# Neural oscillation coupling selectively predicts speech reception in young children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Xiaoyue Wang, Jaime Delgado, Silvia Marchesotti, Nada Kojovic, Holger

Franz Sperdin, Tonia A Rihs, Marie Schaer, Anne-Lise Giraud

► To cite this version:

Xiaoyue Wang, Jaime Delgado, Silvia Marchesotti, Nada Kojovic, Holger Franz Sperdin, et al.. Neural oscillation coupling selectively predicts speech reception in young children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. 2021. hal-03995149

HAL Id: hal-03995149

https://hal.science/hal-03995149

Preprint submitted on 17 Feb 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.
# Speech Reception in Young Children with Autism Is Selectively Indexed by a Neural Oscillation Coupling Anomaly

Xiaoyue Wang, Jaime Delgado, Silvia Marchesotti, Nada Kojovic, Holger

Franz Sperdin, Tonia A Rihs, Marie Schaer, Anne-Lise Giraud

► To cite this version:

Xiaoyue Wang, Jaime Delgado, Silvia Marchesotti, Nada Kojovic, Holger Franz Sperdin, et al.. Speech Reception in Young Children with Autism Is Selectively Indexed by a Neural Oscillation Coupling Anomaly. Journal of Neuroscience, 2023, 43 (40), pp.6779-6795. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0112-22.2023. hal-03995149v2

HAL Id: hal-03995149

https://hal.science/hal-03995149v2

Submitted on 24 Feb 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Neural oscillation coupling selectively predicts speech reception in young children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Xiaoyue WANG¹ ⁵*, Jaime DELGADO¹, Silvia MARCHESOTTI¹, Nada KOJOVIC², Holger Franz SPERDIN², Tonia A. RIHS³, Marie SCHAER²⁴, Anne-Lise GIRAUD¹⁴

1 Auditory Language Group, Department of Basic Neuroscience, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

2 Autism Brain & Behavior Lab, Department of Psychiatry, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

3 Functional Brain Mapping Laboratory, Department of Basic Neuroscience, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

4 Co-last authors

5 Lead contact

*Correspondence: xiaoyue.wang@unige.ch

## Highlights

Very young children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder already present marked alterations of neural oscillatory activity in response to natural speech.

The hierarchical processing of phonemic- and syllabic-range information (theta/gamma coupling) is atypical in young ASD children.

Speech reception deficit in children with ASD is indexed by abnormal bottom-up (low-gamma) and top-down (low-beta) coordination.

## Summary

Communication difficulties in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) involve a speech reception deficit, whose biological causes are not yet identified. This deficit could denote atypical neuronal ensemble activity, as reflected by neural oscillations. Atypical *cross-frequency oscillation coupling* in particular could disrupt the possibility to jointly track and predict dynamic acoustic stimuli, a dual process that is essential for speech comprehension. Whether
Behavioral/Cognitive

# Speech Reception in Young Children with Autism Is Selectively Indexed by a Neural Oscillation Coupling Anomaly

Xiaoyue Wang,¹,⁴ Jaime Delgado,¹ Silvia Marchesotti,¹ Nada Kojovic,² Holger Franz Sperdin,² Tonia A. Rihs,³ Marie Schaer,²* and Anne-Lise Giraud¹,⁴*

¹Auditory Language Group, Department of Basic Neuroscience, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland, 1202, ²Autism Brain & Behavior Lab, Department of Psychiatry, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland, 1202, ³Functional Brain Mapping Laboratory, Department of Basic Neuroscience, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland, 1202, and ⁴Institut Pasteur, Université Paris Cité, Hearing Institute, Paris, France, 75012

Communication difficulties are one of the core criteria in diagnosing autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and are often characterized by speech reception difficulties, whose biological underpinnings are not yet identified. This deficit could denote atypical neuronal ensemble activity, as reflected by neural oscillations. Atypical cross-frequency oscillation coupling, in particular, could disrupt the joint tracking and prediction of dynamic acoustic stimuli, a dual process that is essential for speech comprehension. Whether such oscillatory anomalies already exist in very young children with ASD, and with what specificity they relate to individual language reception capacity is unknown. We collected neural activity data using electroencephalography (EEG) in 64 very young children with and without ASD (mean age 3; 17 females, 47 males) while they were exposed to naturalistic-continuous speech. EEG power of frequency bands typically associated with phrase-level chunking (δ, 1–3 Hz), phonemic encoding (low-γ, 25–35 Hz), and top-down control (β, 12–20 Hz) were markedly reduced in ASD relative to typically developing (TD) children. Speech neural tracking by δ and θ (4–8 Hz) oscillations was also weaker in ASD compared with TD children. After controlling gaze-pattern differences, we found that the classical θ/γ coupling was replaced by an atypical β/γ coupling in children with ASD. This anomaly was the single most specific predictor of individual speech reception difficulties in ASD children. These findings suggest that early interventions (e.g., neurostimulation) targeting the disruption of β/γ coupling and the upregulation of θ/γ coupling could improve speech processing coordination in young children with ASD and help them engage in oral interactions.

**Key words:** Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) children; Typically developing (TD) children; speech processing; low-frequency neural oscillations; neural tracking; phase-amplitude coupling (PAC)

**Significance Statement**

Very young children already present marked alterations of neural oscillatory activity in response to natural speech at the time of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnosis. Hierarchical processing of phonemic-range and syllabic-range information (θ/γ coupling) is disrupted in ASD children. Abnormal bottom-up (low-γ) and top-down (low-β) coordination specifically predicts speech reception deficits in very young ASD children, and no other cognitive deficit.

Received Jan. 17, 2022; revised July 2, 2023; accepted July 7, 2023.

Author contributions: X.W., M.S., and A.-L.G. designed research; N.K. and H.F.S. performed research; J.D., S.M., and T.A.R. contributed unpublished reagents/analytic tools; X.W. and J.D. analyzed data; X.W. wrote the first draft of the paper; X.W., J.D., S.M., N.K., H.F.S., M.S., and A.-L.G. edited the paper; X.W. and A.-L.G. wrote the paper.

This work was supported by Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) Grants 320030B_182855, 190084, and 51NF40_185897 and by a China Scholarship Council grant (X.W.). We thank Lucia Cantonas and Timothée Proix for their expert technical support. The manuscript was deposited as a preprint in bioRxiv with the license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

**Introduction**

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) primarily refers to disorders of social interactions; however, individuals with ASD are seldom spared from language difficulties. Many people with ASD have severe language impairment, and even high-functioning ASD individuals with excellent language skills have difficulty understanding speech in noisy environments and/or when exposed to multiple speakers (Beker et al., 2018; Schelinski and von Kriegstein, 2020). Individuals with ASD occasionally report that during childhood, speech was completely or partially unintelligible (Boucher, 2012; Kasari et al., 2014) and that speech reception was especially laborious if it contained many consonants, resulting in a speech that sounded like a

<footnote>*M.S. and A.-L.G. are co-last authors.</footnote>

<footnote>The authors declare no competing financial interests.</footnote>

<footnote>Correspondence should be addressed to Xiaoyue Wang at xiaoyue.wang@unige.ch.</footnote>

<footnote>https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0112-22.2023</footnote>

<footnote>Copyright © 2023 Wang et al.</footnote>

<footnote>This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium provided that the original work is properly attributed.</footnote>
such oscillation anomalies can already be found in very young children with ASD, and with
what specificity they relate to individual language reception capacity is unknown. In this
study, neural activity was collected using EEG in 64 very young children with and without
ASD (mean age 3) while they were exposed to naturalistic-continuous speech via an age-
appropriate cartoon. EEG power typically associated with phrase-level chunking (delta, 1-
3Hz), phonemic encoding (low-gamma, 25-35Hz) and top-down control (beta, 12-20Hz) was
markedly reduced in ASD relative to typically developing (TD) children. Speech neural-
tracking by delta and theta oscillations was also weaker in ASD than TD children. Critically,
children with ASD exhibited slightly atypical theta/gamma coupling (PAC) involving a
higher-than-normal gamma frequency, and markedly atypical beta/gamma PAC. Even though
many oscillation features were atypical in our sample of 31 very young children with ASD,
the beta/gamma coupling anomaly was the single best predictor of individual speech
reception difficulties. These findings suggest that early interventions targeting the
normalization of low-gamma and low-beta activity, might help young children with ASD to
engage more in oral interactions.

**Keywords** Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) children, typically developing (TD) children, speech processing, low-frequency neural oscillations, neural tracking, phase-amplitude coupling (PAC)
sequence of vowels (McKeever et al., 2019). Furthermore, even when they have an excellent language level, individuals with ASD often exhibit atypical elocution (Nadig and Shaw, 2012), which presumably further denotes speech reception anomalies (Paul et al., 2005).

A large stream of recent studies shows that neural oscillations, i.e., the synchronous activity of neuronal populations, play a critical role in speech reception, mainly in parsing the speech flow into meaningful linguistic units: phonemes, syllables, words, phrases, etc. (Poeppel, 2003). While the 25- to 35-Hz low-γ oscillation rhythm is argued to work as a basic speech sampling rhythm enabling the encoding of phonemic-level acoustic features (Lehongre et al., 2011; Hyafil et al., 2015a; Hovsepyan et al., 2020), the 4- to 7-Hz θ rhythm (Giraud and Poeppel, 2012; Ghitza, 2013; Mai et al., 2016; Giraud, 2020) can flexibly track syllable boundaries, hence playing a key role in speech intelligibility (Hyafil et al., 2015a; Pefkou et al., 2017). On the other hand, the slower 1- to 3-Hz δ rhythm has an endogenous role in prosodic processing (Ghitza, 2017; Teoh et al., 2019) and phrasal chunking (Ding et al., 2014), while the 12- to 20-Hz low-β rhythm conveys top-down information, presumably at an intermediate timescale between phonemes and syllables (Pefkou et al., 2017; Giraud, 2020). Working in combination via their hierarchical coupling (the lower-frequency rhythm modulates the amplitude of higher-frequency activity), these different families of neural oscillations can underpin specific cognitive operations (Canolty and Knight, 2010; Hyafil et al., 2015b). In particular, θ/γ phase-amplitude coupling (PAC; Gross et al., 2013; Hyafil et al., 2015a,b; Lizarazu et al., 2019) enables the hierarchical encoding of the phonemic structure within syllables, while β/γ PAC is associated with specific operations in predicting and planning speech (Chao et al., 2018).

In typically developing (TD) children, the ability to track the speech temporal structure develops very early (Leong et al., 2017; Jessen et al., 2019; Attaheri et al., 2022; Cabrera and Gervain, 2020; Ortiz Barajas et al., 2021). The infant auditory system can already track the syllabic rhythm in nursery rhymes (Leong et al., 2017; Attaheri et al., 2022) and native language sentences (Ortiz Barajas et al., 2021). Even 1- to 8-d-old newborns can detect a consonant change on the sole basis of speech envelope cues (Cabrera and Gervain, 2020). Importantly, oscillation cross-frequency coupling (δ-θ/low-γ), which orchestrates the encoding of phonemic structure within syllables (Hyafil et al., 2015a), is found in infants younger than 11 months (Attaheri et al., 2022). All together, these findings suggest that the cortical tracking of speech rhythms is present at birth and likely contributes to phonological learning (Goswami, 2019). Its early disruption could be a possible cause of speech decoding impairment in children with ASD (Giraud and Poeppel, 2012; Jochaut et al., 2015; Menn et al., 2022), and would participate in the altered development of their social skills.

Oscillation anomalies in response to speech have previously been reported in ASD, such as decreased γ responses to rapid spectrotemporal transitions associated with diphones (Rojas et al., 2008; Gandal et al., 2010), increased θ responses to repeated tones and syllables (Wang et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2018), and reduced β responses to novel sounds (Mamashli et al., 2017). Young adults with ASD (Jochaut et al., 2015) show joint anomalies of neural θ (syllabic-level) and low-γ (phonemic-level) activity, originating predominantly from the auditory cortex. In this brain region, the interplay between θ and γ neural activity was shown to be abnormal, suggesting that phonemic encoding was not temporally aligned with syllable tracking (Jochaut et al.,

2015), a deficit that could deeply disrupt on-line speech reception (Hovsepyan et al., 2020). Although the observed θ/γ anomaly tightly correlated with the verbal scores of ASD participants (Jochaut et al., 2015), conclusions cannot be drawn on whether these oscillation coupling anomalies are specifically associated with the speech reception deficit. Furthermore, it is unknown whether these anomalies are present in very young children, when autistic symptoms usually become more evident, particularly during the development stage where typically developing children rapidly expand their speech repertoire (Press, 2015).

In the present study, we used high-density electroencephalography (EEG) to compare oscillatory neural processing of age-appropriate naturalistic speech in 64 very young children (1.31–5.56 years old) with and without ASD. Given the major developmental changes occurring in large-scale brain networks around this age in ASD (Nomi and Uddin, 2015), exploring speech reception as soon as the diagnosis is established is critical. If auditory cortical oscillations and their cross-frequency interactions are involved in language acquisition, we expect children diagnosed with ASD to already exhibit oscillation anomalies, notably in the δ-θ, low-β, and low-γ bands (Fujioka et al., 2012; Meyer et al., 2017; Pefkou et al., 2017; Molinaro and Lizarazu, 2018). We further expect these anomalies to specifically predict the language reception status (and not other developmental traits). The precise characterization of oscillation anomalies which are expected to be causally involved in speech reception difficulties is an indispensable first step to envisage possible targeted interventions aiming at normalizing (boosting or downregulating) oscillatory activity in ASD (Kayarian et al., 2020; Marchesotti et al., 2020).

## Materials and Methods

### Inclusion procedure

Sixty-four children (mean age: 3.00 ± 1.12, 17 females) with and without ASD drawn from the Geneva Autism Cohort (Franchini et al., 2018; Latrèche et al., 2021; Solazzo et al., 2021) underwent a large battery of tests, including EEG recordings while they watched movies (French cartoon aimed at young children: Trotro; Lezoray, 2013a,b,c,d). All children were recruited via specialized clinical centers or announcements in the community. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Geneva Hospital in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. A phone interview and a medical developmental history questionnaire were completed before the initial visit of each participant; for the typically developing children, the following were considered exclusion criteria: any suspicion of altered development, a history of neurologic or psychological disorder, and a family history of ASD in first-degree relatives. Parents gave their informed consent before inclusion in the study. The dataset selected for this study met the following criteria: the data were recorded during the participant's first visit, the participant's age was below six years old, the markers associated with movie onset were clear and accurate, there were exploitable raw data for four movies, the participant watched the screen during all the recordings. Given these strict inclusion criteria, we selected 64 children with and without ASD from the participants in the cohort.

For all ASD children, the clinical diagnosis was formally corroborated using the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-Generic (ADOS-G; Lord et al., 2000) or the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, second edition (ADOS-2; Lord et al., 2012). Data from 31 children with ASD (mean age: 3.09 ± 0.91) and 33 age-matched typically developing peers (mean age: 2.92 ± 1.30) were selected for further analyses (age difference: Kolmogorov-Smirnov $D = 0.27$, $p = 0.19$; see Tables 1, 2 and Extended Data Table 2-1 for participant characteristics). Table 1 summarizes the clinical characteristics of the ASD and the TD samples. Children with ASD scored significantly lower than their TD peers across all behavioral assessments,
Introduction

Although autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are primarily disorders of social interactions, language is seldom spared. Many people with ASD have severe language impairment, and even high functioning ASD individuals with excellent language skills retain difficulties understanding speech in noisy environments and/or when exposed to multiple speakers[1-4]. Individuals with ASD occasionally report that during childhood, speech was wholly or partly unintelligible[5, 6], and that speech reception was especially laborious with consonants, resulting in speech mostly sounding like a sequence of vowels[7]. Furthermore, even when they have an excellent language level, individuals with ASD often exhibit atypical-sounding elocution[8-12], which presumably further denotes speech reception anomalies[13, 14].

A large stream of recent studies shows that neural oscillations, i.e., the synchronous activity of neuronal populations, play a critical role in speech reception, mainly to parse the speech flow into meaningful linguistic units: phonemes, syllables, words, phrases, etc.[15-17]. While the 25-35Hz low-gamma oscillation rhythm is argued to work as a basic speech sampling rhythm enabling the encoding of phonemic-level acoustic features[18-20], the 4-7 Hz theta rhythm[21, 22] can flexibly track syllable boundaries[19, 23] hence playing a key role in speech intelligibility[24-28]. On the other hand, the slower 1-3 Hz delta rhythm has a more endogenous role in prosodic processing[29-31] and phrasal chunking[32, 33], while the 12-20Hz low-beta rhythm conveys top-down information presumably at an intermediate timescale between phonemes and syllables[23, 34]. Working in combination via their hierarchical coupling (the lower-frequency rhythm modulates the amplitude of higher-frequency activity), these different families of neural oscillations can underpin specific cognitive operations[35-37]. In particular, theta/gamma phase-amplitude coupling (PAC)[19, 38, 39] enables the hierarchical encoding of the phonemic structure within syllables, while beta/gamma PAC is associated with specific operations in predicting and planning speech[40-42].

In typically developing children, the ability to track the speech temporal structure develops very early[43-48]. The infant auditory system can already track the syllabic rhythm in nursery rhymes[44, 47] and native language sentences[46]. Even 1-8 days newborns can detect a consonant change on the sole basis of speech envelope cues[49]. Importantly, oscillation cross-frequency coupling (delta-theta/low-gamma), which orchestrates the encoding of
<table><caption>Table 1. Participants' demographic information and group comparison of behavioral tests</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3"></th><th rowspan="3"></th><th colspan="2">Group</th><th colspan="2">TD (N = 33, 11 females)</th><th colspan="2">Frequentist statistics</th><th colspan="2">Bayesian independent samples t test</th></tr><tr><th colspan="2">ASD (N = 31, 6 females)</th><th rowspan="2">Mean</th><th rowspan="2">SD</th><th rowspan="2">D</th><th rowspan="2">p</th><th rowspan="2">BF10</th><th rowspan="2">Error%</th></tr><tr><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Age (in years)</td><td></td><td>3.09</td><td>0.91</td><td>2.92</td><td>1.3</td><td>0.62 (62)</td><td>0.54</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.011</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Mullen Scales of Early Learning</td><td>Visual reception</td><td>87.18</td><td>26.37</td><td>126.13</td><td>27.28</td><td>-5.53 (56)</td><td>0.000000879</td><td>14940.11</td><td>2.21E-10</td></tr><tr><td>Fine motor</td><td>82.42</td><td>21.29</td><td>103.22</td><td>12.01</td><td>-4.54 (56)</td><td>3.06E-5</td><td>624.4</td><td>1.48E-08</td></tr><tr><td>Expressive language</td><td>58.52</td><td>31.69</td><td>104.77</td><td>24.08</td><td>-6.16 (55)</td><td>9.18E-08</td><td>117226.71</td><td>2.73E-11</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Vineland adaptive behavior composite</td><td>Receptive language</td><td>62.12</td><td>33.37</td><td>117.62</td><td>18.98</td><td>-7.71 (56)</td><td>2.33E-10</td><td>3.06E + 07</td><td>4.95E-13</td></tr><tr><td>Expressive language</td><td>10.94</td><td>3.55</td><td>17.15</td><td>2.14</td><td>-8.55 (62)</td><td>4.46E-12</td><td>1.23E + 09</td><td>5.29E-15</td></tr><tr><td>Receptive language</td><td>11</td><td>2.8</td><td>16.27</td><td>2.11</td><td>-8.53 (62)</td><td>4.76E-12</td><td>1.31E + 09</td><td>4.69E-15</td></tr></tbody></table>

Mullen Scales of Early Learning (assessment of cognitive and motor strengths and weakness in children).

Visual reception and fine motor measure the child's nonverbal ability to estimate the overall developmental level.

Expressive language and receptive language measure the child's ability to process linguistic input and to use the language productively.

Vineland adaptive behavior composite (parent interview assessment of social, communication, motor, and daily living skills).

The scores are developmental quotient (DQ) score, that is ratio (%) of age equivalent by chronological age.

including language reception, language expression, visual reception, and fine motor skills.

## Cognitive skills measure

Developmental functioning was assessed using the Mullen Scales of Early Learning (MSEL; Mullen, 1995), which comprise five subscales, namely gross motor, visual reception, fine motor, receptive language, and expressive language. The four latter scales are so-called “cognitive scales” and are used to derive an Early Learning Composite score as a measure of overall developmental functioning. The subscales of visual reception and fine motor skills measure nonverbal ability, while receptive language and expressive language measure the ability to process linguistic input and use the language productively. The subtest raw scores were converted into age-adjusted normalized developmental quotient (DQ) scores, obtained by dividing the age-equivalent scores by the child's chronological age and multiplying the result by 100.

The communication skills assessment, i.e., receptive language and expressive language, was completed by the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, second edition (VABS-II; Sparrow et al., 2005), testing of adaptive function that does correlate with cognition. VABS-II is a parent interview which assesses social, communication, motor, and daily living skills, and provides age-equivalent and standard scores for a variety of summary scales and subscales, including expressive and receptive language and social adaptive functioning. Age-equivalent scores are reported.

## Symptom severity

Three symptom severity levels, i.e., low, moderate, and high, were based on ADOS-G (Lord et al., 2000) or the ADOS-2 (Lord et al., 2012) calibrated severity scores (Table 2), which varied from 3 to 10 distributed into three severity grades: 3–4, low level; 5–7, moderate level; 8–10, high level.

## Stimuli and procedure

We explored cortical speech processing during a passive, naturalistic task with a relatively low cognitive demand suitable for young children. Participants watched four French Trotro (Lezoray, 2013a,b,c,d) cartoon videos, each lasting ~2.5 min. The video presentation was controlled by Tobii Studio (Tobii Technology, Sweden). The screen size was 1200 pixels (29°38') in height and 1920 pixels (45°53') in width, with a 60-Hz refresh rate. Participants were seated ~60 cm away from the screen. The cartoon soundtrack was delivered via loudspeakers at a sound level adjusted for each participant. As the sound level was not monitored during the experiment but only set to a comfortable level, we cannot exclude sound level differences across groups. The soundtrack sampling rate was 44.1 kHz. We removed background noise, e.g., birds' singing, and music, from the original movie soundtrack using Audacity v.2.2.1 (Audacity Team, 2021) editing software (Fig. 1; Extended Data Fig. 1-1). We then extracted the stimuli envelopes using the absolute value of the analytic signal (Boashash, 2015). The speech envelope was down-sampled to 1000 Hz, and low-pass filtered using a zero-phase fourth-order Butterworth filter set

at 40 Hz (Fig. 1A). An envelope spectral decomposition was performed using the fast Fourier transform (Fig. 1B). We found dominant frequencies between 1 and 7 Hz, with peaks at 1.17, 3.32, and 4.69 Hz, overlapping with the syllable rate range (four to six syllables per second; Fig. 1C) as determined by averaging peaks within the 150-ms minimum-peak-distance that were associated with the averaged French-syllable duration (Pellegrino et al., 2011). The spectrogram of the example sentence: “je veux ta bougie rigolote en échange” (I want your funny candle in exchange), shown in Figure 1D, was calculated using the MATLAB function “spectrogram” (The MathWorks).

## EEG acquisition and preprocessing

EEG data were acquired using a Hydrocel Geodesic Sensor Net (HCGSN, Electrical Geodesics) EEG system with 129 scalp electrodes at a 1000-Hz sampling rate. The recording reference electrode was located on the vertex (Cz), and a real-time bandpass filter at 0–100 Hz was applied to the incoming signal. The first two cartoon videos were presented in the first block, and the last two cartoon videos in a second block, with a ~5 min “dynamic image” task (Sperdin et al., 2018) in between cartoon videos and a 10-min break between blocks. At the end of the first block, the electrode impedances were measured, and if needed, the electrodes' conductance was adjusted by applying conductive gel to keep impedances below 40 kΩ.

The EEG signal preprocessing was conducted using the EEGLAB v2019 toolbox within the MATLAB environment (Delorme and Makeig, 2004) and Cartool (https://sites.google.com/site/cartoolcommunity/). First, the dataset underwent a dimensionality reduction to 110 channels by excluding cheek and neck electrodes that are often contaminated by muscle artifacts. Then, a zero-phase fourth-order Butterworth bandpass filter between 0.1 and 70 Hz was applied to the EEG signals, as well as a notch filter at 50 Hz to remove power line interference. Each participant's dataset was then visually inspected to exclude periods contaminated by movement artifacts. An independent component analysis (ICA) was computed on the dataset to identify and remove components with eye blinks, saccades, electrical line noise, and heartbeat artifacts. The dimensionality of the components was equivalent to the number of electrodes kept after bad channel detection. ICA was performed in MATLAB and Cartool. The first step was the detection of bad channels, i.e., with too large signal amplitude because of defective electrodes. The remaining data were decomposed into independent components using the Runica algorithm (EEGLAB function). Based on the ICA components' time course and topographies, noisy components were visually determined and excluded.

Subsequently, a spherical spline interpolation was used to interpolate the channels contaminated by noise using the ICA-corrected data. Finally, the Cartool spatial filter (Michel and Brunet, 2019) was applied, and a common average reference was recalculated on the cleaned data. The spatial filter is an instantaneous filter that removes local outliers by spatially smoothing the map without losing its topographical characteristics. It was run in the following way: (1) for each electrode, the values of
phonemic structure within syllables[19], was found in infants younger than 11 months[47]. Altogether, these findings suggest that the cortical tracking of speech rhythms is present at birth and likely contributes to phonological learning[50]. Its early disruption could hence be a possible cause of speech decoding impairment in children with ASD[21, 51], and participate in the altered development of their social skills.

Oscillation anomalies in response to speech have previously been reported in ASD, for example, decreased gamma responses to rapid spectrotemporal transitions associated with diphones[52-54], increased theta responses to repeated tones and syllables[55, 56], reduced beta responses to novel sounds[57, 58]. Young adults with ASD showed joint anomalies of neural theta (syllabic-level) and low-gamma (phonemic-level) activity, localizing predominantly to the auditory cortex. In this brain region, the relationship between theta and gamma neural activity was abnormal, suggesting that phonemic encoding was not temporally aligned with syllable tracking[51], a deficit that could deeply disrupt on-line speech reception[20]. Although the observed theta/gamma anomaly tightly correlated with the verbal scores of ASD participants[51], the study did not permit to conclude whether oscillation coupling anomalies are causally related to the speech reception deficit, in particular whether they are already present in very young children, when autistic symptoms usually become more evident, and at a development stage where typically developing children rapidly expand their speech expressive repertoire[59-61].

In this study, we used high-density electroencephalography (EEG) to compare oscillatory neural processing of age-appropriate naturalistic speech in 64 very young children (1.31-5.56 years old) with and without ASD. Given the major developmental changes occurring in large-scale brain networks around this age in ASD[62], exploring speech reception as soon as the diagnosis is established is critical. If auditory cortical oscillations and their cross-frequency interactions are involved in language acquisition, we expect children diagnosed with ASD to already exhibit oscillation anomalies, notably in the delta-theta, low-beta, and low-gamma bands[23, 63-65]. We further expect these anomalies to specifically predict the language reception status (and not other developmental traits). The precise characterization of oscillation anomalies that have the potential to be causally involved in speech reception difficulties is an indispensable first step to envisage possible targeted interventions aiming at normalizing (boosting or down-regulating) oscillatory activity [66-68].
<table><caption>Table 2. Psychometric data of every participant</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3">Group</th><th rowspan="3">Gender</th><th rowspan="3">Age</th><th rowspan="3">ADOS ALL</th><th rowspan="3">ADOS SSA</th><th rowspan="3">ADOS RRB</th><th rowspan="3">Symptom level</th><th colspan="6">Mullen Scales of Early Learning</th><th colspan="6">Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales</th></tr><tr><th colspan="3">Visual reception</th><th colspan="3">Fine motor</th><th colspan="3">Expressive language</th><th colspan="3">Receptive language</th></tr><tr><th>DQ</th><th>Raw</th><th>Tscore</th><th>DQ</th><th>Raw</th><th>Tscore</th><th>DQ</th><th>Raw</th><th>Tscore</th><th>DQ</th><th>Raw</th><th>Tscore</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>ASD</td><td>M</td><td>2.54</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>Moderate</td><td>96.15</td><td>31</td><td>47</td><td>96.15</td><td>29</td><td>46</td><td>73.72</td><td>22</td><td>35</td><td>96.15</td><td>28</td><td>46</td><td>15</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>ASD</td><td>F</td><td>3.29</td><td>10</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>High</td><td>17.73</td><td>10</td><td>20</td><td>32.92</td><td>15</td><td>20</td><td>5.07</td><td>3</td><td>20</td><td>10.13</td><td>6</td><td>20</td><td>5</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>ASD</td><td>M</td><td>1.74</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>Moderate</td><td>82.63</td><td>19</td><td>36</td><td>82.63</td><td>18</td><td>34</td><td>46.48</td><td>10</td><td>21</td><td>67.13</td><td>14</td><td>26</td><td>10</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>ASD</td><td>M</td><td>2.76</td><td>10</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>High</td><td>90.75</td><td>25</td><td>34</td><td>77.3</td><td>22</td><td>20</td><td>50.41</td><td>15</td><td>24</td><td>53.78</td><td>15</td><td>20</td><td>10</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>ASD</td><td>F</td><td>2.25</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>5</td><td>Moderate</td><td>92.6</td><td>28</td><td>46</td><td>74.8</td><td>22</td><td>29</td><td>60.55</td><td>17</td><td>30</td><td>60.55</td><td>18</td><td>26</td><td>12</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>ASD</td><td>M</td><td>2.93</td><td>10</td><td>7</td><td>10</td><td>High</td><td>68.1</td><td>26</td><td>24</td><td>62.42</td><td>23</td><td>20</td><td>11.35</td><td>7</td><td>20</td><td>17.02</td><td>6</td><td>20</td><td>9</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>ASD</td><td>M</td><td>1.99</td><td>10</td><td>8</td><td>10</td><td>High</td><td>99.86</td><td>26</td><td>49</td><td>95.7</td><td>24</td><td>48</td><td>58.25</td><td>14</td><td>28</td><td>20.8</td><td>7</td><td>20</td><td>9</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>ASD</td><td>M</td><td>3.5</td><td>10</td><td>8</td><td>10</td><td>High</td><td>65.1</td><td>27</td><td>22</td><td>67.71</td><td>26</td><td>20</td><td>41.67</td><td>16</td><td>20</td><td>28.65</td><td>13</td><td>20</td><td>9</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>ASD</td><td>M</td><td>4.18</td><td>8</td><td>7</td><td>10</td><td>High</td><td>118.97</td><td>48</td><td>63</td><td>113.02</td><td>45</td><td>63</td><td>71.38</td><td>32</td><td>32</td><td>77.33</td><td>34</td><td>36</td><td>10</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>ASD</td><td>M</td><td>2.37</td><td>10</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>High</td><td>66.35</td><td>22</td><td>29</td><td>59.37</td><td>19</td><td>20</td><td>31.43</td><td>10</td><td>20</td><td>13.97</td><td>6</td><td>20</td><td>9</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>ASD</td><td>F</td><td>4.73</td><td>9</td><td>7</td><td>10</td><td>High</td><td>100.22</td><td>47</td><td>52</td><td>86.15</td><td>41</td><td>39</td><td>101.97</td><td>45</td><td>52</td><td>114.28</td><td>47</td><td>62</td><td>13</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>ASD</td><td>F</td><td>3.07</td><td>10</td><td>7</td><td>10</td><td>High</td><td>40.45</td><td>18</td><td>20</td><td>45.84</td><td>19</td><td>20</td><td>16.18</td><td>7</td><td>20</td><td>18.88</td><td>9</td><td>20</td><td>6</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>ASD</td><td>M</td><td>2.69</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>Moderate</td><td>80.53</td><td>28</td><td>39</td><td>71.24</td><td>24</td><td>26</td><td>40.27</td><td>13</td><td>20</td><td>43.36</td><td>15</td><td>20</td><td>9</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>ASD</td><td>M</td><td>3.01</td><td>6</td><td>4</td><td>10</td><td>Moderate</td><td>71.44</td><td>28</td><td>31</td><td>76.93</td><td>28</td><td>35</td><td>71.44</td><td>24</td><td>33</td><td>65.94</td><td>24</td><td>30</td><td>11</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>ASD</td><td>M</td><td>2.26</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>6</td><td>High</td><td>93.3</td><td>18</td><td>43</td><td>105.74</td><td>19</td><td>53</td><td>24.88</td><td>5</td><td>20</td><td>68.42</td><td>24</td><td>31</td><td>12</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>ASD</td><td>F</td><td>2.73</td><td>8</td><td>6</td><td>10</td><td>High</td><td>76.04</td><td>27</td><td>36</td><td>85.17</td><td>28</td><td>42</td><td>36.5</td><td>12</td><td>20</td><td>27.38</td><td>11</td><td>20</td><td>10</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>ASD</td><td>M</td><td>3.29</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>9</td><td>Moderate</td><td>83.65</td><td>33</td><td>40</td><td>76.04</td><td>29</td><td>32</td><td>55.76</td><td>21</td><td>22</td><td>63.37</td><td>25</td><td>27</td><td>10</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>ASD</td><td>M</td><td>3.35</td><td>8</td><td>7</td><td>10</td><td>High</td><td>111.73</td><td>41</td><td>55</td><td>84.42</td><td>32</td><td>36</td><td>89.39</td><td>32</td><td>43</td><td>81.94</td><td>30</td><td>38</td><td>13</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>ASD</td><td>M</td><td>2.01</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td>9</td><td>Moderate</td><td>97.46</td><td>26</td><td>49</td><td>113.71</td><td>28</td><td>64</td><td>60.91</td><td>15</td><td>30</td><td>97.46</td><td>24</td><td>50</td><td>11</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>ASD</td><td>M</td><td>4.77</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>6</td><td>High</td><td>103.75</td><td>48</td><td>55</td><td>98.56</td><td>45</td><td>51</td><td>95.11</td><td>44</td><td>49</td><td>81.27</td><td>39</td><td>39</td><td>13</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>ASD</td><td>M</td><td>4.48</td><td>7</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>Moderate</td><td>83.72</td><td>41</td><td>37</td><td>115.34</td><td>47</td><td>65</td><td>78.13</td><td>36</td><td>37</td><td>85.58</td><td>38</td><td>41</td><td>13</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>ASD</td><td>M</td><td>2.72</td><td>6</td><td>4</td><td>9</td><td>Moderate</td><td>88.74</td><td>30</td><td>44</td><td>85.68</td><td>28</td><td>42</td><td>82.62</td><td>25</td><td>41</td><td>76.5</td><td>25</td><td>38</td><td>12</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>ASD</td><td>F</td><td>2.05</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>7</td><td>High</td><td>55.23</td><td>16</td><td>20</td><td>72.22</td><td>19</td><td>24</td><td>29.74</td><td>8</td><td>20</td><td>21.24</td><td>7</td><td>20</td><td>9</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>ASD</td><td>M</td><td>3.64</td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>10</td><td>Moderate</td><td>130.55</td><td>47</td><td>69</td><td>96.2</td><td>37</td><td>46</td><td>125.97</td><td>44</td><td>64</td><td>107.65</td><td>39</td><td>54</td><td>19</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>ASD</td><td>M</td><td>2.66</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>8</td><td>Low</td><td>105.25</td><td>31</td><td>56</td><td>91.21</td><td>26</td><td>45</td><td>77.18</td><td>21</td><td>39</td><td>80.69</td><td>23</td><td>39</td><td>14</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>ASD</td><td>M</td><td>2.45</td><td>9</td><td>9</td><td>6</td><td>High</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>9</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>ASD</td><td>M</td><td>4.11</td><td>10</td><td>10</td><td>9</td><td>High</td><td>54.24</td><td>29</td><td>20</td><td>52.23</td><td>26</td><td>20</td><td>24.11</td><td>12</td><td>20</td><td>32.14</td><td>17</td><td>20</td><td>8</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>ASD</td><td>M</td><td>3.86</td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>9</td><td>Moderate</td><td>147.49</td><td>50</td><td>80</td><td>121.84</td><td>45</td><td>69</td><td>123.98</td><td>45</td><td>63</td><td>126.11</td><td>45</td><td>65</td><td>15</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>ASD</td><td>M</td><td>1.99</td><td>7</td><td>9</td><td>5</td><td>Moderate</td><td>103.78</td><td>28</td><td>52</td><td>63.87</td><td>18</td><td>20</td><td>31.93</td><td>9</td><td>20</td><td>43.91</td><td>13</td><td>20</td><td>11</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>ASD</td><td>M</td><td>3.3</td><td>7</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>Moderate</td><td>77.8</td><td>32</td><td>37</td><td>67.76</td><td>27</td><td>23</td><td>45.17</td><td>18</td><td>20</td><td>70.27</td><td>27</td><td>34</td><td>9</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>ASD</td><td>M</td><td>5.14</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>7</td><td>Low</td><td>111.81</td><td>50</td><td>61</td><td>100.47</td><td>47</td><td>54</td><td>93.99</td><td>45</td><td>48</td><td>111.81</td><td>48</td><td>63</td><td>14</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>TD</td><td>M</td><td>1.98</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>/</td><td>102.62</td><td>27</td><td>53</td><td>90.31</td><td>23</td><td>44</td><td>73.89</td><td>18</td><td>38</td><td>82.1</td><td>21</td><td>40</td><td>16</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>TD</td><td>M</td><td>2.9</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>/</td><td>117.98</td><td></td><td></td><td>106.47</td><td></td><td></td><td>123.74</td><td></td><td></td><td>106.47</td><td></td><td></td><td>16</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>TD</td><td>M</td><td>4.15</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>/</td><td>131.99</td><td>49</td><td>68</td><td>97.99</td><td>41</td><td>48</td><td>119.99</td><td>46</td><td>62</td><td>123.99</td><td>46</td><td>65</td><td>17</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>TD</td><td>M</td><td>2.29</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>/</td><td>214.71</td><td>48</td><td>80</td><td>121.67</td><td>32</td><td>68</td><td>153.87</td><td>37</td><td>75</td><td>150.29</td><td>36</td><td>74</td><td>18</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>TD</td><td>M</td><td>2.22</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>/</td><td>123.01</td><td>33</td><td>61</td><td>104.37</td><td>28</td><td>53</td><td>134.19</td><td>32</td><td>66</td><td>123.01</td><td>30</td><td>59</td><td>19</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>TD</td><td>F</td><td>2.65</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>/</td><td>141.25</td><td>41</td><td>72</td><td>103.59</td><td>31</td><td>53</td><td>131.84</td><td>36</td><td>67</td><td>128.7</td><td>35</td><td>65</td><td>18</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>TD</td><td>F</td><td>1.34</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>/</td><td>180.75</td><td>30</td><td>80</td><td>112.19</td><td>20</td><td>49</td><td>124.66</td><td>19</td><td>54</td><td>155.82</td><td>25</td><td>69</td><td>17</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>TD</td><td>M</td><td>1.73</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>/</td><td>144.15</td><td>31</td><td>79</td><td>86.49</td><td>20</td><td>43</td><td>129.74</td><td>25</td><td>68</td><td>144.15</td><td>28</td><td>72</td><td>19</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>TD</td><td>M</td><td>3.12</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>/</td><td>144.84</td><td>46</td><td>75</td><td>91.2</td><td>32</td><td>42</td><td>123.38</td><td>39</td><td>62</td><td>109.97</td><td>35</td><td>54</td><td>17</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>TD</td><td>M</td><td>1.8</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>/</td><td>115.92</td><td>27</td><td>58</td><td>120.55</td><td>26</td><td>62</td><td>69.55</td><td>15</td><td>33</td><td>88.1</td><td>20</td><td>42</td><td>13</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>TD</td><td>F</td><td>1.8</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>/</td><td>125.19</td><td>29</td><td>64</td><td>120.55</td><td>26</td><td>62</td><td>69.55</td><td>15</td><td>33</td><td>115.92</td><td>25</td><td>58</td><td>9</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>TD</td><td>M</td><td>5.44</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>/</td><td>101.18</td><td>49</td><td>48</td><td>104.25</td><td>49</td><td>53</td><td>102.72</td><td>48</td><td>51</td><td>105.78</td><td>48</td><td>54</td><td>15</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>TD</td><td>M</td><td>2.34</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>6</td><td>/</td><td>103.29</td><td>30</td><td>53</td><td>92.6</td><td>26</td><td>45</td><td>124.66</td><td>31</td><td>64</td><td>117.54</td><td>30</td><td>59</td><td>17</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>TD</td><td>M</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>14</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>TD</td><td>F</td><td>2.19</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>16</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>TD</td><td>M</td><td>2.67</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>/</td><td>109.5</td><td>35</td><td>58</td><td>100.38</td><td>31</td><td>53</td><td>109.5</td><td>32</td><td>58</td><td>139.92</td><td>38</td><td>70</td><td>17</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>TD</td><td>M</td><td>4.76</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>17</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>TD</td><td>M</td><td>1.7</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>16</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>TD</td><td>M</td><td>5.33</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>/</td><td>107.02</td><td>50</td><td>69</td><td>79.11</td><td>42</td><td>46</td><td>108.58</td><td>50</td><td>75</td><td>96.17</td><td>46</td><td>61</td><td>17</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>TD</td><td>M</td><td>3.14</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>/</td><td>112.27</td><td>40</td><td>58</td><td>109.66</td><td>37</td><td>59</td><td>117.49</td><td>38</td><td>60</td><td>122.71</td><td>39</td><td>63</td><td>17</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>TD</td><td>M</td><td>5.1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>/</td><td>114.94</td><td>50</td><td>58</td><td>113.27</td><td>49</td><td>58</td><td>96.61</td><td>45</td><td>45</td><td>98.28</td><td>45</td><td>46</td><td>16</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>TD</td><td>F</td><td>2.73</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>17</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>TD</td><td>M</td><td>5.56</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>/</td><td>98.84</td><td>49</td><td>48</td><td>101.84</td><td>49</td><td>53</td><td>79.37</td><td>43</td><td>39</td><td>92.85</td><td>46</td><td>44</td><td>17</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>TD</td><td>M</td><td>3.82</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>/</td><td>143.91</td><td>49</td><td>79</td><td>115.56</td><td>43</td><td>68</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>17</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>TD</td><td>F</td><td>1.57</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>/</td><td>92.02</td><td>21</td><td>48</td><td>102.24</td><td>21</td><td>54</td><td>71.57</td><td>14</td><td>37</td><td>122.69</td><td>24</td><td>67</td><td>12</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>TD</td><td>F</td><td>1.31</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>/</td><td>104.89</td><td>20</td><td>53</td><td>92.55</td><td>17</td><td>42</td><td>129.56</td><td>20</td><td>66</td><td>117.22</td><td>20</td><td>60</td><td>17</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>TD</td><td>F</td><td>2.73</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>/</td><td>123.6</td><td>39</td><td>66</td><td>93.45</td><td>30</td><td>49</td><td>87.42</td><td>27</td><td>46</td><td>117.57</td><td>34</td><td>62</td><td>20</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>TD</td><td>M</td><td>4.68</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>/</td><td>116.92</td><td>49</td><td>60</td><td>93.89</td><td>43</td><td>45</td><td>93.89</td><td>43</td><td>46</td><td>97.43</td><td>43</td><td>48</td><td>18</td><td>18</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Table continues.)
# Results

Sixty-four children with (mean age: 3.09 ± 0.91) and without (mean age: 2.92 ± 1.30) ASD participated in an EEG experiment, with the consent of their legal representatives and in accordance with local Ethics regulations (Commission Cantonale d'Ethique de la Recherche, Geneva, Switzerland).

EEG and eye-gaze data were recorded while children watched an age-appropriate French cartoon[69-72]. Our aim was to capture speech-related neural activity in children with ASD compared to typically developing (TD) age matched peers while both groups were exposed to a naturalistic, attention grabbing social scene where one or more characters are speaking and interacting verbally. An acoustic characterization of the speech stimuli is shown in Figure S1. Visual attention to the cartoon was monitored by gaze data. Although the visual scene was not explored in the same way in each group [73], children with ASD watched the cartoon with attention (data with poor visual attention were excluded).

## Speech-related oscillatory changes

To analyze EEG power and possible probe differences in neural activity in response to speech across groups, we computed the EEG power spectrum of speech compared to baseline in several frequency bands of interest, i.e., delta (1-3Hz), theta (4-8Hz), low-gamma (25-35Hz) and beta (12-20Hz). A between-group statistical comparison (Figure 1) showed reduced delta, beta, and low-gamma band oscillatory activity (mostly on mid-central clusters) in children with ASD. In contrast, theta oscillations were comparable to their TD peers.

## Neural tracking of speech envelope using Multiple Linear Regression Model

We then explored the differences between ASD and TD in the neural tracking of the cartoon soundtrack's phrase- and syllable-level modulations. We used a multiple linear regression (MLR) model with distributed lag between -300ms and 300ms with 50ms steps (Figure 2A) to reconstruct the stimulus envelopes from the neural signal in both the delta and the theta band. We then assessed the accuracy of speech envelope reconstruction by computing the correlation between reconstructed stimulus envelopes and actual envelopes in each group, before performing a statistical comparison. Speech envelope reconstruction was significantly
<table><caption>**Table 2. Continued**</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3">Group</th><th rowspan="3">Gender</th><th rowspan="3">Age</th><th colspan="5">ADOS</th><th colspan="5">Symptom level</th><th colspan="10">Mullen Scales of Early Learning</th><th colspan="2">Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales</th></tr><tr><th colspan="3">ADOS</th><th colspan="2">ADOS</th><th colspan="2">ADOS</th><th rowspan="2">Symptom level</th><th colspan="3">Visual reception</th><th colspan="3">Fine motor</th><th colspan="3">Expressive language</th><th colspan="3">Receptive language</th><th rowspan="2">Expressive language</th><th rowspan="2">Receptive language</th></tr><tr><th>ALL</th><th>SSA</th><th>RRB</th><th>DQ</th><th>Raw</th><th>Tscore</th><th>DQ</th><th>Raw</th><th>Tscore</th><th>DQ</th><th>Raw</th><th>Tscore</th><th>DQ</th><th>Raw</th><th>Tscore</th><th>DQ</th><th>Raw</th><th>Tscore</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>TD</td><td>F</td><td>1.87</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>/</td><td>138.26</td><td>32</td><td>75</td><td>120.42</td><td>27</td><td>66</td><td>75.82</td><td>17</td><td>39</td><td>124.88</td><td>27</td><td>65</td><td>15</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>TD</td><td>M</td><td>2.23</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>/</td><td>107.61</td><td>31</td><td>56</td><td>96.85</td><td>27</td><td>48</td><td>82.5</td><td>22</td><td>41</td><td>107.61</td><td>28</td><td>53</td><td>15</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>TD</td><td>M</td><td>1.68</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>/</td><td>172.07</td><td>34</td><td>80</td><td>121.46</td><td>25</td><td>64</td><td>86.04</td><td>17</td><td>43</td><td>151.83</td><td>28</td><td>72</td><td>15</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>TD</td><td>F</td><td>3.13</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>/</td><td>127.73</td><td>43</td><td>65</td><td>87.82</td><td>31</td><td>39</td><td>87.82</td><td>33</td><td>49</td><td>109.11</td><td>35</td><td>54</td><td>15</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>TD</td><td>F</td><td>4.33</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>/</td><td>115.07</td><td>48</td><td>59</td><td>109.32</td><td>45</td><td>56</td><td>120.82</td><td>47</td><td>61</td><td>118.91</td><td>46</td><td>61</td><td>18</td><td>18</td></tr></tbody></table>

See Extended Data Table 2-1 for psychometric data of every participant.

A Speech waveform and envelope

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

C Distribution of syllable rate

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

B Power spectrum of speech envelope

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

D Spectrogram of an speech example

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Stimulus properties. A, Speech waveform and envelope. In black: original audio track and waveform; in blue: speech envelope. B, Power spectrum of speech envelope. The average power spectrum across all speech samples shows dominant frequencies between 1 and 7 Hz, with 1.17-, 3.32-, and 4.69-Hz peaks. C, Distribution of syllable rate across all speech samples. D, Spectrogram of a speech sample, the sentence "Je veux ta bougie rigolote en échange" (I want your funny candle in exchange). Also, see Extended Data Figure 1-1 for preprocessing pipeline.</figcaption></figure>

the 6 closest neighbors are determined, plus the central electrode value itself; (2) the seven data points are sorted; (3) the minimal and maximal values are removed by dropping the first and last items; (4) the remaining five values are averaged, with weights proportional to the inverse distance to the central electrode, which is given a weight of 1 (Michel and Brunet, 2019).

A trial was defined based on the beginning and end of each speech chunk in the cartoon, leading to a total of 50 trials with an average duration of 1.69 s. The detected artifact periods were replaced by NaNs (not a number). After excluding artifact time segments, fewer trials remained in the ASD group than in the TD group (unpaired *t* test comparison *t*<sub>(62)</sub> = -2.54, *p* = 0.014). There were 35.12 ± 1.88 (mean ± SD, range 28–37) trials in the TD group, against 32.97 ± 4.48 (mean ± SD, range 21–36) in the ASD group. The mean trial duration was similar across groups (unpaired *t*<sub>(62)</sub> = 0.98, *p* = 0.33). The mean trial duration was 2454.4 ± 92.15 ms (mean ± SD) in the ASD group and 2431.8 ± 93.02 ms (mean ± SD) in the TD group.

### Eye-tracking acquisition and analysis

To assess whether the observed effects were because of differences in the way participants explored the visual scene (gaze focus differences), we

collected gaze data using a Tobii TX300 eye-tracking system (https://www.tobiipro.com) with a 300-Hz sampling rate. The cartoon frames allowed for a visual angle of 26°47' × 45°53' (height × width). A five-point calibration procedure consisting of child-friendly animations was performed using an inbuilt program in the Tobii system. The calibration procedure was repeated if the eye-tracking device failed to detect the participant's gaze position accurately. The lighting conditions in the testing room were constant for all acquisitions. Younger participants sat on their parent's lap to make them feel comfortable and minimize head and body movements. All participants watched all four cartoon videos in the same order. To extract fixations, we used the Tobii IV-T Fixation filter (Olsen, 2012; Kojovic et al., 2022).

### Gaze divergence estimation

To assess potential group differences in visual exploration, we first followed Kojovic et al. (2022) approach to create a gaze distribution map for each frame of the movie(s). A Gaussian kernel (adaptive bandwidth) was applied to each pair of gaze coordinates, and the results were added to obtain an estimation of gaze density (Botev et al., 2010). This step was run with the MATLAB function *akde*. The probability of gaze allocation
less accurate in ASD participants using the theta band signal (unpaired *t*(62)=2.19, *P* = 0.04, η² = 0.07, Figure 2B). The effect found in the theta band was most prominent in a specific cluster of 12 posterior-occipital electrodes (Figure 2C). The delta-band signal from all electrodes permitted to reconstruct the stimulus envelopes equally well in ASD and TD participants (unpaired *t*(62)= 0.38, *P* = 0.71, η² = 0.002, Figure 2B). However, we found reduced speech envelope reconstruction accuracy from the delta-band signal in ASD participants than controls, in a specific cluster of 7 parieto-occipital electrodes (Figure 2C). These results show that even though the overall theta power is unchanged in children with ASD (Figure 1), neural tracking of the speech syllabic structure by delta- and theta-range neural activity is altered.

## Phase amplitude coupling

As speech is encoded hierarchically by different families of nested neural oscillations, we also analyzed phase-amplitude coupling (PAC) across modulating (< 15Hz) and modulated (16–50 Hz) frequencies using the KL-MI-Tort[74]. This approach was applied to those clusters showing significant between-group differences in the EEG power (all electrodes of clusters in the mid-central area, see Figure 1) and in the neural tracking analyses (theta-tracking cluster Figure 2C; delta-tracking cluster Figure S2A). Before computing PAC and assessing PAC changes, we checked that there were clear power spectrum peaks and troughs at each modulating frequency band of interest[75, 76]. Despite large inter-individual variability in peak/trough frequencies and oscillatory power (Figure S3), average neural activity confirmed significant power peaks in the low-frequency and the beta/gamma range in both groups (Figure 3A, 3C, Figure S2A), enabling us to compute comodulograms for speech and baseline EEG, and to compare them using cluster-based nonparametric statistics[77]. Although results from mid-central electrodes showed significant PAC clusters between the 3-8 Hz (phase) and the 22-38 Hz (amplitude) frequency ranges in both groups, there was only minimal overlap between ASD and TD (Figure 3B). While TD showed a unique and strong delta-theta/low-gamma PAC on mid-central (Figure 3B) and posterior-occipital electrodes (Figure 3D, Figure S2A), as typically observed in non-ASD adults and older children[19, 38, 39, 47], very young children with ASD exhibited wholly different patterns. The most significant difference was the extra presence of a consistent low-beta/low-gamma PAC in both mid-central and posterior-occipital electrodes, and an additional theta/gamma PAC in posterior occipital electrodes (Figure 3D, Figure S2A). In summary, compared with the TD group, children with ASD show atypical delta/theta-gamma coordination, and a robust low-
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Gaze divergence estimation. A, An example frame with gaze distribution in TD (delimited by black contours) and ASD (red contour) children. B, Top, Example of distribution of EMD in one frame. (bottom) EMD values in all frames. Red: observed EMD; blue: the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the null distribution. If the observed EMD is bigger than 95% CI, the gaze distribution is significantly different across groups. C, Top, Cumulative gaze distribution (red contour: ASD, black contour: TD) over all frames and all speech excerpts. Bottom, Distribution of the permuted EMD (black histogram) and the observed EMD (red bar) of the contours in C, top. D, Mean Proximity Index (PI) values for all 31 children with ASD and all speech excerpts.</figcaption></figure>

at a given point of the visual scene was represented by the obtained density estimation (Fig. 2A). Next, we used the earth mover's distance (EMD; Rubner et al., 2000; Rohrbein et al., 2015; Cho et al., 2016; Orlova et al., 2016; Yilmaz, 2021), known in mathematics as the Wasserstein metric, to measure between-group differences in gaze distribution in terms of location, i.e., x-y grid, and frequency, i.e., the obtained density. To address whether gaze patterns statistically differed between the ASD and TD groups, we used a permutation test. First, we shuffled the labels for the ASD and TD groups to create a null distribution for the earth mover's distance (EMD), a measure of the distance between the two gaze distributions. We repeated this process 200 times to obtain an empirical null distribution for the EMD. It is important to note that two distinct types of distributions are being referred to here: the distributions of gaze for the ASD and TD groups, and the empirical null distribution of EMDs between these two distributions. To compute the one-tail probability, we ranked the observed EMD within the empirical null distribution. A rank >195 (top 5%) within the 200-element null distribution was considered significant. The approach was applied frame-by-frame to obtain single frame gaze-distribution difference (Fig. 2B), and a cumulative gaze-distribution over frames in the whole speech excerpt (Fig. 2C, top) and the cumulative gaze-distribution difference (Fig. 2C, bottom). Although gaze distribution did not significantly differ between groups within each frame (Fig. 2B), a significant effect was found on the cumulative gaze distribution (Fig. 2C); the observed EMD (red bar, i.e., observed EMD = 1.39 in Fig. 2C) is distinct from the 95% of the null distribution (Fig. 2C, blue bar). We then assessed individual gaze divergence in ASD by calculating the distance between every ASD gaze and the TD gaze norm on each frame. For comparison and interpretation, the distance was normalized to 0–1 and named Proximity Index (PI; Kojovic et al., 2022). A high PI value denotes that the visual exploration

of an individual for a given frame is closer to the norm (more TD-like). A summary measure of divergence in visual exploration from the TD group was obtained by averaging PI values over all frames in each speech excerpt (Fig. 2D). Figure 2D indicates that for every child with ASD, the gaze pattern diverges (PI) from the TD group to a different extent. The PI values were included as covariates to reduce the gaze pattern bias in EEG signals.

### EEG time-frequency analysis

To identify the oscillatory responses to speech, a Morlet wavelet transformation was performed from 5 s before to 5 s after each speech chunk (making sure the epoch would not include any artifacts) onset between 0.1 and 50 Hz with five cycles for Gaussian taper at each EEG electrode. Then time course between 1 s preonset to 1 s postonset was selected (based on those speech chunks with the shortest duration) on a trial-by-trial basis, and the power was averaged across trials and normalized by decibel conversion (dB) over a −1000- to 0-ms baseline period (for which an audio stimulus was presented but no speech), allowing for between-group comparisons. EEG power in the different frequency bands of interest was defined as the mean power value across 0–1000 ms postspeech stimulus onset. We compared ASD and TD groups in four frequency bands that are relevant for speech processing, i.e., δ (1–3 Hz), θ (4–8 Hz), β (12–20 Hz), and low-γ (25–35 Hz).

### Speech envelope prediction from EEG power modulation: multiple linear regression model (MLR) with distributed lags

To probe differences between ASD and TD in oscillatory speech tracking, a multiple linear regression (MLR) model with a distributed lag between −300 and 300 ms with 50-ms steps (Fig. 3) was used to reconstruct the stimuli envelopes from the neural responses. The EEG signals were lagged to compensate for possible differences in temporal alignment
beta/low-gamma coupling anomaly suggesting abnormal endogenous control of speech reception.

## Prediction of clinical variables from oscillatory neural features

Among all the oscillatory features that were found atypical in children with ASD, not all of them have the potential to specifically account for individual traits and, in particular, language abilities. We, therefore, assessed whether the group differences observed at the neurophysiological level could first predict the ASD severity, and more importantly, whether they could predict the speech reception scores obtained by the children in the MSEL, which cognitive scales measure overall developmental functioning. Conversely, we also sought to find out whether some of the oscillatory anomalies detected in power, tracking, and PAC analyses, could be more generally involved in several cognitive components (verbal production, visual processing, and fine motor skills).

### Predicting ASD severity (ADOS severity level)

We first used nested LDA classification to determine which neurophysiological feature(s), i.e., EEG power, speech-tracking values, and PAC, best predicted the ASD symptom severity level, i.e., low, moderate, and high. Classification using all scalp electrodes showed that theta power (accuracy: 55.8%), low-gamma power (accuracy: 51.7%), delta-tracking (accuracy: 48.3%) were good predictors of autism severity (empirical chance level: 46.387%, Figure 4A).

In addition, low-beta/low-gamma PAC was a good predictor of autism severity in both clusters (accuracy 49.2% in the mid-central cluster and 51.7% in the posterior-occipital cluster, Figure 4B, Figure S2B, empirical chance level: 46.387%). These results demonstrate that theta power, gamma power, delta tracking, beta/gamma coupling contain critical information about autism severity.

### Predicting speech reception level

We then used Lasso, with a nested cross-validation approach, to determine whether individual language skills could be predicted from oscillatory features and which features accounted most selectively for individual language development status. The analyses were run separately in each group. Although different in TD and ASD groups, band-specific EEG power accounted for none of the cognitive components of MSEL in any group, except language expression in TD children for the gamma power and language reception in children with ASD for the delta power (Figure 5A). Conversely, neural tracking, which was also
between the brain response and the stimulus, a widely used method in the literature (Crosse et al., 2016; Di Liberto and Lalor, 2017; Fiedler et al., 2017; Di Liberto et al., 2018). A multiple linear regression model was trained on the resulting set using a 10-fold cross-validation approach. First, all speech chunks were divided into ten consecutive segments. In each fold, one segment was left out for testing and the remaining segments were used for training. This process was repeated 10 times, ensuring that each segment was only used once for testing. On each fold, a multiple linear model was used to find a linear combination among the brain signals that best predicted the time course of the speech envelope. The resulting model was tested by correlating the predicted envelope with the actual speech envelope in the test segment. The final result, representing the oscillation tracking index, was obtained by averaging Fisher's z-transformed correlations in each fold and then taking the inverse Fisher's transformation of the resulting mean z-score. The model was trained separately for each individual subject.

We deployed the approach separately in the two frequency bands implicated in speech tracking, i.e., $\theta$ and $\delta$, and computed the amplitude of specific bands to obtain the oscillation tracking index. The amplitude was the absolute value of the Hilbert transform in band-specific filtered EEG, i.e., 4–8 Hz for $\theta$ and 1–3 Hz for $\delta$.

### Phase-amplitude coupling

The time-courses from electrode clusters selected from the EEG power and neural tracking analyses were examined for phase-amplitude coupling changes (PAC). The first step was applying the Hilbert transform to each bandpass Butterworth filtered trial (Le Van Quyen et al., 2001) to obtain low-frequency phase ($f_p$) and high-frequency amplitude ($f_a$). Considering the filters for extracting $f_a$ must be wide enough to capture the center frequency $\pm$ the modulating $f_p$ to detect PAC (Dvorak and Fenton, 2014; Aru et al., 2015), we decided to use a variable bandwidth, defined as center frequency $\pm$ the modulating center frequency, to improve PAC detection. The $f_p$ bandwidth was kept narrow (center frequency $\pm$ 1Hz) to extract sinusoidal waveforms. Furthermore, changes in the modulation power spectrum between speech and baseline periods were visually inspected in each participant to confirm that oscillation peaks/troughs were present at each modulating frequency-band of interest $f_p$. For instance, if the interested modulating frequency band was 4–8 Hz, we confirmed that participants presented a real peak in the power spectrum at 4–8 Hz. Next, the coupling between $f_p$ and $f_a$ was quantified using the Kullback-Leibler modulation index (Tort et al., 2010). The KL-MI-Tort approach estimates PAC by quantifying the amount of deviation in amplitude-phase distributions. That is breaking $f_p$ into 18 bins, and then calculating the mean amplitude within each phase bin, finally normalized by the average value across all bins. The modulation index is calculated by averaging the distance of the observed amplitude-phase distribution ($P$) and a uniform amplitude-phase distribution ($Q$).

$$MI = \frac{D(P, Q)}{\log(N_{bin})}. \qquad (1)$$

Mathematically, the Kullback-Leibler distance ($D$) was computed using the following formula (Seymour et al., 2017).

$$D(P, Q) = \sum_{i_{bin}=1}^{N} P(i_{bin}) \cdot \log \left( \frac{P(i_{bin})}{Q(i_{bin})} \right). \qquad (2)$$

Using KL-MI-Tort, we calculated PAC between phases 2–15 Hz (in 1-Hz steps) and amplitudes 16–50 Hz (in 2-Hz steps) for the time period 0–1000 ms following speech onset and a 1000 ms prestimulus baseline period. MI values were calculated separately for each trial and averaged to obtain a single MI value per amplitude and phase. To normalize MI values, this was repeated using surrogate data, created by shuffling trial and phase-carrying information (200 surrogates).

### Predicting clinical variables from oscillatory features

In order to show the relationship between the brain activity and the neuropsych physiological variables, we tested whether autism severity was predicted

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Schematics of the multiple linear regression (MLR) model approach. The filtered EEG signal and stimulus envelope were entered into the MLR. For the cross-validation procedure, envelopes of speech and EEG signal of 9-fold with time-lag shifting were used to fit an MLR for each participant, which was then used to predict the envelope of the 10th speech fold. The resulting model was tested by correlating the predicted envelope with the actual speech envelope in the test segment.</figcaption></figure>

by using only band-specific power per electrode (i.e., $\delta$, $\theta$, $\beta$, and low-$\gamma$ power), or only neural tracking values per electrode, or only phase-amplitude coupling matrices per cluster (i.e., maximum MI value and corresponding phase-frequency, amplitude-frequency). For this, we trained a Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) classifier using a 10-fold nested cross-validation procedure, which separates the data into test and training sets. The training set was further separated using a 5-fold cross-validation approach for parameter search (Grid search). The LDA classifier was trained using a diagonal shared covariance matrix. The cross-validation process ensured that the training and testing datasets were not overlapping, avoiding misleading results because of overfitting. The input to the classifier was the band-specific EEG power, neural-tracking, and PAC for each participant, and the label to be predicted was symptom severity (i.e., low, moderate, and high). All empirical thresholds were obtained through cumulative binomial distribution (Combrisson and Jerbi, 2015).

Then, we probed the relationship between the neural and cognitive skills using a regularized linear model per frequency band (i.e., $\delta$, $\theta$, $\beta$, and low-$\gamma$ power), per neural tracking per electrode, and per PAC matrix (i.e., maximum MI value and corresponding phase-frequency, amplitude-frequency) to determine which critical oscillation (or combination of oscillations) was the best predictor of cognitive skills within group, e.g., the higher the tracking value, the higher the speech reception. The linear model was based on Lasso regression which requires finding the best hyper-parameters within high dimensional data (Tibshirani, 1996). We also used a 10-fold nested cross-validation approach to improve model selection. The training set was further separated using a 5-fold cross-validation approach for parameter search (Grid search). The results were presented as averaged $R^2$ values, which indicate the prediction power of a given feature, i.e., higher $R^2$s signal higher prediction accuracy.

### Statistical analysis

Between-group statistical comparisons of band-specific EEG power and neural tracking were done using cluster-based nonparametric permutation tests with Monte Carlo randomization (Maris and Oostenveld, 2007) using the FieldTrip toolbox (Oostenveld et al., 2011; http://fieldtrip toolbox.org) with gaze divergence as a covariate to remove any possible bias because of gaze differences between groups. In detail, between-group differences (ASD vs TD) were assessed with unpaired t-statistics. First, clusters of significant group differences were obtained by considering at least two adjacent electrodes whose $t$ value exceeded a 5% significance threshold (ASD vs TD, unpaired $t$ test, uncorrected for multiple comparisons). The maximum $t$ value within each cluster was carried forward. Next, a null distribution was obtained by randomizing the gaze divergence label 1000 times and calculating the largest cluster-level $t$ value for each permutation. The maximum $t$ value within each original cluster was then compared against this null distribution, with values exceeding a threshold of $p < 0.05$ deemed significant.

In addition, between-group differences of neural tracking were tested by means of unpaired $t$ test for all electrodes collectively analyzed. For group comparison statistics, only one value of $\theta$/$\delta$-neural tracking per
markedly different across groups, was predictive of several cognitive components in ASD (language reception and expression, fine motor skills) in the delta range, and of all but receptive language in the theta range (Figure 5B), suggesting the role of these oscillatory features in ASD goes beyond the sole domain of speech reception. In the TD group, neural tracking accounted for none of the scores, despite a trend for theta-tracking to predict both language reception and expression. In TD, the R² values were very low for all cognitive aspects in the delta range, and for motor and visual in the theta range (Figure 5B), showing that theta-tracking was more specifically involved in language development than delta, as expected from previous studies in adults [78, 79].

The most relevant feature for predicting language reception development was phase-amplitude coupling. As expected from studies in typical adults [38, 39] and from neurocomputational models [19], theta/gamma coupling selectively explained language reception in both central and posterior-occipital clusters of electrodes in our group of very young TD children (Figure 5C, Figure S5). In the ASD group, the (atypical) beta/gamma PAC selectively predicted language reception (Figure 5C). The post-hoc analysis of the dependency of language reception on beta/gamma PAC indicates that the stronger the anomaly, the worse speech reception (see Figure 5D). For displaying purposes, after confirming the performance of the algorithm, we used the whole data to run the hyperparameter optimization, and finally, we got the best estimator, then we retrained algorithm y=f(x). We, therefore, obtained a fitted model y = 17.45·f<sub>p</sub>+0.43·f<sub>a</sub>-5.71·MI-142.19, in which y represents language reception, f<sub>p</sub> and f<sub>a</sub> represent the frequency of phase and amplitude respectively, and MI refers to PAC value (Figure 5D). Overall, PAC was the most specific predictor of language reception in ASD and TD children: the presence of theta/gamma PAC predicts good speech reception in TD children confirming many previous observations [19, 38, 39, 47, 50], whereas the added presence of atypical beta/gamma PAC signals poor reception in ASD. Importantly, PAC features were much more sensitive than power and neural tracking to predict individual language reception scores.

Discussion

This study aimed to determine whether speech-related oscillatory anomalies in ASD are already present in early childhood, around the time of ASD diagnosis. Given the computational role neural oscillations play in chunking the syllable stream, encoding phonemic information, and predicting speech timing and linguistic content, we also sought to
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.** Speech-related oscillation changes. A, Scalp topographies of power in several frequencies of interest in ASD and TD groups. B, Comparison of frequency-power among 31 children with ASD and 33 TD peers. Children with ASD had reduced δ, β, and low-γ power and comparable θ power relative to their TD peers. Asterisks in scalp topographies indicate group differences after cluster correction (cluster-based nonparameters permutation tests, cluster corrected *p* = 0.05). Also, see Extended Data Figure 4-1 for a comparison of α frequency-power in both groups.</figcaption></figure>

participant was included in the unpaired *t* test comparing ASD and TD groups.

To assess changes in the comodulograms of PAC between the speech and baseline periods, we processed the nonparametric cluster-based statistics (Maris and Oostenveld, 2007). First an uncorrected dependent-samples *t* test was performed (speech vs baseline), and then MI values exceeding a 5% significance threshold of null distribution were grouped into clusters.

# Results

## Speech-related oscillatory changes

To analyze EEG power and possible probe differences in neural activity in response to speech across groups (Fig. 4A), we computed the EEG power spectrum of speech compared with baseline in several frequency bands of interest, i.e., δ (1–3 Hz), θ (4–8 Hz), low-γ (25–35 Hz), and β (12–20 Hz). A between-group statistical comparison (Fig. 4B; Extended Data Fig. 4-1), with gaze divergence as a covariate, showed reduced δ, β, and low-γ band oscillatory activity (mostly on mid-central clusters) in children with ASD. In contrast, θ oscillations were comparable to their TD peers.

## Neural tracking of speech envelope using multiple linear regression model

We then explored the differences between ASD and TD in the neural tracking of the cartoon soundtrack's phrase-level and

syllable-level modulations. The full segment duration differed across participants and across groups. The mean duration was 80,935 ± 11,524 ms (mean ± SD) in the ASD group, and 85,653 ± 6,712.7 ms (mean ± SD) in the TD group. The model was trained by a 10-fold cross-validation approach, meaning that the duration of each fold was around 8093.5 ms for ASD and 8565.3 ms for TD. The duration in both groups was enough to get a valid value. Please note that the speech content is not expected to affect low-frequency neural tracking. Therefore, although the balance across groups was not perfect, the result remains reliable.

We found that the speech envelope reconstruction was significantly less accurate in ASD participants using the θ band signal (unpaired *t*<sub>(62)</sub> = 2.19, *p* = 0.03, η<sup>2</sup> = 0.07; Fig. 5A). This θ effect was most prominent in a specific cluster of 12 posterior-occipital electrodes (Fig. 5B). The δ-band signal from all electrodes permitted the reconstruction of the stimulus envelopes equally well in ASD and TD participants (unpaired *t*<sub>(62)</sub> = 0.18, *p* = 0.86, η<sup>2</sup> = 0.0005; Fig. 5A). However, we found reduced speech envelope reconstruction accuracy from the δ-band signal in ASD participants relative to TD participants in a specific cluster of seven parieto-occipital electrodes (Fig. 5B). These results denote that although the overall θ power was unchanged in children with ASD (Fig. 4), the neural tracking of the speech syllabic structure by δ-range and θ-range neural activity was altered.
determine whether and which of these anomalies most specifically account for speech reception difficulties in ASD. Establishing causality, or at least specific relevance of oscillation anomalies with respect to speech development, is critical, as early targeted neural interventions could subsequently be envisaged to normalize speech reception, as recently demonstrated in other neurodevelopmental language disorders[66, 80, 81]. Exploring EEG in 64 children between 1.31 and 5.56-years-old, we found marked anomalies of speech-induced cortical activity in the group with ASD, including decreased expression of delta, low-gamma, and beta frequencies. While theta power appeared as pronounced in ASD and TD children, delta-theta neural tracking was significantly reduced in ASD. Our most important results were observed in relation to oscillation cross-frequency coupling, which reflect the coordination computations at different timescales. As expected from previous studies in adults[19, 38, 39, 51], we clearly detected the classical theta/gamma coupling in very young (about 3-years-old) TD children and found this feature to specifically predict their individual language reception scores. This result represents an important finding as PAC is not a simple *marker* of speech reception ability but reflects a key computational component of speech processing, namely the hierarchical relationship between phonemes and syllables. This typical theta/low-gamma PAC was altered in children with ASD, appearing over a higher gamma range and a more occipital location. Critically, theta/gamma coupling was accompanied with a non-typical low-beta/low-gamma PAC in the ASD group, which, among all the abnormal oscillatory features reported here, was the only one from which we could specifically predict language reception scores in children with ASD: the stronger the beta/low-gamma coupling, the worse speech reception. This other key finding suggests that the speech processing computational scales are markedly different in ASD and that the endogenous-exogenous processing ratio is higher in children with ASD.

## Low-gamma power predicts language expression in TD but not children with ASD

Our results showed decreased low-gamma activity in ASD relative to TD children, notably on mid-central electrodes, a scalp location that strongly captures auditory cortex activity[82, 83]. Previous studies already reported reduced gamma activity in response to pure tones[52, 53, 84], presumably denoting a basic functional anomaly of auditory cortex. Gamma activity usually reflects the excitation-inhibition balance[85] within brain circuits, which is a core parameter in neural development. Reduced low-gamma power in ASD could be hence seen as
## Phase amplitude coupling

As speech is encoded hierarchically by different families of nested neural oscillations, we also analyzed phase-amplitude coupling (PAC) across modulating (<15 Hz) and modulated (16–50 Hz) frequencies using the KL-MI-Tort. This approach was applied to those clusters showing significant between-group differences in the EEG power (all electrodes of clusters in the mid-central area; see Fig. 4) and in the neural tracking analyses (θ-tracking cluster; Figure 4B). Before computing PAC and assessing PAC changes, we checked that there were clear power spectrum peaks and troughs at each modulating frequency band of interest (Dvorak and Fenton, 2014; Aru et al., 2015). Despite large interindividual variability in peak/trough frequencies and oscillatory power, average neural activity confirmed significant power peaks/troughs in the low-frequency range in both groups (Fig. 6A,C; Extended Data Figs. 6-1, 6-2), enabling us to compute comodulograms for speech and baseline EEG, and to compare them using cluster-based nonparametric statistics. Note that the potential effects of gaze patterns were considered in the statistical analyses and removed. The reported effects hence primarily denote auditory processes.

Although results from mid-central electrodes showed significant PAC clusters between the 3- to 8-Hz (phase) and the 22- to 38-Hz (amplitude) frequency ranges in both groups, there was only minimal overlap between ASD and TD (Fig. 6B). While TD showed a unique and strong δ-θ/low-γ PAC on mid-central (Fig. 6B) and posterior-occipital electrodes (Fig. 6D), very young children with ASD exhibited wholly different patterns. The most significant difference was the extra presence of a consistent low-β/low-γ PAC in both mid-central and posterior-occipital electrodes (Fig. 6D). In summary, compared with the TD group, children with ASD show atypical δ/θ-γ coordination, and a robust low-β/low-γ coupling anomaly.

## Prediction of clinical variables from oscillatory neural features

Among all the oscillatory features that were found atypical in children with ASD, not all of them have the potential to specifically account for individual traits and, in particular, language abilities. We, therefore, assessed whether the group differences observed at the neurophysiological level could first predict the ASD severity, and, more importantly, whether they could predict the speech reception scores obtained by the children in the MSEL (direct assessment of developmental functioning) and VABS-II (parent-reported measure of functioning in everyday life). Conversely, we also sought to find out whether some of the oscillatory anomalies detected in power, tracking, and PAC analyses, could be more generally involved in several other cognitive skills (verbal production, visual processing, and fine motor skills).

### Predicting ASD severity (ADOS severity level)

We first used nested LDA classification to determine which neuropsych physiological feature(s), i.e., EEG power, speech-tracking values, and PAC, best predicted the ASD symptom severity level, i.e., low, moderate, and high. Classification using all scalp electrodes showed that θ power (accuracy: 55.8%), low-γ power (accuracy: 51.7%), δ tracking (accuracy: 48.3%) were good predictors of autism severity (empirical chance level: 46.387%; Fig. 7A).

In addition, low-β/low-γ PAC was a good predictor of autism severity in both clusters [accuracy 49.2% in the mid-central cluster and 51.7% in the posterior-occipital cluster (Fig. 7B), empirical chance level: 46.387%]. These results demonstrate that θ

### A All electrodes analyses

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

### B Single electrode analyses

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.** Neural tracking of speech envelope. Correlation coefficients between the reconstructed and real envelope, in all channels together (A) and each single-channel separately (B). *Bi*, Correlation coefficient topographies in both groups. *Bii*, Correlation coefficients were significantly reduced in ASD relative to TD group in the θ band. Error bars in A represent standard error (SE) of correlation coefficients and shadows in A represent the neural tracking distribution in each group. Asterisks in B show group differences from nonparametric cluster-based permutation tests, \*p < 0.05, \*\*p < 0.01, \*\*\*p < 0.001.</figcaption></figure>

power, γ power, δ tracking, β/γ coupling contain critical information about autism severity.

### Predicting speech reception level

We then used Lasso, with a nested cross-validation approach, to determine whether individual language skills could be predicted from oscillatory features and which features accounted most selectively for individual language development status assessed by MSEL (Fig. 8) and VABS-II (Fig. 9). The analyses were run separately in each group. Although different in TD and ASD groups, band-specific EEG power accounted for none of the cognitive subscales of MSEL in any groups, except expressive language in TD children for the γ power and receptive language in children with ASD for the δ power (Fig. 8A). Conversely, neural tracking, which was also markedly different across groups, was predictive of three cognitive subscales of MSEL in ASD (receptive and expressive language and fine motor skills) in the δ range, and of all but receptive language in the θ range (Fig. 8B).
a probe of atypical maturation of auditory neural circuitry. At the computational level, low-
gamma activity is associated with phonemic encoding[18, 19] and its nesting within theta
activity with the encoding of phonemic information within syllabic frames so that syllable-
level representations can interface at the right time with other (higher) processing stages[86].
Here we found that low-gamma activity was the only feature that specifically predicted
language expression in TD children, a logical finding as language expression is tightly related
to the transformation of phonetic into articulatory features at the same timescale[87-91].

Abnormal theta-range speech tracking and theta/gamma coordination

Although we globally found a similar level of theta activity in both groups, theta-range
tracking was reduced in children with ASD, meaning that theta activity although present did
not typically follow the speech temporal structure. An equivalent level of global theta power
in TD and ASD is consistent with previous studies[55, 56, 92]. However, that the speech
envelope was less accurately reconstructed from the EEG in ASD than in TD children
indicates that theta activity in ASD is more weakly engaged in syllable tracking[19, 21, 23,
93, 94]. This anomaly likely disrupts the alignment of neuronal excitability with syllabic
onset, weakens the coordination with oscillations on other frequency bands, notably the low-
gamma one, and ultimately hampers phonemic information encoding within syllables[18-20,
38, 39]. Accordingly, we found anomalies of the classical theta/gamma PAC in children with
ASD: higher gamma frequencies and the occipital location are not compatible with a role in
phonemic sampling within left auditory regions classically as reported in healthy
individuals[17, 95-97]. These results however, are only in partial agreement with the more
severe anomalies of theta/gamma coupling, a fully inverted coupling relationship, that were
previously observed using simultaneous fMRI-EEG in adults with ASD[51]. Longitudinal
studies are needed to determine whether theta/gamma coupling further deteriorates during
childhood development and adolescence.

Theta-tracking of visual input

Abnormal theta tracking of speech syllable modulations might be associated or even follow
from a stronger theta synchronization with the visual input. The posterior-occipital theta-
tracking topography in children with ASD (Figure 2) could suggest that they track more
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6.** A, C, Speech-induced oscillatory power is characterized by a strong power peak in low-frequency bands (1–10 Hz) in both groups and a marked power trough in the low-$\beta$ band (10–15 Hz) in the ASD group over (A) central electrodes selected from EEG power group differences and (C) posterior-occipital electrodes selected from neural tracking group differences. B, D, Phase-amplitude comodulograms produced by statistically comparing the coupling values represented by modulation index (MI) values in the speech and baseline periods over central electrodes (B) and posterior-occipital electrodes (D). Dotted lines represent significant differences in phase-amplitude coupling. For exact cluster locations, see topographies on A, C. For a quick appraisal of $f_p$ and $f_a$ ranges in each group, see the rightmost panel ($f_p$: frequency of phase; $f_a$: frequency of amplitude, nonparametric cluster-based statistics, cluster-corrected $p < 0.05$). Also, see Extended Data Figures 6-1 and 6-2 for individual speech-induced oscillatory power in both groups.</figcaption></figure>

In the TD group, neural tracking accounted for none of the MSEL scores, despite a trend for $\theta$ tracking to predict both language reception and expression. These results were also found for the language components as assessed by VABS-II (Fig. 9B). In TD, the $R^2$ values were very low for all cognitive aspects in the $\delta$ range, and for motor and visual in the $\theta$ range (Fig. 8B).

The most relevant feature for predicting language reception development was phase-amplitude coupling. As expected from studies in typical adults (Gross et al., 2013; Lizarazu et al., 2019) and from neurocomputational models (Hyafil et al., 2015a,b), $\theta/\gamma$ coupling selectively explained language reception in both central and posterior-occipital clusters of electrodes in our group of very young TD children (Figs. 8C, 9C, 10). In the ASD group, the (atypical) $\beta/\gamma$ PAC selectively predicted language reception (Fig. 8C, 9C). The *post hoc* analysis of the dependency of language reception on $\beta/\gamma$ PAC indicated that the stronger the anomaly, the worse the speech reception was (Figs. 8D, 9D). For display purposes, after confirming the performance of the algorithm, we used whole data to run the hyperparameter optimization, and with the best estimator we then retrained the algorithm $y=f(x)$. We, therefore, obtained a fitted model $y=17.45 \cdot f_p + 0.43 \cdot f_a - 5.71 \cdot \text{MI}-142.19$ (for MSEL) and $y=0 \cdot f_p + 0 \cdot f_a - 0.62 \cdot \text{MI} + 12.26$ (for VABS-II), in which $y$ represents language reception, $f_p$ and $f_a$ represent the frequency of phase and amplitude respectively, and MI refers to PAC value. Overall, PAC was the most specific predictor of language reception in ASD and TD children: the presence of

$\theta/\gamma$ PAC predicts good speech reception in TD children, whereas the added presence of atypical $\beta/\gamma$ PAC signals poor reception in ASD. Importantly, PAC features were much more sensitive than power and neural tracking to predict individual language reception scores.

## Discussion

The goal of this study was to determine whether speech-related oscillatory anomalies in ASD are already present in early childhood, around the time of ASD diagnosis. Given the established computational role of neural oscillations in chunking the syllable stream, encoding phonemic information, and predicting speech timing and linguistic content (Giraud and Poeppel, 2012; Hovsepyan et al., 2020), we also sought to determine which of several potential anomalies could most specifically be associated with speech reception difficulties in ASD. Establishing the specific relevance of oscillation anomalies with respect to speech development is critical, as early targeted neural interventions could subsequently be envisaged to normalize speech reception, as recently demonstrated in other neurodevelopmental language disorders (Ladanyi et al., 2020; Marchesotti et al., 2020). Exploring EEG in 64 children between 1.31 and 5.56 years old with balancing the gaze-divergence across groups, we found marked anomalies of speech-induced cortical activity in the group with ASD, including decreased expression of $\delta$, low-$\gamma$, and $\beta$ frequencies. While $\theta$
visual motion than auditory modulations, a functional anomaly that could possibly underpin
atypical audio-visual integration [98-107]. This conjecture was partly confirmed by the direct
comparison of visual and speech tracking (Figure S4), showing an imbalance in the visual vs.
auditory tracking in the ASD group, with a predominant tracking od visual motion. In
addition, the PAC frequency was higher than expected for speech processing, indicating that
it is most likely local visual information, rather than auditory, that is modulated at theta
rhythm. Overall, these results demonstrate a weak engagement of the auditory system in
speech processing in very young children with ASD, and show that visual motion processing
dominates when they watch a natural audio-visual scene involving moving and talking
characters, as previously reported in adults/children [99-102].

Reduced delta-power but not delta-range speech tracking is a
specific predictor of language reception in ASD

Our results also show reduced delta power and delta-range speech tracking in children with ASD. Delta-range activity signals phrase-level chunks, which do not necessarily have a physical/acoustic counterpart in the speech stimulus[79]. Delta activity is known to reflect a more endogenous processes than theta-range syllable tracking[64], which are argued to pertain to syntactic grouping[32, 63, 108, 109] or prosody processing[29, 30]. That reduced delta activity predicted speech reception in ASD might hence denote altered syntactic phrasal chunking and is compatible with previous observations suggesting both weaker linguistic[110] and intonation processing[111]. Although our results align well with these previous observations and hypotheses, delta-range speech tracking did not only predict speech reception scores but also expressive language, and fine motor skills. Logically, the more endogenous delta tracking deficit has a more global impact on the cognitive profile of children with ASD, and could hence also be a parameter that could possibly be adjusted using adapted neurostimulation methods.

Beta/gamma cross-frequency coupling: a speech reception
singularity in young children with ASD

During continuous speech perception, top-down predictive mechanisms are also important, in
particular in order to make sense of acoustic signals that might be unclear or ambiguous, or
simply to follow the speaker's speech rate. Typically, predictive mechanisms are signaled by
## A EEG power and neural tracking

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

## B Phase-amplitude coupling

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 7.** Predicting ASD severity from EEG oscillatory activity. A, Prediction accuracy of ASD symptom severity using the EEG power, neural tracking based on all electrodes. B, Prediction accuracy of ASD symptom severity using the phase-amplitude coupling (cluster-based). The red dash line shows the chance level determined by an inverse binomial distribution. For the exact location of clusters, see scalp topographies on top of panel B.</figcaption></figure>

power appeared as pronounced among ASD and TD children, $\delta-\theta$ neural tracking was significantly reduced in ASD. Our most important results were observed in relation to oscillation cross-frequency coupling, which reflects the coordination computations at different timescales. As expected from previous studies in adults (Gross et al., 2013; Hyafil et al., 2015a; Jochaut et al., 2015; Lizarazu et al., 2019), we clearly detected the classical $\theta/\gamma$ coupling in very young (approximately three years old) TD children and found this feature to predict their individual language reception scores specifically. This result represents per se an important finding supporting the notion that PAC is not a simple marker of speech reception ability, but reflects a key computational component of speech processing, namely the hierarchical relationship between phonemes and syllables. This typical $\theta/low-\gamma$ PAC was altered in children with ASD, appearing over a shifted $\theta/\gamma$ range and lacking occipital location once the visual exploration contribution across groups was controlled for. Critically, $\theta/\gamma$ coupling was accompanied by a nontypical low-$\beta$/low-$\gamma$ PAC in the ASD group, which, among all the abnormal oscillatory features reported here, was the only one from which we could specifically predict language reception scores in children with ASD: the stronger the $\beta$/low-$\gamma$ coupling, the worse the speech reception. This key finding suggests that the speech processing computational scales are markedly different in ASD. We acknowledge, however, that because of larger interindividual

variability in the neural sources among ASD children compared with TD controls, group-level statistics may appear weaker in ASD (Hasson et al., 2009). Source space analyses, which in our case were not possible because of the absence of structural MRI data and real digitized head points, could have led to slightly different observations. The cartoon video contained acoustic and visual features, triggering audiovisual integration. Given that modality preference can influence performance on multimodal tasks (Sumby and Pollack, 1954; Calvert et al., 1997; McDonald et al., 2000; Slutsky and Recanzone, 2001; Morein-Zamir et al., 2003; Feng et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2018; Robinson and Sloutsky, 2019), we cannot exclude that atypical speech perception in children with ASD is influenced by how individuals with ASD process visual information. Although our statistical analysis controlled for gaze patterns, differences between typical and ASD children with respect to cross-modal interactions are likely, and future research should investigate how visual information interacts with auditory neural entrainment in children with and without ASD.

### Low-$\gamma$ power predicts language expression in typically developing children

Our results showed decreased low-$\gamma$ activity among ASD relative to TD children, notably on mid-central electrodes, a scalp location that strongly captures auditory cortex activity (Stropahl et al., 2018). Previous studies already reported reduced $\gamma$ activity in ASD in response to pure tones (Rojas et al., 2008; Gandal et al., 2010), presumably denoting a basic functional anomaly of the auditory cortex. $\gamma$ activity usually reflects the excitation-inhibition balance (Buzsaki and Wang, 2012) within brain circuits, which is a core parameter in neural development. Reduced low-$\gamma$ power in ASD could be seen as a probe of atypical maturation of auditory neural circuitry. At the computational level, low-$\gamma$ activity is associated with phonemic encoding (Lehongre et al., 2011; Hyafil et al., 2015a) and its nesting within $\theta$ rhythm is associated with the encoding of phonemic information within syllabic frames, enabling syllable-level representations to interface at the right time with other (higher) processing stages (Ghitza, 2011). Here, we found that low-$\gamma$ activity was the only feature that specifically predicted language expression among TD children, a sensible finding as language expression is tightly related to the transformation of phonetics into articulatory features at the same timescale (Chartier et al., 2018).

### Abnormal $\theta$-range speech tracking and $\theta/\gamma$ coordination

Although globally we found a similar level of $\theta$ activity in both groups, $\theta$-range tracking was deficient among children with ASD, meaning that $\theta$ activity, although present, did not typically follow the speech temporal structure. An equivalent level of global $\theta$ power in TD and ASD is consistent with previous studies (Wang et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2018). However, the fact that the speech envelope was less accurately reconstructed from the EEG signals among ASD compared with TD children indicates that $\theta$ activity in ASD is more weakly engaged in syllable tracking (Giraud and Poeppel, 2012; Hyafil et al., 2015a; Pefkou et al., 2017). This anomaly likely disrupts the alignment of neuronal excitability with syllabic onset, weakens the coordination of speech with oscillations on other frequency bands, notably the low-$\gamma$ one, and ultimately hampers phonemic information encoding within syllables (Lehongre et al., 2011; Gross et al., 2013; Hyafil et al., 2015a; Lizarazu et al., 2019; Hovsepyan et al., 2020). Accordingly, we
the low-beta band[112, 113], which we also found to be weaker in ASD than TD children
around the mid-central region. The beta frequency band is argued to mediate top-down
information passing[42, 114, 115], allowing for precise temporal[65] but also content-
specific predictions[42]. In speech processing, this frequency band could provide top-down
integration constants that are intermediate between theta-syllabic and gamma-phonemic
ranges[23, 34]. By occurring in alternation with bottom-up gamma phases[112], beta activity
phases could stabilize representations in the face of the ever-changing acoustic input. Weaker
beta activity in ASD might, therefore, reflect a reduced deployment of predictive
mechanisms, altering both the ability to predict when acoustic signals can be expected and
what content they carry. This interpretation is globally in line with alterations of phasic
predictive learning in a mouse model of autism[116] and more generally with the hypothesis
of impaired predictive coding in ASD[117, 118].

The key finding of this report is the atypical low-beta/low-gamma PAC found in children
with ASD in conjunction with weaker beta power. A PAC anomaly involving the low-beta
phase might follow from the reduced global beta power in ASD, possibly allowing low-
gamma and gamma bursts to occur more strongly within beta troughs. Reduced beta gating
could result in letting pass neural activity that is unrelated to the predicted speech structure,
possibly leading to a feeling of being overwhelmed by unformatted acoustic inputs to which
no linguistic value or meaning can be attributed. This interpretation aligns well with the
auditory avoidance that is clinically described[110, 119, 120].

Cross-frequency oscillation features: a potential endophenotype
for targeted interventions

As cortical oscillations arise from excitatory-inhibitory interactions within and across specific
cortical laminae[121], auditory oscillation anomalies represent a plausible functional
counterpart to structural disorganization and disruption of cortical inhibition previously
shown in ASD[122]. A recent study directly relates neural oscillations with the expression of
a number of genes, several of which are involved in ASD[123], e.g., LNX1, DGKI, KCNQ5,
DCX, SHANK2, etc. Speech reception difficulties in ASD could, therefore, directly result
from structural anomalies induced by mutations of genes[124-126] controlling neuronal
interactions, notably at the synaptic level[125, 127].
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 8.** Predicted development levels in young children from EEG oscillatory activity using a regularized linear model (Lasso). A, B, Low-γ power significantly predicts Language expression in TD (A), δ-/θ-tracking significantly predicts all tested cognitive components but language reception for θ tracking in ASD, and none in TD (B). C, θ/low-γ PAC specifically predicted language reception in TD (C), whereas β/low-γ specifically predicted language reception among young children with ASD (C, left panel). R² values represent the proportion of the variance that is explained by the features for each target variable. D, Language reception prediction from β-γ coupling (r = −0.33, p = 0.04). Asterisks indicate the significant R², p < 0.05; δ refers to δ, θ refers to θ, β refers to low-β, γ refers to low-γ. For the exact locations of clusters, see the scalp topographies on top of each panel in C. The missing bars indicate the R² is close to zero.</figcaption></figure>

found anomalies of the classical speech-specific θ/γ PAC among children with ASD. This anomaly was not explained by differences between groups in the way children screened the visual scene, as gaze differences were controlled for. The coupling was shifted toward lower γ frequencies, making it incompatible with a typical role in phonemic sampling within left auditory regions, as reported in healthy individuals (Poeppel, 2003; Morillon et al., 2010). These results, however, are only in partial agreement with the more severe anomalies of θ/γ coupling, a fully inverted coupling relationship, that were previously observed using simultaneous fMRI-EEG among adults with ASD (Jochaut et al., 2015). Longitudinal studies are needed to determine whether θ/γ coupling further deteriorates during childhood development and adolescence.

**Reduced δ-power but not δ-range speech tracking is a specific predictor of language reception in ASD**

Our results also show reduced δ power and δ-range speech tracking among children with ASD. δ-range activity signals phrase-level chunks, which do not necessarily have a physical/acoustic counterpart in the speech stimulus (Boucher et al., 2019). δ Activity is known to reflect more endogenous processes than θ-range syllable tracking (Molinaro and Lizarazu, 2018), which are argued to pertain to syntactic grouping (Ding et al., 2014;

Meyer et al., 2017) or prosody processing (Ghitza, 2017; Teoh et al., 2019). The fact that reduced δ activity predicted speech reception in ASD might therefore denote altered syntactic phrasal chunking and is compatible with previous observations suggesting both weaker linguistic (Haesen et al., 2011) and intonation processing (Benitez-Burraco and Murphy, 2016). Although our results align well with these previous observations and hypotheses, δ-range speech tracking did not only predict speech reception scores but also expressive language, and fine motor skills (assessed with MSEL), suggesting the role of these oscillatory features in ASD goes beyond the sole domain of speech reception. Despite the collinearity across MSEL subscales, neural tracking also predicted language development when assessed with VABS-II. While θ tracking characterized language development in TDs, individuals with ASD showed δ tracking instead. Logically, the more endogenous δ tracking deficit has a more global impact on the cognitive profile of children with ASD and could also be a parameter that could possibly be adjusted using adapted neurostimulation methods.

**β/γ Cross-frequency coupling: a speech reception singularity in young children with ASD**

During continuous speech perception, top-down predictive mechanisms are also important, particularly to make sense of
Disruptions of synchronous neural activity in the cortex[128, 129] and other brain structures, such as the cerebellum and hippocampus[130-136], could lead to fragmented speech processing, abstraction difficulties in the auditory modality, and difficulties to map atypical auditory representations into appropriately timed articulatory sequences. Here, we found that among many neural oscillation anomalies, the most promising feature lies in cross-frequency coupling patterns, particularly the theta/gamma coupling that has an abnormal topography in ASD and the low-beta/low-gamma coupling that is wholly atypical. These two anomalies could be an ideal entry point for targeted brain stimulation interventions aiming at down-regulating the abnormal low-beta/low-gamma coupling, and re-localizing the typical auditory theta/low-gamma coupling to left auditory regions. The next step in this line of research will be to test whether a simple theta/gamma stimulation at the exact right frequencies (5Hz by 30 Hz) using, e.g., mild transcranial alternating current stimulation could indeed both disrupt low-beta/low-gamma and relocate theta/low-gamma activity to auditory regions. In combination with a close monitoring of behavior and EEG activity, such a trial would also allow us to firmly establish causality between auditory oscillatory activity and the speech reception ability in children with ASD.

## Conclusion

Among all speech-related oscillatory alterations we report here in very young children diagnosed with ASD, cross-frequency features are those that predicted most closely individual language reception abilities. Cross-frequency coupling features hence appear as a promising language development endophenotype, bridging the gap from genetics to behavior, enabling accurate predictions of language development, and offering a precise entry point for specific interventions targeting the normalization of oscillatory functions.

## Author Contributions

Data acquisition and clinical resources, M.S., N. K. and H.F.S.; Study design, X.W. and A-L.G.; Data analysis, XW, J.D. and S.M., T.A.R.; Writing-original draft, X.W., J.D., A-L.G.; Writing-review-editing, X.W., S.M., A-L.G. and M.S.; Supervision, A-L.G.

## Acknowledgment

We thank Lucia Cantonas and Timothée Proix for their experts' technical support. This work
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 9.** Predicted VABS-II (Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales) development level in young children from EEG oscillatory activity using a regularized linear model (Lasso). A, B, δ And β power significantly predict language reception in TD (A), and δ tracking significantly predicts language reception in ASD (B). C, θ/low-γ PAC specifically predicts language reception in TD (C), whereas β/low-γ specifically predicts language reception among young children with ASD (C, left panel). R² values represent the part of the variance that is explained by the features for each target variable. D, Language reception prediction from β-γ coupling (r = -0.45, p = 0.01). Asterisks indicate significant R², p < 0.05; δ refers to δ, θ refers to θ, β refers to low-β, γ refers to low-γ. For the cluster locations, see corresponding scalp topographies on each panel C. The missing bars indicate the R² is close to zero.</figcaption></figure>

acoustic signals that might be unclear or ambiguous, or simply to
follow the speaker's speech rate. Typically, predictive mecha-
nisms are signaled by the low-β band (Fontolan et al., 2014),
which we found to be weaker among ASD compared with TD
children around the mid-central region. Low-β neural activity is
argued to mediate top-down information passing (Chao et al.,
2018; Bastos et al., 2020), allowing for precise temporal (Fujioka
et al., 2012) but also content-specific predictions (Chao et al.,
2018). In speech processing, this frequency band could provide
top-down integration constants that are intermediate between
θ-syllabic and γ-phonemic ranges (Pefkou et al., 2017; Giraud,

2020). By alternating with bottom-up γ phases (Fontolan et al.,
2014), β activity phases could stabilize representations in the
face of the ever-changing acoustic input. Therefore, weaker β ac-
tivity in ASD might reflect a reduced deployment of predictive
mechanisms, altering both the ability to predict when acoustic
signals can be expected and what content they carry. This inter-
pretation is globally in line with alterations of phasic predictive
learning in a mouse model of autism (Kosaki and Watanabe,
2016) and more generally with the hypothesis of impaired pre-
dictive coding in ASD (Courchesne and Allen, 1997; Sinha et al.,
2014; Van de Cruys et al., 2014).
is supported by grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF 320030B_182855, 190084 and 51NF40_185897), and China Scholarship Council (Ph.D. grant to XW). The Cartool software (cartoolcommunity.unige.ch) has been programmed by Denis Brunet, from the Functional Brain Mapping Laboratory (FBMLab), Geneva, Switzerland, and is supported by the Center for Biomedical Imaging (CIBM) of Geneva and Lausanne.

**Declaration of interests**

There is no conflict of interest.

**Data and code availability**

The unprocessed datasets for this manuscript are not publicly available yet, because analysis of these data is ongoing as part of a longitudinal study, and results are expected to be published in the future. When all data has been published, requests to access the datasets should be directed to Dr Marie Schaer, [marie.schaer@unige.ch](mailto:marie.schaer@unige.ch), the custom MATLAB analysis scripts will be made available upon request to the Lead Contact, Xiaoyue Wang (xiaoyue.wang@unige.ch)
Language reception prediction from theta-gamma PAC in TD

**A** Mid-central electrodes

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

**B** Posterior-occipital electrodes

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 10.** Language reception prediction from θ-γ coupling (PAC) in TD. **A**, Predicted language reception from cross-frequency coupling (MI) sampled from mid-central electrodes (r<sub>MSEL</sub> = 0.30, *p* = 0.05; r<sub>VABS</sub> = 0.52, *p* = 0.002). **B**, Predicted language reception from cross-frequency coupling (MI) sampled from posterior-occipital electrodes (r = 0.36, *p* = 0.03). For exact cluster locations, see scalp topographies.</figcaption></figure>

The key finding of this report is the atypical low-β/low-γ PAC found among children with ASD in conjunction with weaker β power. A PAC anomaly involving the low-β phase might follow from the reduced global β power in ASD, possibly allowing low-γ and γ bursts to occur more strongly within β troughs. Reduced β gating could result in letting past neural activity that is unrelated to the predicted speech structure, possibly leading to a feeling of being overwhelmed by unformatted acoustic inputs to which no linguistic value or meaning can be attributed. The presence of an abnormal low-β/low-γ coupling in ASD was not influenced by atypical visual scene exploration in ASD, as possible gaze differences were controlled for in the statistical analysis. This interpretation aligns well with the clinically described auditory avoidance in ASD children (Haesen et al., 2011; Top et al., 2018). The other hypothesis would be the existence of a stronger β state where new sensory input is less easily incorporated, and where subjects are in a dominant “internally driven state,” similar to schizophrenic symptoms (Grace, 1991). According to the communication-through-coherence theory (Fries, 2005, 2015), this remarkable β-γ PAC anomaly could be associated with the persistence of the status quo state and thus less flexibility in cognitive control (Engel and Fries, 2010; Herring et al., 2019; Wagner et al., 2019). The low-β/low-γ coupling may suggest a greater endogenous/exogenous processing ratio in ASD, particularly when exposed to speech stimuli. The observed abnormalities in neural speech processing could result from strong endogenous neural patterns, leaving subjects locked into existing “internally driven states” with a reduced capacity to shift to and integrate novel sensory information (Pogosyan et al., 2009). The difficulty in processing new and fast-changing sensory stimuli is likely associated with a reduced amount of down-propagating prediction errors.

**Cross-frequency oscillation features: a potential endophenotype for targeted interventions**

As cortical oscillations arise from excitatory-inhibitory interactions within and across specific cortical laminae (Cannon et al., 2014), auditory oscillation anomalies represent a plausible functional counterpart to structural disorganization and disruption of cortical inhibition previously shown in ASD (Rojas et al., 2008; Gandal et al., 2010). A recent study directly relates neural oscillations with the expression of numerous genes, several of

which are involved in ASD (Berto et al., 2021), e.g., LNX1, DGKI, KCNQ5, DCX, SHANK2, etc. Therefore, speech reception difficulties in ASD could directly result from structural anomalies induced by mutations of genes (Caubit et al., 2016) controlling neuronal interactions, notably at the synaptic level (Caubit et al., 2016).

Disruptions of synchronous neural activity in the cortex (Dinstein et al., 2011) and other brain structures, such as the cerebellum and hippocampus (Donovan and Basson, 2017), could lead to fragmented speech processing, abstraction difficulties in the auditory modality, and difficulties to map atypical auditory representations into appropriately timed articulatory sequences. Here, we found that among many neural oscillation anomalies, the most promising features lie in cross-frequency coupling patterns, particularly the θ/γ coupling that has an abnormal topography in ASD and the low-β/low-γ coupling that is wholly atypical. These two anomalies could be an ideal entry point for targeted brain stimulation interventions aiming at downregulating the abnormal low-β/low-γ coupling, re-localizing the typical auditory θ/low-γ coupling to left auditory regions, and upregulating θ/γ coupling that is classically observed in the superior temporal cortex region. The next step in this line of research will be to test whether a simple θ/γ stimulation at the exact right frequencies (5 Hz by 30 Hz) using, e.g., mild transcriptional alternating current stimulation could indeed both disrupt low-β/low-γ and relocate θ/low-γ activity to auditory regions. In combination with close monitoring of behavior and EEG activity, such a trial would also allow us to firmly establish a direct link between auditory oscillatory activity and the speech reception ability in children with ASD.

In conclusion, our results confirmed the relevance of θ/low-γ coupling in speech reception in very young TD children and showed that cross-frequency patterns were markedly disrupted in children diagnosed with ASD. While θ/γ coupling closely predicted individual language reception abilities in TD children, the speech reception deficit in ASD was predicted by the unusual presence of β/γ coupling in auditory-sensitive brain regions. Cross-frequency coupling features appear as a promising language development endophenotype, bridging the gap from genetics to behavior while offering a precise entry point for interventions targeting the normalization of cross-frequency oscillatory functions. Although our
# Figure legends

## Figure 1 Comparison of frequency-power in 31 children with ASD and 33 TD peers.

Children with ASD had reduced delta, beta, and low-gamma power and comparable theta power relative to their TD peers. Asterisks in topographies indicate group differences after cluster correction (cluster-based non-parameters permutation tests, cluster corrected P = 0.05).

## Figure 2 Neural speech-tracking results.

(A) Schematics of the Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) model approach. The filtered EEG signal and stimulus envelope were entered into the MLR. For the cross-validation procedure, envelopes of speech and EEG signal of 9 folds with time-lag shifting were used to fit an MLR for each participant, which was then used to predict the envelope of the 10-th speech fold. The resulting model was tested by correlating the predicted envelope with the actual speech envelope in the test segment.

(B and C) Correlation coefficients between the reconstructed and real envelope, in all channels together (B) and each single-channel separately (C). Correlation coefficients were significantly reduced in ASD relative to TD in the delta and theta bands.

Error bars in B represent standard error, asterisks in C show group differences from non-parameter cluster-based permutation tests, \*P < 0.05. See also Figure S4.

## Figure 3 Phase-amplitude coupling.

(A and C) Speech-induced oscillatory power is characterized by a strong power peak in low-frequency bands (1-10 Hz) in both groups and a marked power trough in the low-beta band (10-15 Hz) in the ASD group over (A) central-electrodes selected from EEG power group differences and (C) posterior-occipital-electrodes selected from neural tracking group differences.

(B and D) Phase-amplitude comodulograms produced by statistically comparing modulation index (MI)-values in the speech and baseline periods over central-electrodes (B) and posterior-occipital-electrodes (D). Dotted lines represent significant differences in phase-amplitude coupling. For exact cluster locations, see topographies on A and C. For a quick appraisal of fp and fa ranges in each group, see the rightmost panel (fp : frequency of phase; fa : frequency of amplitude, nonparametric cluster-based statistics, cluster-corrected P < 0.05). See also Figure S2A.

## Figure 4 Predicting ASD severity from EEG oscillatory activity.

(A) prediction accuracy of ASD symptom severity using the EEG power, neural tracking
study alone cannot establish causality, demonstrating the presence of oscillatory anomalies at the age of diagnosis is an important step toward reaching a causal explanation for speech reception difficulties in ASD.

## References

Aru J, Aru J, Priesemann V, Wibral M, Lana L, Pipa G, Singer W, Vicente R (2015) Untangling cross-frequency coupling in neuroscience. Curr Opin Neurobiol 31:51–61.

Attaheri A, Choisdealbha ÁN, Di Liberto GM, Rocha S, Brusini P, Mead N, Olawole-Scott H, Boutris P, Gibbon S, Williams I, Grey C, Flanagan S, Goswami U (2022) Delta- and theta-band cortical tracking and phase-amplitude coupling to sung speech by infants. Neuroimage 247:118698.

Audacity Team (2021) Audacity(R): Free Audio Editor and Recorder [Computer application], Version 2.2.1. Retrieved December 6th 2017 from https://audacityteam.org/.

Bastos AM, Lundqvist M, Waite AS, Kopell N, Miller EK (2020) Layer and rhythm specificity for predictive routing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 117:31459–31469.

Beker S, Foxe JJ, Molholm S (2018) Ripe for solution: delayed development of multisensory processing in autism and its remediation. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 84:182–192.

Benitez-Burraco A, Murphy E (2016) The Oscillopathic Nature of Language Deficits in Autism: From Genes to Language Evolution. Front Hum Neurosci 10:120.

Berto S, Fontenot MR, Seger S, Ayhan F, Caglayan E, Kulkarni A, Douglas C, Tamminga CA, Lega BC, Konopka G (2021) Gene-expression correlates of the oscillatory signatures supporting human episodic memory encoding. Nat Neurosci 24:554–564.

Botev ZI, Grotowski JF, Kroese DP (2010) Kernel Density Estimation Via Diffusion. Ann Stat 38:2916–2957.

Boashash B (2015) Time-frequency signal analysis and processing: a comprehensive reference. San Diego: Academic Press.

Boucher J (2012) Research review: structural language in autistic spectrum disorder – characteristics and causes. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 53:219–233.

Boucher VJ, Gilbert AC, Jemel B (2019) The Role of Low-frequency Neural Oscillations in Speech Processing: Revisiting Delta Entrainment. J Cogn Neurosci 31:1205–1215.

Buzsaki G, Wang XJ (2012) Mechanisms of gamma oscillations. Annu Rev Neurosci 35:203–225.

Cabrera L, Gervain J (2020) Speech perception at birth: the brain encodes fast and slow temporal information. Sci Adv 6:eaba7830.

Calvert GA, Bullmore ET, Brammer MJ, Campbell R, Williams SC, McGuire PK, Woodruff PW, Iversen SD, David AS (1997) Activation of auditory cortex during silent lipreading. Science 276:593–596.

Cannon J, McCarthy MM, Lee S, Lee J, Borgers C, Whittington MA, Kopell N (2014) Neurosystems: brain rhythms and cognitive processing. Eur J Neurosci 39:705–719.

Canolty RT, Knight RT (2010) The functional role of cross-frequency coupling. Trends Cogn Sci 14:506–515.

Caubit X et al. (2016) TSHZ3 deletion causes an autism syndrome and defects in cortical projection neurons. Nat Genet 48:1359–1369.

Chao ZC, Takaura K, Wang L, Fujii N, Dehaene S (2018) Large-scale cortical networks for hierarchical prediction and prediction error in the primate brain. Neuron 100:1252–1266.e3.

Chartier J, Anumanchipalli GK, Johnson K, Chang EF (2018) Encoding of Articulatory Kinematic Trajectories in Human Speech Sensorimotor Cortex. Neuron 98:1042–1054 e4.

Cho KW, Lin F, Song C, Xu X, Hartley-McAndrew M, Doody KR, Xu W (2016) Gaze-Wasserstein: A quantitative screening approach to autism spectrum disorders. In, pp 1–8. IEEE.

Combrisson E, Jerbi K (2015) Exceeding chance level by chance: The caveat of theoretical chance levels in brain signal classification and statistical assessment of decoding accuracy. J Neurosci Methods 250:126–136.

Courchesne E, Allen G (1997) Prediction and preparation, fundamental functions of the cerebellum. Learn Mem 4:1–35.

Crosse MJ, Di Liberto GM, Bednar A, Lalor EC (2016) The Multivariate Temporal Response Function (mTRF) Toolbox: A MATLAB Toolbox for Relating Neural Signals to Continuous Stimuli. Front Hum Neurosci 10:604.

Delorme A, Makeig S (2004) EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J Neurosci Methods 134:9–21.

Di Liberto GM, Lalor EC (2017) Indexing cortical entrainment to natural speech at the phonemic level: Methodological considerations for applied research. Hearing Research 348:70–77.

Di Liberto GM, Peter V, Kalashnikova M, Goswami U, Burnham D, Lalor EC (2018) Atypical cortical entrainment to speech in the right hemisphere underpins phonemic deficits in dyslexia. Neuroimage 175:70–79.

Ding N, Chatterjee M, Simon JZ (2014) Robust cortical entrainment to the speech envelope relies on the spectro-temporal fine structure. Neuroimage 88:41–46.

Dinstein I, Pierce K, Eyler L, Solso S, Malach R, Behrmann M, Courchesne E (2011) Disrupted neural synchronization in toddlers with autism. Neuron 70:1218–1225.

Donovan AP, Basson MA (2017) The neuroanatomy of autism - a developmental perspective. J Anat 230:4–15.

Dvorak D, Fenton AA (2014) Toward a proper estimation of phase-amplitude coupling in neural oscillations. J Neurosci Methods 225:42–56.

Engel AK, Fries P (2010) Beta-band oscillations–signalling the status quo? Curr Opin Neurobiol 20:156–165.

Feng W, Störmer VS, Martinez A, McDonald JJ, Hillyard SA (2017) Involuntary orienting of attention to a sound desynchronizes the occipital alpha rhythm and improves visual perception. Neuroimage 150:318–328.

Fiedler L, Wostmann M, Graversen C, Brandmeyer A, Lunner T, Obleser J (2017) Single-channel in-ear-EEG detects the focus of auditory attention to concurrent tone streams and mixed speech. J Neural Eng 14:036020.

Fontolan L, Morillon B, Liegeois-Chauvel C, Giraud AL (2014) The contribution of frequency-specific activity to hierarchical information processing in the human auditory cortex. Nat Commun 5:4694.

Franchini M, Zöller D, Gentaz E, Glaser B, Wood de Wilde H, Kojovic N, Eliez S, Schaer M (2018) Early adaptive functioning trajectories in preschoolers with autism spectrum disorders. J Pediatr Psychol 43:800–813.

Fries P (2005) A mechanism for cognitive dynamics: neuronal communication through neuronal coherence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9:474–480.

Fries P (2015) Rhythms for Cognition: Communication through Coherence. Neuron 88:220–235.

Fujioka T, Trainor LJ, Large EW, Ross B (2012) Internalized timing of isochronous sounds is represented in neuromagnetic β oscillations. J Neurosci 32:1791–1802.

Gandal MJ, Edgar JC, Ehrlichman RS, Mehta M, Roberts TPL, Siegel SJ (2010) Validating γ oscillations and delayed auditory responses as translational biomarkers of autism. Biol Psychiatry 68:1100–1106.

Ghitza O (2011) Linking speech perception and neurophysiology: speech decoding guided by cascaded oscillators locked to the input rhythm. Front Psychol 2:130.

Ghitza O (2013) The theta-syllable: a unit of speech information defined by cortical function. Front Psychol 4:138.

Ghitza O (2017) Acoustic-driven delta rhythms as prosodic markers. Lang Cogn Neurosci 32:545–561.

Giraud AL (2020) Oscillations for all A commentary on Meyer, Sun and Martin (2020). Lang Cogn Neurosci 35:1106–1113.

Giraud AL, Poeppel D (2012) Cortical oscillations and speech processing: emerging computational principles and operations. Nat Neurosci 15:511–517.

Goswami U (2019) Speech rhythm and language acquisition: an amplitude modulation phase hierarchy perspective. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1453:67–78.

Grace AA (1991) Phasic versus tonic dopamine release and the modulation of dopamine system responsivity: a hypothesis for the etiology of schizophrenia. Neuroscience 41:1–24.

Gross J, Hoogenboom N, Thut G, Schyns P, Panzeri S, Belin P, Garrod S (2013) Speech rhythms and multiplexed oscillatory sensory coding in the human brain. PLoS Biol 11:e1001752.

Haesen B, Boets B, Wagemans J (2011) A review of behavioural and electrophysiological studies on auditory processing and speech perception in autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 5:701–714.

Hasson U, Avidan G, Gelbard H, Vallines I, Harel M, Minshew N, Behrmann M (2009) Shared and idiosyncratic cortical activation patterns in autism revealed under continuous real-life viewing conditions. Autism Res 2:220–231.
based on all electrodes)

(B)prediction accuracy of ASD symptom severity using the phase-amplitude coupling
 cluster-based)

The red line shows the chance level determined by an inverse binomial distribution. For the
exact location of clusters, see topographies on top of panel B.

**Figure 5 Predicting development level in young children from EEG oscillatory activity using a regularized linear model (Lasso).**

(A and B) Low-gamma power significantly predicts Language expression in TD (A), delta-/theta-tracking significantly predict all tested cognitive components but language reception for theta tracking in ASD, and none in TD (B). (C) Theta/low-gamma PAC specifically predicted language reception in TD (C), whereas beta/low-gamma specifically predicted language reception in young children with ASD (C, left panel). R² values represent the proportion of the variance that is explained by the features for each target variable. (D) Language reception prediction from beta-gamma coupling (r=-0.33, P = 0.04).

Asterisks indicate the significant R², P<0.05; β refers to low-beta, γ refers to low-gamma. For exact locations of clusters, see topographies on top of each panel in C. The missing bars indicate the R² is close to zero. See also Figure S5

Tables

<table><caption>Table 1. Participants’ demographic information and group comparison of behavioral tests.</caption>
  <thead>
    <tr>
      <th rowspan="3"></th>
      <th rowspan="3"></th>
      <th colspan="6">Group</th>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <th colspan="2">ASD (N=31, 6 females)</th>
      <th colspan="2">TD (N=33, 11 females)</th>
      <th rowspan="2">t(df)</th>
      <th rowspan="2">p</th>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <th>Mean</th>
      <th>SD</th>
      <th>Mean</th>
      <th>SD</th>
    </tr>
  </thead>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>Age (in years)</td>
      <td></td>
      <td>3.09</td>
      <td>0.91</td>
      <td>2.92</td>
      <td>1.30</td>
      <td>0.62(62)</td>
      <td>0.54</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td rowspan="4">Mullen Scales of Early Learning</td>
      <td>Visual Reception</td>
      <td>87.18</td>
      <td>26.37</td>
      <td>126.13</td>
      <td>27.28</td>
      <td>-5.53(56)</td>
      <td>8.79E-7</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Fine Motor</td>
      <td>82.42</td>
      <td>21.29</td>
      <td>103.22</td>
      <td>12.01</td>
      <td>-4.54(56)</td>
      <td>3.06E-5</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Expressive Language</td>
      <td>58.52</td>
      <td>31.69</td>
      <td>104.77</td>
      <td>24.08</td>
      <td>-6.16(55)</td>
      <td>9.18E-8</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Receptive Language</td>
      <td>62.12</td>
      <td>33.37</td>
      <td>117.62</td>
      <td>18.98</td>
      <td>-7.71(56)</td>
      <td>2.33E-10</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

* Mullen Scales of Early Learning (assessment of cognitive and motor strengths and weakness in children).

o Visual Reception & Fine Motor measure the child's nonverbal ability in order to estimate the overall developmental level.

o Expressive language & Receptive Language measure the child's ability to process linguistic input and to use the language productively.
Herring JD, Esterer S, Marshall TR, Jensen O, Bergmann TO (2019) Low-frequency alternating current stimulation rhythmically suppresses gamma-band oscillations and impairs perceptual performance. *Neuroimage* 184:440–449.

Hovsepyan S, Olasagasti I, Giraud AL (2020) Combining predictive coding and neural oscillations enables online syllable recognition in natural speech. *Nat Commun* 11:3117.

Hyafil A, Fontolan L, Kabdebon C, Gutkin B, Giraud AL (2015a) Speech encoding by coupled cortical theta and gamma oscillations. *Elife* 4:e06213.

Hyafil A, Giraud AL, Fontolan L, Gutkin B (2015b) Neural cross-frequency coupling: connecting architectures, mechanisms, and functions. *Trends Neurosci* 38:725–740.

Jessen S, Fiedler L, Münte TF, Obleser J (2019) Quantifying the individual auditory and visual brain response in 7-month-old infants watching a brief cartoon movie. *Neuroimage* 202:116060.

Jochaut D, Lehongre K, Saitovitch A, Devauchelle AD, Olasagasti I, Chabane N, Zilbovicius M, Giraud AL (2015) Atypical coordination of cortical oscillations in response to speech in autism. *Front Hum Neurosci* 9:171.

Kasari C, Kaiser A, Goods K, Nietfeld J, Mathy P, Landa R, Murphy S, Almirall D (2014) Communication interventions for minimally verbal children with autism: a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial. *J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry* 53:635–646.

Kayarian FB, Jannati A, Rotenberg A, Santarnecchi E (2020) Targeting gamma-related pathophysiology in autism spectrum disorder using transcranial electrical stimulation: opportunities and challenges. *Autism Res* 13:1051–1071.

Kojovic N, Cekic S, Castańón SH, Franchini M, Sperdin HF, Sandini C, Jan RK, Zöller D, Hadid LB, Bavelierd B, Schaer M (2022) Unraveling the developmental dynamic of visual exploration of social interactions in autism. *bioRxiv* 290106. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.14.290106.

Kosaki Y, Watanabe S (2016) Impaired Pavlovan predictive learning between temporally phasic but not static events in autism-model strain mice. *Neurobiol Learn Mem* 134 Pt B:304–316.

Ladanyi E, Persici V, Fiveash A, Tillmann B, Gordon RL (2020) Is atypical rhythm a risk factor for developmental speech and language disorders? *Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci* 15:28.

Latrèche K, Kojovic N, Franchini M, Schaer M (2021) Attention to face as a predictor of developmental change and treatment outcome in young children with autism spectrum disorder. *Biomedicines* 9:942.

Le Van Quyen M, Foucher J, Lachaux J, Rodriguez E, Lutz A, Martinerie J, Varela FJ (2001) Comparison of Hilbert transform and wavelet methods for the analysis of neuronal synchrony. *J Neurosci Methods* 111:83–98.

Lee A, Ryu H, Kim J-K, Jeong E (2018) Multisensory integration strategy for modality-specific loss of inhibition control in older adults. *International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health* 15:718.

Lehongre K, Ramus F, Villiermet N, Schwartz D, Giraud AL (2011) Altered low- sampling in auditory cortex accounts for the three main facets of dyslexia. *Neuron* 72:1080–1090.

Leong V, Byrne E, Clackson K, Harte N, Lam S, Barbaro K d, Wass S (2017) Infants’ neural oscillatory processing of theta-rate speech patterns exceeds adults’. *bioRxiv* 108852. https://doi.org/10.1101/108852.

Lezoray S (2013a) Trotro es tres amoureux. In: Trotro, p. 2. 5 minutes: Storimages.

Lezoray S (2013b) Trotro et la boite a secrets. In: Trotro, p. 2. 5 minutes: Storimages.

Lezoray S (2013c) Trotro l'anniversaire de nana. In: Trotro, p. 2. 5 minutes: Storimages.

Lezoray S (2013d) Trotro part en vacance. In: Trotro, p. 2. 5 minutes: Storimages.

Lizarazu M, Lallier M, Molinaro N (2019) Phase-amplitude coupling between theta and gamma oscillations adapts to speech rate. *Ann N Y Acad Sci* 1453:140–152.

Lord C, Risi S, Lambrecht L, Cook EH, Leventhal BL, DiLavore PC, Pickles A, Rutter M (2000) The autism diagnostic observation schedule-generic: a standard measure of social and communication deficits associated with the spectrum of autism. *J Autism Dev Disord* 30:205–223.

Lord C, Rutter M, DiLavore P, Risi S, Gotham K, Bishop S (2012) Autism diagnostic observation schedule: ADOS-2. West Psychol J Psychoeduc Assess 32:88–92.

Mai G, Minett JW, Wang WS (2016) Delta, theta, beta, and gamma brain oscillations index levels of auditory sentence processing. *Neuroimage* 133:516–528.

Mamashli F, Khan S, Bharadwaj H, Michmizos K, Ganesan S, Garel KA, Ali Hashmi J, Herbert MR, Hämäläinen M, Kenet T (2017) Auditory processing in noise is associated with complex patterns of disrupted functional connectivity in autism spectrum disorder. *Autism Res* 10:631–647.

Maris E, Oostenveld R (2007) Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data. *J Neurosci Methods* 164:177–190.

Marchesotti S, Nicolle J, Merlet I, Arnal LH, Donoghue JP, Giraud A-L (2020) Selective enhancement of low-gamma activity by tACS improves phonemic processing and reading accuracy in dyslexia. *PLoS Biol* 18:e300833.

McDonald JJ, Teder-SaElejaErvi WA, Hillyard SA (2000) Involuntary orienting to sound improves visual perception. *Nature* 407:906–908.

McKeever L, Cleland J, Delafield-Butt J (2019) Aetiology of speech sound errors in autism. In: Speech production and perception: learning and memory (Cleland J, Fuschs S, and Rochet-Cappelan A, eds), pp 109–138. Berlin: Peter Lang.

Menn KH, Ward EK, Braukmann R, van den Boomen C, Buitelaar J, Hunnius S, Snijders TM (2022) Neural tracking in infancy predicts language development in children with and without family history of autism. *Neurobiol Lang* (Camb) 3:495–514.

Meyer L, Henry MJ, Gaston P, Schmuck N, Friederici AD (2017) Linguistic bias modulates interpretation of speech via neural delta-band oscillations. *Cereb Cortex* 27:4293–4302.

Michel CM, Brunet D (2019) EEG source imaging: a practical review of the analysis steps. *Front Neurol* 10:325.

Molinaro N, Lizarazu M (2018) Delta(but not theta)-band cortical entrainment involves speech-specific processing. *Eur J Neurosci* 48:2642–2650.

Morein-Zamir S, Soto-Faraco S, Kingstone A (2003) Auditory capture of vision: examining temporal ventriloquism. *Cognitive Brain Research* 17:154–163.

Morillon B, Lehongre K, Frackowiak RS, Ducorps A, Kleinschmidt A, Poeppel D, Giraud AL (2010) Neurophysiological origin of human brain asymmetry for speech and language Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107:18688–18693.

Mullen EM (1995) Mullen scales of early learning. *Circle Pines: AGS*.

Nadig A, Shaw H (2012) Acoustic and perceptual measurement of expressive prosody in high-functioning autism: increased pitch range and what it means to listeners. *J Autism Dev Disord* 42:499–511.

Nomi JS, Uddin LQ (2015) Developmental changes in large-scale network connectivity in autism. *Neuroimage Clin* 7:732–741.

Olsen A (2012) The Tobii I-VT fixation filter. *Tobii Technology* 21:4–19.

Oostenveld R, Fries P, Maris E, Schoffelen JM (2011) FieldTrip: Open Source Software for Advanced Analysis of MEG, EEG, and Invasive Electrophysiological Data. *Comput Intell Neurosci* 2011:156869.

Orlova DY, Zimmerman N, Meehan S, Meehan C, Waters J, Ghosn EEB, Filatenkov A, Kolyagin GA, Gernez Y, Tsuda S, Moore W, Moss RB, Herzenberg LA, Walther G (2016) Earth Mover’s Distance (EMD): A True Metric for Comparing Biomarker Expression Levels in Cell Populations. *Plos One* 11:e0151859.

Ortiz Barajas MC, Guevara R, Gervain J (2021) The origins and development of speech envelope tracking during the first months of life. *Dev Cogn Neurosci* 48:100915.

Paul R, Augustyn A, Klin A, Volkmar FR (2005) Perception and production of prosody by speakers with autism spectrum disorders. *J Autism Dev Disord* 35:205–220.

Pefkou M, Arnal LH, Fontolan L, Giraud AL (2017) θ-Band and β-band neural activity reflects independent syllable tracking and comprehension of time-compressed speech. *J Neurosci* 37:7930–7938.

Pellegrino F, Coupé C, Marsico E (2011) Across-language perspective on speech information rate. *Language* 87:539–558.

Poeppel D (2003) The analysis of speech in different temporal integration windows: cerebral lateralization as ‘asymmetric sampling in time.’ *Speech Commun* 41:245–255.

Pogosyan A, Gaynor LD, Eusebio A, Brown P (2009) Boosting Cortical Activity at Beta-Band Frequencies Slows Movement in Humans. *Current Biology* 19:1637–1641.

Press R (2015) Developmental milestones of young children. *Saint Paul: Redleaf Press.*
# STAR Methods

## Inclusion procedure

Sixty-four children (mean age: 3.00±1.12, seventeen females) with and without ASD drawn from the Geneva Autism Cohort [137, 138] underwent a large battery of tests, including EEG recordings while they watches movies (French-cartoon for young children: TROTRO [69-72]). All children were recruited via specialized clinical centers or announcements in the community. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Geneva Hospital in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. A phone interview and a medical, developmental history questionnaire were completed before the initial visit of all participants; for the typically developing children, the following were considered exclusion criteria: any suspicion of altered development, a history of neurological or psychological disorder, and family history of ASD in first-degree relatives. Parents gave their informed consent prior to inclusion in the study. For all ASD children, the clinical diagnosis was formally corroborated using the Autism Diagnosis Observation Schedule-Generic (ADOS-G) [139] or the Autism Diagnosis Observation Schedule, second edition (ADOS-2) [140]. Data from 31 children with ASD (mean age: 3.09 ± 0.91) and 33 age-matched typically developing peers (mean age: 2.92± 1.30) were retained for data analyses (age difference: unpaired t(62) = 0.62, *P* = 0.54, see Table 1 and Supplementary Table1 for participant characteristics). Table 1 described the clinical characteristics of the ASD and the TD samples. Children with and without ASD were significantly impaired relative to their control peers across all used behavioral assessments, including language reception, language expression, visual reception, and fine motor.

## Cognitive skills measure

Developmental functioning was assessed using the Mullen Scales of Early Learning (MSEL) [141], which comprise five subscales, namely gross motor, visual reception, fine motor, receptive language, and expressive language scales. The four latter scales are so-called “cognitive scales” and are used to derive an Early Learning Composite score as a measure of overall developmental functioning. The subscales of visual reception and fine motor skills measure nonverbal ability, while receptive language and expressive language measure the ability to process linguistic input and use the language productively. The child receives a “1” for correct response and “0” for incorrect response to age-adapted items. The subtest raw
Robinson CW, Sloutsky VM (2019) Two mechanisms underlying auditory dominance: Overshadowing and response competition. J Exp Child Psychol 178:317–340.

Rohrbein F, Goddard P, Schneider M, James G, Guo K (2015) How does image noise affect actual and predicted human gaze allocation in assessing image quality? Vision Res 112:11–25.

Rojas DC, Maharajh K, Teale P, Rogers SJ (2008) Reduced neural synchronization of gamma-band MEG oscillations in first-degree relatives of children with autism. BMC Psychiatry 8:66.

Rubner Y, Tomasi C, Guibas LJ (2000) The Earth Mover's Distance as a metric for image retrieval. Int J Comput Vision 40:99–121.

Schelinski S, von Kriegstein K (2020) Brief report: speech-in-noise recognition and the relation to vocal pitch perception in adults with autism spectrum disorder and typical development. J Autism Dev Disord 50:356–363.

Seymour RA, Rippon G, Kessler K (2017) The Detection of Phase Amplitude Coupling during Sensory Processing. Front Neurosci 11:487.

Sinha P, Kjelgaard MM, Gandhi TK, Tsourides K, Cardinaux AL, Pantazis D, Diamond SP, Held RM (2014) Autism as a disorder of prediction. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111:15220–15225.

Slutsky DA, Recanzone GH (2001) Temporal and spatial dependency of the ventriloquism effect. Neuroreport 12:7–10.

Solazzo S, Kojovic N, Robain F, Schäur M (2021) Measuring the emergence of specific abilities in young children with autism spectrum disorders: the example of early hyperlexic traits. Brain Sci 11:692.

Sparrow SS, Balla DA, Cicchetti DV, Doll EA (2005) Vineland-II, vineland adaptive behavior scales: survey forms manual, Ed 2. Minneapolis, Circle Pines: NCS Pearson, Inc.; AGS Publishing.

Sperdin HF, Coito A, Kojovic N, Rihs TA, Jan RK, Franchini M, Plomp G, Vulliemoz S, Eliez S, Michel CM, Schäur M (2018) Early alterations of social brain networks in young children with autism. Elife 7:e31670.

Stropahl M, Bauer A-KR, Debener S, Bleichner MG (2018) Source-Modeling Auditory Processes of EEG Data Using EEGLAB and Brainstorm. Front Neurosci 12:309.

Sumby WH, Pollack I (1954) Visual Contribution to Speech Intelligibility in Noise. J Acoust Soc Am 26:212–215.

Teoh ES, Cappelloni MS, Lalor EC (2019) Prosodic pitch processing is represented in delta-band EEG and is dissociable from the cortical tracking of other acoustic and phonetic features. Eur J Neurosci 50:3831–3842.

Tibshirani R (1996) Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) 58:267–288.

Top DN, Luke SG, Stephenson KG, South M (2018) Psychophysiological Arousal and Auditory Sensitivity in a Cross-Clinical Sample of Autistic and Non-autistic Anxious Adults. Front Psychiatry 9:783.

Tort AB, Komorowski R, Eichenbaum H, Kopell N (2010) Measuring phase-amplitude coupling between neuronal oscillations of different frequencies. J Neurophysiol 104:1195–1210.

Van de Cruys S, Evers K, Van der Hallen R, Van Eylen L, Boets B, de-Wit L, Wagemans J (2014) Precise minds in uncertain worlds: predictive coding in autism. Psychol Rev 121:649–675.

Wang X, Wang S, Fan Y, Huang D, Zhang Y (2017) Speech-specific categorical perception deficit in autism: an event-related potential study of lexical tone processing in Mandarin-speaking children. Sci Rep 7:43254.

Wagner J, Makeig S, Hoopes D, Gola M (2019) Can Oscillatory Alpha-Gamma Phase-Amplitude Coupling be Used to Understand and Enhance TMS Effects? Front Hum Neurosci 13:263.

Yilmaz U (2021) The Earth Mover's Distance. MATLAB Central File Exchange. Available at https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/22962-the-earth-mover-s-distance.

Zhang J, Meng Y, Tong X, Yuan Z, Wu C, Ieong SL (2018) Exploring the neural correlates of lexical stress perception in english among Chinese-English bilingual children with autism spectrum disorder: an ERP study. Neurosci Lett 666:158–164.
scores were converted into age-adjusted normalized developmental quotient (DQ) scores,
obtained by dividing the age-equivalent scores by the child's chronological age and
multiplying the result by 100.

Symptom severity

Three symptom severity levels, i.e., low, moderate, high, were based on ADOS-G[139] or the
ADOS-2[140] calibrated severity scores (Supplementary Table1), which varied from 3 to 10
distributed into three severity grades, 3-4 low-level; 5-7 moderate-level; 8-10 high-level.

Stimuli and Procedure

We explored cortical speech processing during a passive, naturalistic task with a relatively
low cognitive demand suitable for young children. Participants watched the four French
TROTRO[69-72] cartoon videos, each lasting about 2.5 minutes. The video presentation was
controlled by Tobii Studio (Tobii® Technology, Sweden). Screen size was height × width:
1200 pixels (29°38′) × 1920 pixels (45°53′), with a 60 Hz refresh rate. Participants were
seated approximately 60 cm away from the screen. The cartoon soundtrack was delivered via
loudspeakers at a sound level adjusted for each participant. The soundtrack sampling rate was
44.1 kHz. We removed background noise, e.g., birds' singing, music, from the original movie
soundtrack using Audacity® v.2.2.1 editing software. We then extracted the stimulus
envelopes using the absolute value of the analytic signal[142]. The speech envelope was
down-sampled to 1000 Hz, low-pass filtered using a zero-phase fourth-order Butterworth
filter set at 40 Hz (Figure S1A). An envelope spectral decomposition was performed using
the Fast Fourier-transform (Figure S1B). We found dominant frequencies between 1 Hz and 7
Hz, with peaks at 1.17, 3.32, and 4.69 Hz, overlapping with the syllable rate range (4 to 6
syllables/sec, Figure S1C) as determined by averaging peaks within the 150ms minimum-
peak-distance that was associated with the averaged French-syllable duration[143]. The
spectrogram of the example sentence: "je veux ta bougie rigolote en échange" (I want your
funny candle in exchange), shown in Figure 1D, was calculated using the Matlab function
"spectrogram" (The MathWorks, Natick MA). Considering visual and auditory stimuli were
embedded in natural, constantly changing, engaging videos, the visual motion envelope was
also extracted from the stimulus video. Exemplary excerpts of visual motion are shown in
Figure S1E,1F. To compute the average motion envelope across all pixels, we followed a
method previously described in the literature[48, 144, 145]. Each video frame was converted
to greyscale, and the difference in luminance between two consecutive frames was computed. Then all pixels with a change larger than 10 (a threshold used to compensate for the noise of the video recording) were considered for computing the motion envelope as the average change value per video frame. These were done once for the length of the entire video, and the subsequent analysis retained only the portion of the video containing speech. On average, the change in luminance-derived motion envelope from one frame to the next was 0.88 units per frame (range 0–70.50, median=0.25). The motion envelope was then interpolated to the EEG sampling frequency of 1000 Hz. In all envelopes, time periods in which EEG data were excluded as a result of artifact rejection during preprocessing were zero-replaced. Finally, EEG data and visual motion envelopes corresponding to the speech parts of the soundtrack were aligned and available for the linear model analysis.

## Eye-tracking acquisition and Pre-processing

Eye-gaze data were collected using a Tobii TX300 eye tracker (https://www.tobiipro.com), sampled at 300Hz. The cartoon frames subtended a visual angle of 26'47' × 45'53' (height × width). A five-point calibration procedure consisting of child-friendly animations was performed using an inbuilt program in the Tobii system. Upon verification, the calibration procedure was repeated if the eye-tracking device failed to detect the participant's gaze position accurately. The lighting conditions in the testing room were constant for all acquisitions. Participants younger than four years old sat on their parents' lap to make them feel comfortable and minimize head and body movements. All participants watched all four cartoon videos in the same order.

## EEG acquisition and Pre-processing

EEG data were acquired using a Hydrocel Geodesic Sensor Net (HCGSN, Electrical Geodesics, USA) EEG system with 129 scalp electrodes at a 1000 Hz sampling rate. The reference electrode was located on the vertex (Cz), and a real-time band-pass filtered at 0-100 Hz was applied to the incoming signal. The first two cartoon videos were presented in a first block, and the last two cartoon videos in a second block, with a ~five-minute "dynamic image" task[146] in between cartoon videos and a 10-minutes break between blocks. At the end of the first block, the impedances were tested, and, if needed, the electrodes' conductance was adjusted by applying conductive gel or paste to keep impedances below 40 kOhm.

The signal pre-processing was conducted using the EEGlab v2019 toolbox within the
MATLAB environment[147] and Cartool (cartoolcommunity.unige.ch). First, the dataset was down-sampled to the montage of 110-channels by excluding cheek and neck electrodes that are often contaminated by muscle artifacts. Then, a zero-phase 4th order Butterworth bandpass filter between 0.1 and 70 Hz was applied to the EEG signals, as well as a notch filter at 50 Hz to remove power line interference. Each participant's data was then visually inspected to exclude periods contaminated by movement artifacts. An independent component analysis (ICA) was computed on the dataset to identify and remove components with eye blinks, saccades, electrical line noise, and heartbeat artifacts. The dimensionality of component was equivalent to the number of electrode arrays. Subsequently, a spherical spline interpolation was used to interpolate the channels contaminated by noise via the ICA-computed data. Finally, the Cartool spatial filter[148] was applied, and a common average reference was recalculated on the cleaned data. A trial was defined based on the beginning and end of each speech chunk in the cartoon, leading to a total of 50 trials with an average duration of 1.69 seconds. The detected artifacts periods were replaced by NaNs (not a number).

## EEG power analysis

To identify the oscillatory responses to speech, a Morlet wavelet transformation was performed from 5 s before to 5 s after each speech chunk (making sure the epoch would not include any artifacts) period between 0.1 and 50 Hz with 5 cycles for Gaussian taper at each EEG electrode[149]. Then time-course between 1s pre-onset to 1s post-onset were selected (based on those speech chunks with the shortest duration) trial-by-trial, and the power was averaged across trials and normalized by decibel conversion (dB) over a -1000 ms to 0 ms baseline period, allowing for between-group comparisons. EEG power in the different frequency bands of interest were defined as the mean power value across 0-1000 ms post-stimulus onset. We compared ASD and TD groups in four frequency bands that are relevant for speech processing, i.e., theta (4-8Hz), delta (1-3Hz), beta (12-20Hz), and low-gamma (25-35Hz).

## Speech envelope prediction from EEG power modulation: Multiple linear regression model (MLR) with distributed lags

To probe differences between ASD and TD in oscillatory speech tracking, a multiple linear
regression (MLR) model with a distributed lag between -300ms and 300ms with 50ms steps (Figure 2A) was used to reconstruct the stimulus envelopes from the neural responses. The EEG signals were lagged to compensate for possible differences in temporal alignment between the brain response and stimulus, a widely used method in the literature[150-153]. A multiple linear regression model was trained on the resulting set using a 10-fold cross-validation approach. First, all speech chunks were divided into ten consecutive segments. In each fold, one segment was left out for testing and the remaining segments were used for training. This process was repeated 10 times, ensuring that each segment was only used once for testing. On each fold, a multiple linear model was used to find a linear combination among the brain signals that best predicted the time course of the speech envelope. The resulting model was tested by correlating the predicted envelope with the actual speech envelope in the test segment. The final result, representing the oscillation tracking index, was obtained by averaging the correlation coefficient values in each fold.

We deployed the approach separately in the two frequency bands implicated in speech tracking, i.e., theta and delta, and computed the amplitude of specific bands to obtain the oscillation tracking index. The amplitude was the absolute value of the Hilbert transform in band-specific filtered EEG, i.e., 4-8 Hz for theta and 1-3 Hz for delta.

## Phase-amplitude coupling

The time-courses from electrode clusters selected from the EEG power and neural tracking analyses were examined for phase-amplitude coupling changes (PAC). The first step was to obtain estimates of low-frequency phase ($f_p$) and high-frequency amplitude ($f_a$) by applying the Hilbert transform of each bandpass Butterworth filtered trial[154]. Considering the filters for extracting $f_a$ must be wide enough to capture the center frequency ± the modulating $f_p$ to detect PAC[75, 76], we decided to use a variable bandwidth, defined as center frequency ± the modulating center frequency, to improve PAC detection. The $f_p$ bandwidth was kept narrow (center frequency ± 1Hz) to extract sinusoidal waveforms. Furthermore, changes in the modulation power spectrum between speech and baseline periods was visually inspected in each participant to confirm that oscillation peaks/troughs were present at each modulating frequency-band of interest $f_p$. For instance, if the interested modulating frequency band was 4-8 Hz, we confirmed that participants presented a real peak in the power spectrum at 4-8 Hz. Next, the coupling between $f_p$ and $f_a$ was quantified using the Kullback-Leibler modulation index[74]. The KL-MI-Tort approach estimates PAC by quantifying the amount of deviation
in amplitude-phase distributions. This involves breaking $f_p$ into 18 bins, and calculating the mean amplitude within each phase bin, normalized by the average value across all bins. Although the number of phase bins chosen is arbitrary, the specific number (9, 18, or 36) does not seem to influence PAC estimation[155]. The modulation index is calculated by comparing the amplitude-phase distribution (P) against the null hypothesis of a uniformly amplitude-phase distribution (Q).

$$MI = \frac{D(P,Q)}{\log(N_{bin})} \quad (1)$$

Mathematically, this is computed using the Kullback-Leibler distance (D), related to Shannon's entropy.

$$D(P,Q) = \sum_{ibin=1}^{N} P(ibin) \cdot \log\left(\frac{P(ibin)}{Q(ibin)}\right) \quad (2)$$

Using KL-MI-Tort, we calculated PAC between phases 2-15 Hz (in 1 Hz steps) and amplitudes 16-50 Hz (in 2 Hz steps) for the time-period 0-1000 ms following speech onset and a 1000 ms prestimulus baseline period. MI-values were calculated separately for each trial and averaged to obtain a single MI-value per amplitude and phase. To normalize MI values, this was repeated using surrogate data, created by shuffling trial and phase-carrying information (200 surrogates).

## Predicting Clinical Variables from Oscillatory Features

In order to show the relationship between the brain activity and the neurophysiological variables, we tested whether autism severity was predicted by using only band-specific power per electrode (i.e., delta, theta, beta, and low-gamma power), or only neural tracking values per electrode, or only phase-amplitude coupling matrixes per cluster (i.e., maximum MI-value and corresponding phase-frequency, amplitude-frequency). For this, we trained a Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) classifier using a 10-fold nested cross-validation procedure, which separates the data in test and training sets. The training set was further separated using a 5-fold cross-validation approach for parameter search (Grid search). The LDA classifier was trained using a diagonal shared covariance matrix. The cross-validation process ensured that the training and testing data sets were not overlapping, avoiding misleading results due to overfitting. The input to the classifier was the band-specific EEG power, neural-tracking, and PAC for each participant, and the label to be predicted was symptom severity (i.e., low, moderate, and high). All empirical thresholds were obtained through cumulative binomial distribution[156].
Then, we probed the relationship between the neural and cognitive skills using a regularized
linear model per frequency band (i.e., delta, theta, beta, and low-gamma power), per neural
tracking per electrode, and per PAC matrix (i.e., maximum MI-value and corresponding
phase-frequency, amplitude-frequency) to determine which critical oscillation (or
combination of oscillations) was the best predictor of cognitive skills within group, e.g., the
higher the tracking value, the higher the speech reception. The linear model was based on
Lasso regression which requires finding the best hyper-parameters within high dimensional
data[157]. We also used a 10-fold nested cross-validation approach to improve model
selection. The training set was further separated using a 5-fold cross-validation approach for
parameter search (Grid search). The results were presented as averaged R² values, which
indicate the prediction power of a given feature, i.e., higher R²s signal higher prediction
accuracy.

Statistical analysis

Between-group statistical comparisons of band-specific EEG power and neural tracking were
done using cluster-based nonparametric permutation tests with Monte Carlo
randomization[77] using the FieldTrip toolbox[158]; http://fieldtriptoolbox.org). For details,
between-groups differences (ASD vs. TD) were assessed with unpaired t-statistics. First,
clusters of significant group differences were obtained by considering at least two adjacent
electrodes whose t-value exceeded a 5% significance threshold (ASD vs. TD, unpaired t-test,
uncorrected for multiple comparisons). The maximum t-value within each cluster was carried
forward. Next, a null distribution was obtained by randomizing the group label 1,000 times
and calculating the largest cluster-level t-value for each permutation. The maximum t-value
within each original cluster was then compared against this null distribution, with values
exceeding a threshold of *p* < 0.05 deemed significant. Besides, between-group differences of
neural tracking were tested by means of unpaired t-test for all-electrodes analyses.

To assess changes in the comodulograms of PAC between the speech and baseline periods,
then we repeated the nonparametric cluster-based statistics[77], except the first step that
uncorrected dependent-samples t-test was performed (speech vs. baseline), and all MI-values
exceeding a 5% significance threshold were grouped into clusters.

**Supplementary information (in separate file)**
References

1. Dunlop, W.A., Enticott, P.G., and Rajan, R. (2016). Speech Discrimination Difficulties in High-Functioning Autism Spectrum Disorder Are Likely Independent of Auditory Hypersensitivity. Front Hum Neurosci 10, 401.

2. Alcantara, J.I., Weisblatt, E.J., Moore, B.C., and Bolton, P.F. (2004). Speech-in-noise perception in high-functioning individuals with autism or Asperger's syndrome. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 45, 1107-1114.

3. Schelinski, S., and von Kriegstein, K. (2020). Brief Report: Speech-in-Noise Recognition and the Relation to Vocal Pitch Perception in Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Typical Development. Journal of autism and developmental disorders 50, 356-363.

4. Beker, S., Foxe, J.J., and Molholm, S. (2018). Ripe for solution: Delayed development of multisensory processing in autism and its remediation. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 84, 182-192.

5. Kasari, C., Kaiser, A., Goods, K., Nietfeld, J., Mathy, P., Landa, R., Murphy, S., and Almirall, D. (2014). Communication interventions for minimally verbal children with autism: a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 53, 635-646.

6. Grandin, T. (2011). The way I see it: A personal look at autism & Asperger's, (Future Horizons).

7. McKeever, L., Cleland, J., and Delafield-Butt, J. (2019). Aetiology of speech sound errors in autism. In Speech production and perception: Learning and memory, S. Fuchs, J. Cleland and A. Rochet-Capellan, eds. (Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang).

8. Grandin, T. (1995). How People with Autism Think. In Learning and Cognition in Autism, E. Schopler and G.B. Mesibov, eds. (Boston, MA: Springer US), pp. 137-156.

9. Grandin, T. (2010). The world needs all kinds of minds.

10. Grandin, T. (2008). Thinking in pictures, expanded edition: My life with autism, (Vintage).

11. Nadig, A., and Shaw, H. (2012). Acoustic and Perceptual Measurement of Expressive Prosody in High-Functioning Autism: Increased Pitch Range and What it Means to Listeners. Journal of autism and developmental disorders 42, 499-511.

12. Shriberg, L.D., Paul, R., McSweeny, J.L., Klin, A.M., Cohen, D.J., and Volkmar, F.R. (2001). Speech and prosody characteristics of adolescents and adults with high-functioning autism and Asperger syndrome. J Speech Lang Hear Res 44, 1097-1115.

13. Akahane-Yamada, R., Tohkura, Y., Bradlow, A.R., and Pisoni, D.B. (1996). Does training in speech perception modify speech production? In Proceeding of Fourth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing. ICSLP '96, Volume 2. pp. 606-609 vol.602.

14. Paul, R., Augustyn, A., Klin, A., and Volkmar, F.R. (2005). Perception and production of prosody by speakers with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of autism and developmental disorders 35, 205-220.

15. Arnal, L.H., Poeppel, D., and Giraud, A.L. (2015). Temporal coding in the auditory cortex. Handb Clin Neurol 129, 85-98.

16. Greenberg, S., Carvey, H., Hitchcock, L., and Chang, S. (2003). Temporal properties of spontaneous speech—a syllable-centric perspective. Journal of Phonetics 31, 465-485.

17. Poeppel, D. (2003). The analysis of speech in different temporal integration windows: cerebral lateralization as 'asymmetric sampling in time'. Speech Commun 41, 245-255.

18. Lehongre, K., Ramus, F., Villiermet, N., Schwartz, D., and Giraud, A.L. (2011). Altered low-gamma sampling in auditory cortex accounts for the three main facets of dyslexia. Neuron 72, 1080-1090.

19. Hyafil, A., Fontolan, L., Kabdebon, C., Gutkin, B., and Giraud, A.L. (2015). Speech encoding by coupled cortical theta and gamma oscillations. Elife 4, e06213.

20. Hovsepyan, S., Olasagasti, I., and Giraud, A.L. (2020). Combining predictive coding and neural oscillations enables online syllable recognition in natural speech. Nat Commun 11, 3117.

21. Giraud, A.L., and Poeppel, D. (2012). Cortical oscillations and speech processing: emerging computational principles and operations. Nat Neurosci 15, 511-517.

22. Ding, N., Patel, A., Chen, L., Butler, H., Luo, C., and Poeppel, D. (2016). Temporal Modulations Reveal Distinct Rhythmic Properties of Speech and Music. BioRxiv, 059683.

23. Pefkou, M., Arnal, L.H., Fontolan, L., and Giraud, A.L. (2017). theta-Band and beta-Band Neural Activity Reflects Independent Syllable Tracking and Comprehension of Time-Compressed Speech. The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience 37, 7930-7938.

24. Zoefel, B., and VanRullen, R. (2016). EEG oscillations entrain their phase to high-level features of speech sound. NeuroImage 124, 16-23.

25. Zoefel, B. (2018). Speech Entrainment: Rhythmic Predictions Carried by Neural Oscillations. Curr Biol 28, R1102-R1104.

26. Peelle, J.E., Gross, J., and Davis, M.H. (2013). Phase-locked responses to speech in human auditory
cortex are enhanced during comprehension. Cereb Cortex 23, 1378-1387.

27. Di Liberto, G.M., O'Sullivan, J.A., and Lalor, E.C. (2015). Low-Frequency Cortical Entrainment to Speech Reflects Phoneme-Level Processing. Curr Biol 25, 2457-2465.

28. Blank, H., and Davis, M.H. (2016). Prediction Errors but Not Sharpened Signals Simulate Multivoxel fMRI Patterns during Speech Perception. PLoS Biol 14, e1002577.

29. Teoh, E.S., Cappelloni, M.S., and Lalor, E.C. (2019). Prosodic pitch processing is represented in delta-band EEG and is dissociable from the cortical tracking of other acoustic and phonetic features. Eur J Neurosci 50, 3831-3842.

30. Ghitza, O. (2017). Acoustic-driven delta rhythms as prosodic markers. Lang Cogn Neurosci 32, 545-561.

31. Bourguignon, M., De Tiege, X., de Beeck, M.O., Ligot, N., Paquier, P., Van Bogaert, P., Goldman, S., Hari, R., and Jousmaki, V. (2013). The pace of prosodic phrasing couples the listener's cortex to the reader's voice. Hum Brain Mapp 34, 314-326.

32. Ding, N., Chatterjee, M., and Simon, J.Z. (2014). Robust cortical entrainment to the speech envelope relies on the spectro-temporal fine structure. NeuroImage 88, 41-46.

33. Rimmele, J.M., Poeppel, D., and Ghitza, O. (2020). Acoustically driven cortical delta oscillations underpin perceptual chunking. bioRxiv.

34. Giraud, A.L. (2020). Oscillations for all A commentary on Meyer, Sun & Martin (2020). Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 1-8.

35. Hyafil, A., Giraud, A.L., Fontolan, L., and Gutkin, B. (2015). Neural Cross-Frequency Coupling: Connecting Architectures, Mechanisms, and Functions. Trends in neurosciences 38, 725-740.

36. Canolty, R.T., Edwards, E., Dalal, S.S., Soltani, M., Nagarajan, S.S., Kirsch, H.E., Berger, M.S., Barbaro, N.M., and Knight, R.T. (2006). High gamma power is phase-locked to theta oscillations in human neocortex. Science 313, 1626-1628.

37. Canolty, R.T., and Knight, R.T. (2010). The functional role of cross-frequency coupling. Trends Cogn Sci 14, 506-515.

38. Gross, J., Hoogenboom, N., Thut, G., Schyns, P., Panzeri, S., Belin, P., and Garrod, S. (2013). Speech rhythms and multiplexed oscillatory sensory coding in the human brain. PLoS Biol 11, e1001752.

39. Lizarazu, M., Lallier, M., and Molinaro, N. (2019). Phase-amplitude coupling between theta and gamma oscillations adapts to speech rate. Ann N Y Acad Sci.

40. Meyer, L. (2018). The neural oscillations of speech processing and language comprehension: state of the art and emerging mechanisms. Eur J Neurosci 48, 2609-2621.

41. Livezey, J.A., Bouchard, K.E., and Chang, E.F. (2019). Deep learning as a tool for neural data analysis: Speech classification and cross-frequency coupling in human sensorimotor cortex. Plos Comput Biol 15.

42. Chao, Z.C., Takaura, K., Wang, L., Fujii, N., and Dehaene, S. (2018). Large-Scale Cortical Networks for Hierarchical Prediction and Prediction Error in the Primate Brain. Neuron 100, 1252-1266 e1253.

43. Cabrera, L., and Gervain, J. (2020). Speech perception at birth: The brain encodes fast and slow temporal information. Science Advances 6, eaba7830.

44. Leong, V., Byrne, E., Clackson, K., Harte, N., Lam, S., Barbaro, K.d., and Wass, S. (2017). Infants' neural oscillatory processing of theta-rate speech patterns exceeds adults'. bioRxiv, 108852.

45. Kalashnikova, M., Peter, V., Di Liberto, G.M., Lalor, E.C., and Burnham, D. (2018). Infant-directed speech facilitates seven-month-old infants' cortical tracking of speech. Sci Rep 8, 13745.

46. Ortiz Barajas, M.C., Guevara Erra, R., and Gervain, J. (2021). The origins and development of speech envelope tracking during the first months of life. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience.

47. Attaheri, A., Choisdealbha, Á.N., Di Liberto, G.M., Rocha, S., Brusini, P., Mead, N., Olawole-Scott, H., Boutris, P., Gibbon, S., Williams, I., et al. (2020). Delta- and theta-band cortical tracking and phase-amplitude coupling to sung speech by infants.

48. Jessen, S., Fiedler, L., Münte, T.F., and Obleser, J. (2019). Quantifying the individual auditory and visual brain response in 7-month-old infants watching a brief cartoon movie. NeuroImage.

49. Cabrera, L., and Gervain, J. (2019). How infants use the envelope of the speech signal to perceive phonetic contrasts at birth. PsyArXiv.

50. Goswami, U. (2019). Speech rhythm and language acquisition: an amplitude modulation phase hierarchy perspective. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1453, 67-78.

51. Jochaut, D., Lehongre, K., Saitovitch, A., Devauchelle, A.D., Olasagasti, I., Chabane, N., Zilbovicius, M., and Giraud, A.L. (2015). Atypical coordination of cortical oscillations in response to speech in autism. Front Hum Neurosci 9, 171.

52. Rojas, D.C., Maharajh, K., Teale, P., and Rogers, S.J. (2008). Reduced neural synchronization of gamma-band MEG oscillations in first-degree relatives of children with autism. BMC Psychiatry 8, 66.

53. Gandal, M.J., Edgar, J.C., Ehrlichman, R.S., Mehta, M., Roberts, T.P.L., and Siegel, S.J. (2010).
Validating gamma Oscillations and Delayed Auditory Responses as Translational Biomarkers of Autism. Biol Psychiat 68, 1100-1106.

54. Ortiz-Mantilla, S., Cantiani, C., Shafer, V.L., and Benasich, A.A. (2019). Minimally-verbal children with autism show deficits in theta and gamma oscillations during processing of semantically-related visual information. Sci Rep-Uk 9.

55. Zhang, J., Meng, Y., Tong, X., Yuan, Z., Wu, C., and Ieong, S.L. (2018). Exploring the neural correlates of lexical stress perception in english among Chinese-English bilingual children with autism spectrum disorder: An ERP study. Neurosci Lett 666, 158-164.

56. Wang, X., Wang, S., Fan, Y., Huang, D., and Zhang, Y. (2017). Speech-specific categorical perception deficit in autism: An Event-Related Potential study of lexical tone processing in Mandarin-speaking children. Sci Rep 7, 43254.

57. Hames, E.C., Murphy, B., Rajmohan, R., Anderson, R.C., Baker, M., Zupancic, S., O'Boyle, M., and Richman, D. (2016). Visual, Auditory, and Cross Modal Sensory Processing in Adults with Autism: An EEG Power and BOLD fMRI Investigation. Front Hum Neurosci 10, 167.

58. Mamashli, F., Khan, S., Bharadwaj, H., Michmizos, K., Ganesan, S., Garel, K.L.A., Ali Hashmi, J., Herbert, M.R., Hämäläinen, M., and Kenet, T. (2017). Auditory processing in noise is associated with complex patterns of disrupted functional connectivity in autism spectrum disorder. Autism Research 10, 631-647.

59. Hoff, E. (2013). Language development, (Cengage Learning).

60. Press, R. (2015). Developmental milestones of young children, (Redleaf Press).

61. Whitehead, M.R. (2010). Language & literacy in the early years 0-7, (Sage).

62. Nomi, J.S., and Uddin, L.Q. (2015). Developmental changes in large-scale network connectivity in autism. Neuroimage Clin 7, 732-741.

63. Meyer, L., Henry, M.J., Gaston, P., Schmuck, N., and Friederici, A.D. (2017). Linguistic Bias Modulates Interpretation of Speech via Neural Delta-Band Oscillations. Cereb Cortex 27, 4293-4302.

64. Molinaro, N., and Lizarazu, M. (2018). Delta(but not theta)-band cortical entrainment involves speech-specific processing. Eur J Neurosci 48, 2642-2650.

65. Fujioka, T., Trainor, L.J., Large, E.W., and Ross, B. (2012). Internalized Timing of Isochronous Sounds Is Represented in Neuromagnetic Beta Oscillations. Journal of Neuroscience 32, 1791-1802.

66. Marchesotti, S., Nicolle, J., Merlet, I., Arnal, L.H., Donoghue, J.P., and Giraud, A.L. (2020). Selective enhancement of low-gamma activity by tACS improves phonemic processing and reading accuracy in dyslexia. PLoS Biol 18, e3000833.

67. Kayarian, F.B., Jannati, A., Rotenberg, A., and Santarnecchi, E. (2020). Targeting Gamma-Related Pathophysiology in Autism Spectrum Disorder Using Transcranial Electrical Stimulation: Opportunities and Challenges. Autism Res.

68. Jones, K.T., Johnson, E.L., Tauxe, Z.S., and Rojas, D.C. (2020). Modulation of auditory gamma-band responses using transcranial electrical stimulation. J Neurophysiol 123, 2504-2514.

69. Lezoray, S. (2013). Trotro es tres amoureux. In Trotro. (Storimages), p. 2.5 Minutes.

70. Lezoray, S. (2013). Trotro et la boite a secrets. In Trotro. (Storimages), p. 2.5 Minutes.

71. Lezoray, S. (2013). Trotro part en vacance. In Trotro. (Storimages), p. 2.5 Minutes.

72. Lezoray, S. (2013). Trotro l'anniversaire de nana. In Trotro. (Storimages), p. 2.5 Minutes.

73. Kojovic, N., Franchini, M., Sperdin, H.F., Sandini, C., Jan, R.K., Zöller, D., and Schaer, M. (2020). Unraveling the Developmental Dynamic of Visual Exploration of Social Interactions in Autism.

74. Tort, A.B., Komorowski, R., Eichenbaum, H., and Kopell, N. (2010). Measuring phase-amplitude coupling between neuronal oscillations of different frequencies. J Neurophysiol 104, 1195-1210.

75. Dvorak, D., and Fenton, A.A. (2014). Toward a proper estimation of phase-amplitude coupling in neural oscillations. J Neurosci Methods 225, 42-56.

76. Aru, J., Aru, J., Priesemann, V., Wibral, M., Lana, L., Pipa, G., Singer, W., and Vicente, R. (2015). Untangling cross-frequency coupling in neuroscience. Curr Opin Neurobiol 31, 51-61.

77. Maris, E., and Oostenveld, R. (2007). Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data. J Neurosci Methods 164, 177-190.

78. Vander Ghinst, M., Bourguignon, M., Niesen, M., Wens, V., Hassid, S., Choufani, G., Jousmaki, V., Hari, R., Goldman, S., and De Tiege, X. (2019). Cortical Tracking of Speech-in-Noise Develops from Childhood to Adulthood. The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience 39, 2938-2950.

79. Boucher, V.J., Gilbert, A.C., and Jemel, B. (2019). The Role of Low-frequency Neural Oscillations in Speech Processing: Revisiting Delta Entrainment. J Cogn Neurosci 31, 1205-1215.

80. Meyer, L., Lakatos, P., and He, Y. (2021). Language Dysfunction in Schizophrenia: Assessing Neural Tracking to Characterize the Underlying Disorder(s)? Front Neurosci 15, 640502.

81. Ladanyi, E., Persici, V., Fiveash, A., Tillmann, B., and Gordon, R.L. (2020). Is atypical rhythm a risk
factor for developmental speech and language disorders? Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci, e1528.

82. Stropahl, M., Bauer, A.K.R., Debener, S., and Bleichner, M.G. (2018). Source-Modeling Auditory Processes of EEG Data Using EEGLAB and Brainstorm. Front Neurosci-Switz 12.

83. Steinschneider, M., Liégeois-Chauvel, C., and Brugge, J.F. (2011). Auditory Evoked Potentials and Their Utility in the Assessment of Complex Sound Processing. In The Auditory Cortex, J.A. Winer and C.E. Schreiner, eds. (Boston, MA: Springer US), pp. 535-559.

84. Edgar, J.C., Khan, S.Y., Blaskey, L., Chow, V.Y., Rey, M., Gaetz, W., Cannon, K.M., Monroe, J.F., Cornew, L., Qasmieh, S., et al. (2015). Neuromagnetic oscillations predict evoked-response latency delays and core language deficits in autism spectrum disorders. Journal of autism and developmental disorders 45, 395-405.

85. Buzsaki, G., and Wang, X.J. (2012). Mechanisms of gamma oscillations. Annu Rev Neurosci 35, 203-225.

86. Ghitza, O. (2011). Linking speech perception and neurophysiology: speech decoding guided by cascaded oscillators locked to the input rhythm. Front Psychol 2, 130.

87. Proix, T., Saa, J.D., Christen, A., Martin, S., Pasley, B.N., Knight, R.T., Tian, X., Poeppel, D., Doyle, W.K., Devinsky, O., et al. (2021). Imagined speech can be decoded from low- and cross-frequency features in perceptual space. bioRxiv, 2021.001206.428315.

88. Cheung, C., Hamiton, L.S., Johnson, K., and Chang, E.F. (2016). The auditory representation of speech sounds in human motor cortex. Elife 5.

89. Tang, C., Hamilton, L.S., and Chang, E.F. (2017). Intonational speech prosody encoding in the human auditory cortex. Science 357, 797-801.

90. Yi, H.G., Leonard, M.K., and Chang, E.F. (2019). The Encoding of Speech Sounds in the Superior Temporal Gyrus. Neuron 102, 1096-1110.

91. Chartier, J., Anumanchipalli, G.K., Johnson, K., and Chang, E.F. (2018). Encoding of Articulatory Kinematic Trajectories in Human Speech Sensorimotor Cortex. Neuron 98, 1042-1054 e1044.

92. Ahn, S., Cho, H., Kwon, M., Kim, K., Kwon, H., Kim, B.S., Chang, W.S., Chang, J.W., and Jun, S.C. (2018). Interbrain phase synchronization during turn-taking verbal interaction-a hyperscanning study using simultaneous EEG/MEG. Human brain mapping 39, 171-188.

93. Ghitza, O., and Greenberg, S. (2009). On the possible role of brain rhythms in speech perception: intelligibility of time-compressed speech with periodic and aperiodic insertions of silence. Phonetica 66, 113-126.

94. Luo, H., and Poeppel, D. (2007). Phase patterns of neuronal responses reliably discriminate speech in human auditory cortex. Neuron 54, 1001-1010.

95. Giraud, A.L., Kleinschmidt, A., Poeppel, D., Lund, T.E., Frackowiak, R.S., and Laufs, H. (2007). Endogenous cortical rhythms determine cerebral specialization for speech perception and production. Neuron 56, 1127-1134.

96. Morillon, B., Lehongre, K., Frackowiak, R.S., Ducorps, A., Kleinschmidt, A., Poeppel, D., and Giraud, A.L. (2010). Neurophysiological origin of human brain asymmetry for speech and language. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107, 18688-18693.

97. Telkemeyer, S., Rossi, S., Koch, S.P., Nierhaus, T., Steinbrink, J., Poeppel, D., Obrig, H., and Wartenburger, I. (2009). Sensitivity of newborn auditory cortex to the temporal structure of sounds. The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience 29, 14726-14733.

98. Simon, D.M., and Wallace, M.T. (2016). Dysfunction of sensory oscillations in Autism Spectrum Disorder. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 68, 848-861.

99. Feldman, J.I., Dunham, K., Cassidy, M., Wallace, M.T., Liu, Y., and Woynaroski, T.G. (2018). Audiovisual multisensory integration in individuals with autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 95, 220-234.

100. Stevenson, R.A., Segers, M., Ferber, S., Barense, M.D., Camarata, S., and Wallace, M.T. (2016). Keeping time in the brain: Autism spectrum disorder and audiovisual temporal processing. Autism Res 9, 720-738.

101. Stevenson, R.A., Siemann, J.K., Schneider, B.C., Eberly, H.E., Woynaroski, T.G., Camarata, S.M., and Wallace, M.T. (2014). Multisensory temporal integration in autism spectrum disorders. The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience 34, 691-697.

102. Foss-Feig, J.H., Kwakye, L.D., Cascio, C.J., Burnette, C.P., Kadivar, H., Stone, W.L., and Wallace, M.T. (2010). An extended multisensory temporal binding window in autism spectrum disorders. Exp Brain Res 203, 381-389.

103. Sumby, W.H., and Pollack, I. (1954). Visual Contribution to Speech Intelligibility in Noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 26, 212-215.

104. Simon, D.M., and Wallace, M.T. (2017). Rhythmic Modulation of Entrained Auditory Oscillations by Visual Inputs. Brain Topogr 30, 565-578.
105. Demiralp, T., Bayraktaroglu, Z., Lenz, D., Junge, S., Busch, N.A., Maess, B., Ergen, M., and Herrmann, C.S. (2007). Gamma amplitudes are coupled to theta phase in human EEG during visual perception. *Int J Psychophysiol* 64, 24-30.

106. Luo, H., Liu, Z., and Poeppel, D. (2010). Auditory cortex tracks both auditory and visual stimulus dynamics using low-frequency neuronal phase modulation. *PLoS Biol* 8, e1000445.

107. Micheli, C., Schepers, I.M., Ozker, M., Yoshor, D., Beauchamp, M.S., and Rieger, J.W. (2018). Electrocorticography reveals continuous auditory and visual speech tracking in temporal and occipital cortex. *Eur J Neurosci.*

108. Ding, N., Melloni, L., Zhang, H., Tian, X., and Poeppel, D. (2016). Cortical tracking of hierarchical linguistic structures in connected speech. *Nat Neurosci* 19, 158-164.

109. Keitel, A., Gross, J., and Kayser, C. (2017). Speech tracking in auditory and motor regions reflects distinct linguistic features. *bioRxiv*, 195941.

110. Haesen, B., Boets, B., and Wagemans, J. (2011). A review of behavioural and electrophysiological studies on auditory processing and speech perception in autism spectrum disorders. *Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders* 5, 701-714.

111. Benitez-Burraco, A., and Murphy, E. (2016). The Oscillopathic Nature of Language Deficits in Autism: From Genes to Language Evolution. *Front Hum Neurosci* 10, 120.

112. Fontolan, L., Morillon, B., Liegeois-Chauvel, C., and Giraud, A.L. (2014). The contribution of frequency-specific activity to hierarchical information processing in the human auditory cortex. *Nat Commun* 5, 4694.

113. Park, H., Ince, R.A., Schyns, P.G., Thut, G., and Gross, J. (2015). Frontal top-down signals increase coupling of auditory low-frequency oscillations to continuous speech in human listeners. *Curr Biol* 25, 1649-1653.

114. Wang, X.J. (2010). Neurophysiological and computational principles of cortical rhythms in cognition. *Physiol Rev* 90, 1195-1268.

115. Bastos, A.M., Lundqvist, M., Waite, A.S., Kopell, N., and Miller, E.K. (2020). Layer and rhythm specificity for predictive routing. *Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A* 117, 31459-31469.

116. Kosaki, Y., and Watanabe, S. (2016). Impaired Pavlovian predictive learning between temporally phasic but not static events in autism-model strain mice. *Neurobiol Learn Mem* 134 Pt B, 304-316.

117. Sinha, P., Kjelgaard, M.M., Gandhi, T.K., Tsourides, K., Cardinaux, A.L., Pantazis, D., Diamond, S.P., and Held, R.M. (2014). Autism as a disorder of prediction. *Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A* 111, 15220-15225.

118. Lieder, I., Adam, V., Frenkel, O., Jaffe-Dax, S., Sahani, M., and Ahissar, M. (2019). Perceptual bias reveals slow-updating in autism and fast-forgetting in dyslexia. *Nat Neurosci* 22, 256-264.

119. Kamita, M.K., Silva, L.A.F., Magliaro, F.C.L., Fernandes, F.D., and Matas, C.G. (2021). Auditory Event Related Potentials in children with autism spectrum disorder. *Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol* 148, 110826.

120. Top, D.N., Jr., Luke, S.G., Stephenson, K.G., and South, M. (2018). Psychophysiological Arousal and Auditory Sensitivity in a Cross-Clinical Sample of Autistic and Non-autistic Anxious Adults. *Front Psychiatry* 9, 783.

121. Cannon, J., McCarthy, M.M., Lee, S., Lee, J., Borgers, C., Whittington, M.A., and Kopell, N. (2014). Neurosystems: brain rhythms and cognitive processing. *Eur J Neurosci* 39, 705-719.

122. Rojas, D.C., Singel, D., Steinmetz, S., Hepburn, S., and Brown, M.S. (2014). Decreased left perisylvian GABA concentration in children with autism and unaffected siblings. *NeuroImage* 86, 28-34.

123. Berto, S., Fontenot, M.R., Seger, S., Ayhan, F., Caglayan, E., Kulkarni, A., Douglas, C., Tamminga, C.A., Lega, B.C., and Konopka, G. (2021). Gene-expression correlates of the oscillatory signatures supporting human episodic memory encoding. *Nat Neurosci.*

124. Nguyen, T.A., Lehr, A.W., and Roche, K.W. (2020). Neuroligins and Neurodevelopmental Disorders: X-Linked Genetics. *Front Synaptic Neurosci* 12, 33.

125. Caubit, X., Gubellini, P., Andrieux, J., Roubertoux, P.L., Metwaly, M., Jacq, B., Fatmi, A., Had-Aissouni, L., Kwan, K.Y., Salin, P., et al. (2016). TSHZ3 deletion causes an autism syndrome and defects in cortical projection neurons. *Nat Genet* 48, 1359-1369.

126. Boeckx, C., and Benitez-Burraco, A. (2014). The shape of the human language-ready brain. *Front Psychol* 5, 282.

127. Peca, J., Feliciano, C., Ting, J.T., Wang, W., Wells, M.F., Venkatraman, T.N., Lascola, C.D., Fu, Z., and Feng, G. (2011). Shank3 mutant mice display autistic-like behaviours and striatal dysfunction. *Nature* 472, 437-442.

128. Sperdin, H.F., and Schaer, M. (2016). Aberrant Development of Speech Processing in Young Children with Autism: New Insights from Neuroimaging Biomarkers. *Front Neurosci* 10, 393.

129. Dinstein, I., Pierce, K., Eyler, L., Solso, S., Malach, R., Behrmann, M., and Courchesne, E. (2011).
Disrupted neural synchronization in toddlers with autism. Neuron **70**, 1218-1225.

130. Andersen, L.M., Jerbi, K., and Dalal, S.S. (2020). Can EEG and MEG detect signals from the human cerebellum? *NeuroImage* **215**, 116817.

131. Kikuchi, M., Shitamichi, K., Yoshimura, Y., Ueno, S., Remijn, G.B., Hirosawa, T., Munesue, T., Tsubokawa, T., Haruta, Y., Oi, M., et al. (2011). Lateralized theta wave connectivity and language performance in 2- to 5-year-old children. The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience **31**, 14984-14988.

132. Babiloni, C., Vecchio, F., Mirabella, G., Buttiglione, M., Sebastiano, F., Picardi, A., Di Gennaro, G., Quarato, P.P., Grammaldo, L.G., Buffo, P., et al. (2009). Hippocampal, Amygdala, and Neocortical Synchronization of Theta Rhythms is Related to an Immediate Recall During Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test. Human brain mapping **30**, 2077-2089.

133. Hertrich, I., Mathiak, K., and Ackermann, H. (2016). The Role of the Cerebellum in Speech Perception and Language Comprehension. In The Linguistic Cerebellum. pp. 33-50.

134. Basar, E. (2013). A review of gamma oscillations in healthy subjects and in cognitive impairment. Int J Psychophysiol **90**, 99-117.

135. Schwartze, M., and Kotz, S.A. (2016). Contributions of cerebellar event-based temporal processing and preparatory function to speech perception. Brain and Language **161**, 28-32.

136. Donovan, A.P., and Basson, M.A. (2017). The neuroanatomy of autism - a developmental perspective. J Anat **230**, 4-15.

137. Franchini, M., Zoller, D., Gentaz, E., Glaser, B., Wood de Wilde, H., Kojovic, N., Eliez, S., and Schaer, M. (2018). Early Adaptive Functioning Trajectories in Preschoolers With Autism Spectrum Disorders. J Pediatr Psychol **43**, 800-813.

138. Franchini, M., Wood de Wilde, H., Glaser, B., Gentaz, E., Eliez, S., and Schaer, M. (2016). Brief Report: A Preference for Biological Motion Predicts a Reduction in Symptom Severity 1 Year Later in Preschoolers with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Front Psychiatry **7**, 143.

139. Lord, C., Risì, S., Lambrecht, L., Cook, E.H., Leventhal, B.L., DiLavore, P.C., Pickles, A., and Rutter, M. (2000). The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule—Generic: A standard measure of social and communication deficits associated with the spectrum of autism. Journal of autism and developmental disorders **30**, 205-223.

140. Luyster, R., Gotham, K., Guthrie, W., Coffing, M., Petrak, R., Pierce, K., Bishop, S., Esler, A., Hus, V., Oti, R., et al. (2009). The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-toddler module: a new module of a standardized diagnostic measure for autism spectrum disorders. Journal of autism and developmental disorders **39**, 1305-1320.

141. Shank, L. (2011). Mullen Scales of Early Learning. In Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology, J.S. Kreutzer, J. DeLuca and B. Caplan, eds. (New York, NY: Springer New York), pp. 1669-1671.

142. Boashash, B. (2015). Time-frequency signal analysis and processing: a comprehensive reference, (Academic Press).

143. Pellegrino, F., Coupé, C., and Marsico, E. (2011). Across-language perspective on speech information rate. Language **87**, 539-558.

144. Jessen, S., and Kotz, S.A. (2011). The temporal dynamics of processing emotions from vocal, facial, and bodily expressions. NeuroImage **58**, 665-674.

145. Pichon, S., de Gelder, B., and Grezes, J. (2009). Two different faces of threat. Comparing the neural systems for recognizing fear and anger in dynamic body expressions. NeuroImage **47**, 1873-1883.

146. Sperdin, H.F., Coito, A., Kojovic, N., Rihs, T.A., Jan, R.K., Franchini, M., Plomp, G., Vulliemoz, S., Eliez, S., Michel, C.M., et al. (2018). Early alterations of social brain networks in young children with autism. Elife **7**.

147. Delorme, A., and Makeig, S. (2004). EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J Neurosci Methods **134**, 9-21.

148. Michel, C.M., and Brunet, D. (2019). EEG Source Imaging: A Practical Review of the Analysis Steps. Front Neurol **10**, 325.

149. Cohen, M.X. (2014). Analyzing neural time series data: theory and practice.

150. Crosse, M.J., Di Liberto, G.M., Bednar, A., and Lalor, E.C. (2016). The Multivariate Temporal Response Function (mTRF) Toolbox: A MATLAB Toolbox for Relating Neural Signals to Continuous Stimuli. Front Hum Neurosci **10**, 604.

151. Di Liberto, G.M., and Lalor, E.C. (2017). Indexing cortical entrainment to natural speech at the phonemic level: Methodological considerations for applied research. Hearing Research **348**, 70-77.

152. Di Liberto, G.M., Lalor, E.C., and Millman, R.E. (2018). Causal cortical dynamics of a predictive enhancement of speech intelligibility. NeuroImage **166**, 247-258.

153. Fiedler, L., Wostmann, M., Graversen, C., Brandmeyer, A., Lunner, T., and Obleser, J. (2017). Single-channel in-ear-EEG detects the focus of auditory attention to concurrent tone streams and mixed
speech. J Neural Eng 14, 036020.

154. Le Van Quyen, M., Foucher, J., Lachaux, J., Rodriguez, E., Lutz, A., Martinerie, J., and Varela, F.J. (2001). Comparison of Hilbert transform and wavelet methods for the analysis of neuronal synchrony. J Neurosci Methods 111, 83-98.

155. van Driel, J., Cox, R., and Cohen, M.X. (2015). Phase-clustering bias in phase-amplitude cross-frequency coupling and its removal. J Neurosci Methods 254, 60-72.

156. Combrisson, E., and Jerbi, K. (2015). Exceeding chance level by chance: The caveat of theoretical chance levels in brain signal classification and statistical assessment of decoding accuracy. J Neurosci Methods 250, 126-136.

157. Tibshirani, R. (1996). Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) 58, 267-288.

158. Oostenveld, R., Fries, P., Maris, E., and Schoffelen, J.M. (2011). FieldTrip: Open Source Software for Advanced Analysis of MEG, EEG, and Invasive Electrophysiological Data. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience.
<figure><img src="image_1.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1. Comparison of frequency-power in 31 children with ASD and 33 TD peers.**</figcaption></figure>

Children with ASD had reduced delta, beta, and low-gamma power and comparable theta power relative to their TD peers. Asterisks in topographies indicate group differences after cluster correction (cluster-based non-parameters permutation tests, cluster corrected P = 0.05).
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>B. all electrodes analyses</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>C. single electrode analyses</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2. Neural speech-tracking results.**</figcaption></figure>

(A) Schematics of the Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) model approach. The filtered EEG signal and stimulus envelope were entered into the MLR. For the cross-validation procedure, envelopes of speech and EEG signal of 9 folds with time-lag shifting were used to fit an MLR for each participant, which was then used to predict the envelope of the 10-th speech fold. The resulting model was tested by correlating the predicted envelope with the actual speech envelope in the test segment.

(B and C) Correlation coefficients between the reconstructed and real envelope, in all channels together (B) and each single-channel separately (C). Correlation coefficients were significantly reduced in ASD relative to TD in the delta and theta bands.

Error bars in B represent standard error, asterisks in C show group differences from non-parameter cluster-based permutation tests, \*P <0.05. See also Supplementary Fig.4.
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3. Phase-amplitude coupling.</figcaption></figure>

(A and C) Speech-induced oscillatory power is characterized by a strong power peak in low-frequency bands (1-10 Hz) in both groups and a marked power trough in the low-beta band (10-15 Hz) in the ASD group over (A) central-electrodes selected from EEG power group differences and (C) posterior-occipital-electrodes selected from neural tracking group differences. (B and D) Phase-amplitude comodulograms produced by statistically comparing modulation index (MI)-values in the speech and baseline periods over central-electrodes (B) and posterior-occipital-electrodes (D). Dotted lines represent significant differences in phase-amplitude coupling. For exact cluster locations, see topographies on A and C. For a quick appraisal of fp and fa ranges in each group, see the rightmost panel (fp : frequency of phase; fa : frequency of amplitude, nonparametric cluster-based statistics, cluster-corrected P < 0.05). See also Supplementary Fig.2A.