechanical] driven process! It is an affect-driven process! It is NOT about developing skiils or procedures but a repertoire ofaffect reciprocal social-emotional engagement. Something quite outside your education! The Behaioral analyses of language was rightly placed in its final trash bin about 25-30 yrs ago with the paradigmatic shift to Developmental Affective Neuroscience. You can draw all the ad nauseam micro-managing of artifically dvided up, echoic, tact, mand intraverbal but that my dear friend is like putting legs on a snake or regarding the equator as an actual physical boundary. Snakes do not need legs and the equator while indeed usful as point of navigational reference is not an actual concrete reality.
“Does the nonverbal stimulus evoke the response we want” does not show anything. If the child produces the correct response over multiple instance you gave merely demonstrated your ability to stimulate declarative memorized responses, not true understanding, not a social pragmatic understanding or an implicit procedural right to right brain affective awareness.
Labeling is neither language nor communication. Rather Nim Chimpsky comes to mind!