Home > SFARI Community > Community Blog > SFARI Webinar Series > 2013 > Webinar: Lonnie Zwaigenbaum reviews high-risk infant studies

Webinar: Lonnie Zwaigenbaum reviews high-risk infant studies

Popularity tracker
Greg Boustead
30 October 2013

On 30 October, Lonnie Zwaigenbaum discussed research on so-called ‘baby siblings’ of children with autism, as well as the implications of recent advances in early detection of the disorder. Zwaigenbaum is professor of pediatrics at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada.

You can watch a complete replay of the webinar above.

Use the comments section below to submit questions we didn’t have time to discuss during the Q&A session, or to pose follow-up questions for Zwaigenbaum. 

Check out the SFARI Webinar Series for a listing of future sessions.

Press policy: The SFARI Webinar Series aims to facilitate the free exchange of ideas among autism researchers, including discussion of published and unpublished research, hypotheses and results. Members of the press may report information presented during a SFARI webinar only if that material has already been published elsewhere or they have first obtained express written consent from the presenter.

Like us on Facebook » | Follow us on Twitter @SFARIcommunity » | Join our newsletter »

News and Opinion articles on SFARI.org are editorially independent of the Simons Foundation.

Comments

Name: Marcia Gragg
30 October 2013 - 11:59PM

Thanks, Lonnie, for a cogent and exciting update on early identification.

Name: Nez Elik, Hamilton Health Sciences
1 November 2013 - 2:37PM

Do you intend to look at connectivity in brain synapses (more activity in prefrontal; less activity overall)? Also, do you intend to look at strengths in children with autism, such as visual analysis; better self-regulation in areas of interest, etc.?

Name: Bridget Gamber, University of Texas, Austin
1 November 2013 - 2:38PM

Can you speak more to the logistics and ethics involved in beginning intervention for high-risk infants showing symptoms who do not yet have a diagnosis (or meet diagnostic criteria)?

Name: Els Blijd-Hoogewys
1 November 2013 - 2:53PM

Are the first years very important for intervention? What is the disadvantage from being diagnosed later, even when there are less severe symptoms in a child?

Name: Amy Esler
1 November 2013 - 2:54PM

Do you have any thoughts about the relationship between availability of high-quality interventions and diagnosis at 2 versus age 3? In MN, we have excellent ABA covered by insurance, and I'm finding parents are wanting the diagnosis as early as possible, despite their children's mild symptoms, so they can initiate intervention. (These families have older children already receiving ABA.)

Add a Comment

You can add a comment by filling out the form below. Plain text formatting.

Question: What is 10 + 4 ?
Your answer:
Sign Up for our weekly newsletter
  • Articles
  • Topics
MostViewed

Topics