Talk:Echolalia

first paragraph needs work

The first paragraph does not do a good job of conveying the phenomenon to someone completely unfamiliar with the concept. Minor edits could be made to fix the readability and conveyance.

older entries

What if it's semivoluntary? What's the cause? lysdexia 21:22, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What about echoing one's own words? What is that called? I used to do that as a child: I would quietly repeat a sentence I myself had just uttered, about 1 second later. I never knew why I did it, it was simply compelling. I stopped about when I was 13 or 14. Kasreyn

• You might be thinking of palilalia. Matt Fitzpatrick 03:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

People say that, if they listen carefully, they will hear me whisper, to myself, what I have spoken immediately earlier. One opinion regarding this singular subject stated that it was done for better memory, and had to do with my somewhat pronounced ability to discuss things logically. Ñ

Echolalia is painted in a negative light in this wiki document. Some positive examples of echolalia-similar behaviors should be added or linked.

pronounced echolalia is considered dysfunctional by neurology standards. The ability for a mature individual to exhibit or use echolalia may not necessarily indicate a disorder. It is used sometimes for dramatic effect, to insert a pause into conversation, often as a technique for learning new languages, mastering the exact pronunciation and inflection of pop culture memes, possibly more uses. Some positive examples of echolalia-similar behaviors should be added or linked.

A reference to autismspeaks was removed. Please do not make references to media produced by organizations that exist soley to broaden definitions and maximize their potential supporter base. "Autism Speaks" is offensive to autistic individuals and does not, in fact, speak for us or to us. 2001:470:7C:108:6173:AFB5:422B:8727 (talk) 07:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Knowing your lines == genius intellect?

"Because it can involve the recitation of entire scripts, delayed echolalia is often thought to denote evidence of near-genius intellect."

Huh? Recitation of major portions of a feature film script isn't any harder than recitation of one's part when performing on stage. Heck, I used to be able to recite Honey, I Shrunk the Kids. Memorizing your lines doesn't take a genius; it just takes dedication. Or is dedication itself considered a pathology? --Damian Yerrick 03:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Dedication is often considered pathological by the human species. "Diversification of resources" can also be considered, at some length, some percent of the time, to communicate pathological behaviors exhibited by humans, such as the way that criminals attempt to break into many cars, instead of working at a job for most of their time in order to buy one of their own. 2001:470:7C:108:6173:AFB5:422B:8727 (talk) 07:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, the line itself is a bit superfluous, but being able to recite an entire script without conscious effort, after hearing it only once is quite a bit more difficult than memorizing a script through repeated viewings or rehearsals.

It is only difficult for people with regular brain function, because memorising things in this detail quitely rightly doesn't warrant permanent adaptation/specialisation, as it's benefits are outweighed by what is lost in the diversion of resources. For people with 'photographic' memory, it's no more a feat than urination. I would also suggest it doesn't fall under the category of genius. Genius implies a great breadth and depth of intellectual prowess in the general, or in the specific incredible manipulation of input and/or extraordinary creativity in output. Mere reproduction, no matter how flawless, does not express this. Newsmare 11:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Duhh... what he said!! :P Well put. -Kasreyn

The researchers have determined...

"The researchers have determined..." Uhm, which researchers exactly? I suspect this may have been copied (and edited) from elsewhere where it referred to people mentioned earlier. Maybe it should just say "Researchers", but then the reader still doesn't know which researchers the article is referring too. This should be fixed. (See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words) Retodon8 14:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Mimicry or appropriation?

Does echolalia manifest itself as a parrot's mimic of the actual SOUND of the words in question or merely a recitation of the words themselves, in the speaker's own voice? Or both?24.165.210.213 07:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

tunes getting stuck in one's head

What's the difference between say, repeating a song that is stuck in one's head? For example, several times I've heard a song only once only to have to suddenly realise halfway in the day it was still playing, with a real urge to express it. Is the difference perhaps, is that I have the social control not to express the sentiment in public? John Riemann Soong 11:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

mouthing what other people are saying

When someone is talking to me I mouth what they are saying, is this a type of mild Echolalia?

89.241.4.55 (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed for discussion

The first part is wrong, and the second part explains why the first part is wrong, but the entire section is unsourced and not written in encyclopedic tone, so I removed the whole thing until someone can fix it, based on a reliable source.

--yo man i wrote the second part i know my linguistics shit ive read lots of books and many girls whom i have later banged have told me i am a linguistic genius and lots of my profs. think im really smart as well. i quit college in my last semester because my ex girlfriend beat me up that doesnt mean im not smart. so credit me, ben powers, as the source and who cares about your silly 'encyclopedic tone' argument. you are wrong for depriving people of my information. plus one awesome girl i know who also quit my college was named robin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.180.127 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 28 January 2007 UTC

haha that guy who wrote unsigned is a dummy i clearly wrote my name in the paragraph and my name is my signature on a computer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.180.127 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 28 January 2007

Immediate Echolalia

Immediate echolalia appears to tap into the person's short-term memory for auditory input. This is defined as the repetition of a word or phrase just spoken by another person. Knowing the person very well would appear to be the key to understanding their specific intentions. For example; staff: "Johnny, say hello to your mom." Johnny: "Hello to your mom."

That example was not really echolalia. It is just an example of Johnny being silly and taking the command literally. True echolalia is if someone says "Wow, look at that pretty robin redbreast" and then the next person says "pretty robin redbreast" as soon as the first person finishes talking. He is not trying to be silly, rather he has a psychological condition which makes it mentally pleasurable for him to repeat the phrase "pretty robin redbreast" as soon as he hears someone else say it at that particular time. This is echolalia.

I think theyre both echolalia. It's not always possible to tell the child's intent. I think the hello to your mom example might be highlighted in clinical writeups precisely because it has another meaning to the rest of us, meaning the speaker not only repeats words but seems not to parse their meanings. It's possible that it's more likely the speaker would break the sentence somewhere else, or repeat the entire sentence ("Johnny, say hello to your mom"), but the sentence that starts with hello is still echolalia in the mind of the speaker, as they are not using the words for their meanings. —Soap— 14:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

needs to be reworded?

The first sentence is taken directly from the cited source ...
"Echolalia is the repetition or echoing of verbal utterances made by another person. "
N1ugl 04:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that should be fixed (it was here before I started working on the article). I'll find a way to fix it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Aspergers and E.

"Some autistic people and people with Asperger syndrome may use repetition as a method of allowing themselves more time to process language." - this may be very true, but is there a source for that?80.171.71.40 (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It might be in the "Simon N." source referenced in the preceding paragraph. Without reading it I can't be sure. —Soap— 18:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Noteworthy Sufferers

Amongst the most eminent of sufferers was Victor Babes, a 19th-century bacteriologist who gained academic recognition through his work on Babesiosis. Upon his return from Paris where he worked with Pasteur, Babes had developed a 'tic', now termed 'echolalia', for his own surname. It was recorded in the memoirs of his brother that his marriage suffered terribly, due to his wifes misconception that 'Babes, babes, babes, etc' was in fact self-aggrandisement.

I've removed the section above from the article to talk; see WP:MEDMOS. The section name ("Noteworthy sufferers") would need to be changed, the text is uncited and POV, and I'm not sure this meets MEDMOS crit. for inclusion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Would "the memoirs of his brother" be the source that should be cited, if we knew the name of the memoir (I don't)? Cernansky (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Not if that's the only source, and not unless his brother was a physician, or had some diagnostic acumen, or there is some medical collaboration of the echolalia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Lalia

'and λαλιά (laliá) meaning "babbling, meaningless talk"'

This line seems incorrect, or at the least inconsistent with the palilalia article's definition of lalia as "to talk". Even the citation given in this article for the definition does not match what is written, but instead matches the correct definition given in the palilalia article mentioned above. The citation given in this article should also probably be used in place of the original citation used in the palilalia article because it no longer appears to give any kind of definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.51.43.47 (talk • contribs) 02:28, August 27, 2012‎

Removed

Everything I checked in this reverted edit was either not in the source listed, too closely paraphrased, or an example where previous citations were removed. Please discuss. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Specifically:

1. This edit from Megmccabe (talk · contribs) used this blog source. The source says the delay may be as long as a year (singular); the text added says "years" (plural). Blogs are not reliable sources for almost anything on Wikipedia, and they rarely meet Wikipedia's standards for sourcing medical statements. The three possible reasons are in the source, but an blog written by a parent should not be used as a source for speculation on a medical article.
2. Megmccabe's next edit adds more text from the same source:

   Immediate echolalia causes the immediate repetition of a word or phrase. This is encouraged during the first year as it demonstrates that a child can hear, retain, and physically produce speech.

   The use of the word "causes" is wrong, and "encourages" is misrepresenting the source. I can't find where the "first year" is mentioned in the source, possibly original research-- there is mention of the toddler phase in the source, which at any rate is not a reliable source for this kind of information.

   Self-stimulatory behavior is an action in which the speaker is repeating the phrase for the purpose of satisfying themselves. Communicating the mood is used when a phrase elicits a mood for the speaker and then then use that phrase to communicate that feeling. Day in review is when the speaker repeats phrases from the day in order to communicate what happened.

   Note that the source says, "In my experience as a parent ... " ... not the way we source definition on Wikipedia. There are subtle inaccuracies and grammatical issues in this text as well. Anecdotes from one parent do not medical definitions make.
3. Next, Ahowerton93 (talk · contribs) adds text from the Indiana Resource Center for Autism. This is better than a blog source, but unclear if the source is peer reviewed or self-published. This web source references an older article by Barry Prizant and Judith Duchan that should be consulted.

   Text added: Many individuals with autism use immediate echolalia as they are accessing their thoughts and developing creative spoken language.

   Source: Many individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) may repeat utterances as a temporary step prior to or while they are developing fluent generative or creative spoken language. Some individuals may not move beyond this step and may use it along with delayed echolalia and nonverbal communication as their primary means of communication on a lifelong basis.

   Incorrect representation of source.

   Text added: Even if individuals have fluent language skills, they may revert to immediate echolalia when they are under increased levels of stress or anxiety.

   Source: although they have developed functional or fluent language skills, will return to the use of echolalia when they experience stress or anxiety.

   "Functional" not in source, minor wording change (too close paraphrasing).

   Perhaps this addition can be better understood by consulting the original source given by the web source.

4. This edit from Nickig419 (talk · contribs) alters a citation (from Bashe to the Indiana website): I cannot locate that text in the Indiana website. It also adds text from a 1988 primary source that looked at only 18 subjects, for a Master's level psychology thesis -- not an ideal source. The "prolonged social interaction" quote is a stretch from the postulation of the source, and probably WP:UNDUE. Pulling out one speculative statement from 1973 isn't the best use of that source. This edit also inserted text in a way that disassociated previous text from its alleged source.
5. Kcvaught (talk · contribs) edited next, to correct a previous typo (good) but the text added (which is a paraphrase of the entire last paragraph of the source) extends beyond what the source says in a number of instances.
6. Chs3ez (talk · contribs) adds generally correct information from the Indiana source, with the (perhaps unintended) result that we have now replicated in form, even if not the exact words, the entire last paragraph of the Indiana source. We should be writing in our own words. I cannot find the pizza example in the Indiana source: is there another page, or is there a different source being used ?

In summary, five different new users have added text with various issues. If we could re-start by first using best available sources, and representing them correctly in Wikipedia's own words, we should be able to add some meaningful text here. Could you all please explain if you are working together in a course, and could you please consult WP:MEDRS about the best soruces for medical content ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

7. This text, added by User:Kcvaught was deleted because it contains HOWTO information not appropriate for an encyclopedia, and is based on an old source which is contradicted by newer secondary reviews. It was re-added by User:Ahowerton93. If these five newly registered accounts are students editing for a course, would they please consult WP:MEAT? If not, please explain your edits here on talk (and please use edit summaries). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Editor summary

Since 2013-09-15, five new editors, talk page messages to all of them, yet not a single article talk response from any. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources

If a course has been working on this article, the issues have recurred over several terms. There are good sources available, that meet Wikipedia's sourcing standards for medical conditions and statements. Here is a list of reviews much more recent than the sources being used (and I am additionally troubled by the focus on autism with Tourette syndrome overlooked):

• PMID 19838574 (Free full text is available, and that text reveals some of the problems with the text being added based on marginal sources. [1])
• PMID 14678683
• PMID 22807284
• PMID 12689694
• PMID 9195665

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Treatment

Removed text sourced to Rydell 1994, which is covered in (and contradicted in) the 2009 secondary review cited above (PMID 19838574). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Generally, treatment for echolalia focuses on decreases the prevalence of the disorder in individuals. Through the use of verbal stimuli, teaching imitation, and reinforcement, clinicians attempt to encourage a "generalized verbal response." In Foxx's (2004) study in particular, the researchers used the "cue-pause-point" procedure to eventually help individuals use environmental cues to respond to verbal stimuli.

Better ?

Regarding this edit, no, I don't understand what it is saying. Automatic is the terminology in the sources, vocalizations and sounds are redundant, and the grammar here is confusing ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I concur that the sourcing of some of the previous edits was weak. I am going to have a quick attempt at updating and improving some of the information and sourcing, including expanding the focus: echolalia occurs in all sorts of communication disorders. Slp1 (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. Just as I was going to edit, a once in a lifetime real life opportunity presented itself, and of course I went!! Slp1 (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, User:Slp1! My concern about the Treatment section is not only the excess "how to" detail on one intervention and based on one very old source (1987!), but the lack of context. The secondary reviews I have been able to access indicate that echolalia sometimes has communicative intent, and eliminating it is not always desirable. Treatment info should ideally be up to date, based on good sources, and with context provided.

I have been unable to get any response from any of the editors working on this page in the last month, so unless someone can provide some context soon ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do see your point about that section I'm going to take a look at it in a bit: I think it may be worth a brief mention, but not in the way currently presented.Slp1 (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

References

In animals?

I thin this behaviour is similar in animals. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Signs and Symptoms Edit

The final paragraph in this section appears to be a random anecdote that doesn't really add anything to the section overall. I think it should be deleted or moved to another section. Thoughts? LemonTeacher8675309 (talk) 04:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, and removed (this article attracts a lot of same, and I've grown weary of keeping up with those kinds of edits-- sorry I missed that one, and thanks for pointing it out). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)