Purpose Our work investigates the production of 3rd-person accusative clitic pronouns in French-speaking typically developing (TD) children and children with developmental language disorder (DLD) following a novel working memory (WM) training program (12 hrs of effective training) that specifically targets the components of WM that have been shown to be impaired in children with DLD and to be directly related to the mastery of clitics ( Delage & Frauenfelder, submitted for publication ; Durrleman & Delage, 2016 ). Method Sixteen TD children aged 5–12 years and 26 age-matched children with DLD completed our 8-week WM training program. Furthermore, an age-matched control group of 16 TD children and 17 children with DLD followed a scholastic training regime matched for intensity and frequency. Syntax and WM were assessed prior to and following the WM/scholastic training. Results Significant posttraining WM gains were found in TD children and children with DLD who took part in the WM training, and the production rate of 3rd-person accusative clitics significantly increased in children with DLD following the WM training. No significant WM or syntax gains were observed in the control group. Conclusion These findings are noteworthy as Melby-Lervåg and Hulme's (2013) meta-analysis concluded that existing WM training programs show short-lived generalized effects to other comparable measures of WM, but that there is no evidence that such training generalizes to less directly related tasks. That our study led to gains in skills that were not trained (i.e., syntax) suggests that a WM training regime that is firmly grounded in theory and that targets the specific mechanisms shown to underpin the acquisition of syntax may indeed provide effective remediation for children with DLD.

Linguistic deficits attested in children with Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) have been explained in terms of limitations in working memory (WM). The goal of this research is to assess whether a tailored WM program can improve the syntactic abilities of children with DLD and those with typical development (TD). We created a novel iPad application consisting of five activities specifically designed to train the components of WM that have been shown to be the most predictive of performance on tests assessing complex syntax. Thirty-two children with DLD (M = 9;0) and 18 with TD (M = 8;5) followed the WM training (lasting 12 hours). Results show significant improvement in verbal WM (direct effects) in both TD and DLD groups, and in sentence repetition (transfer effects) in the DLD group, with the most pronounced improvements observed for complex syntactic structures. This progression is not observed for 38 age-matched children of the same age who followed an alternative, global scholastic training (20 DLD, 18 TD), which proves the specific efficacy of our WM training. The logical next step will be to incorporate the training into the therapy of children with DLD in order to reinforce the potential benefit of their interventions.

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is commonly associated with deficits in executive functions executive functions (EF), but children with this disorder frequently demonstrate co-occurring morphosyntactic impairment when assessed using standardized tests. On the other hand, children with developmental language disorder (DLD), a population defined by impaired linguistic functioning, are often diagnosed with comorbid EF deficits. We investigated EF and morphosyntax in 60 Frenchspeaking children aged six to 12: 20 with typical development (TD), 20 with ADHD, and 20 with DLD. To obtain an EF profile for the different cognitive groups, we used standardized tests to assess lower-order EF skills, (i) selective attention and (ii) shortterm memory capacity, and higher-order EF skills, (i) working memory capacity and (ii) attention shifting. To test morphosyntax, we used (i) a standardized omnibus test that elicited a variety of complex structures and (ii) a more fine-grained probe test that assessed the production of third person object clitic pronouns, a clinical marker of DLD in French. Children with ADHD and DLD were associated with different EF and morphosyntactic profiles: children in the ADHD group demonstrated higher-order EF weakness and difficulty on the omnibus morphosyntax task, whereas children with DLD showed both lower-and higher-order limitations and struggled with both morphosyntax tasks. Our findings indicate that deficits in morphosyntax are not characteristic of ADHD but that the performance of children with ADHD can mimic morphosyntactic impairment when all-encompassing omnibus tests evaluating various and unpredictable structures are used. If morphosyntax is tested using reliable markers of atypical language development and external cognitive-load factors are optimally reduced, there are significant discrepancies in the observed ADHD-DLD outcomes. Clinical implications that include perspectives for the differential diagnosis of ADHD and DLD are discussed.

This study investigated how thematic priming via visual and linguistic cues influences the choice of syntactic voice in healthy Frenchspeaking adults and in French-speaking children with typical and atypical development. In particular, we focused on children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and developmental language disorder (DLD), two clinical groups with documented syntactic difficulties. Twenty adults (M= 24;7) and 60 children aged 6-11 (20 typically developing, 20 with DLD and 20 with ADHD) were presented with agent or patient cues that progressively increased in strength over three conditions: a no cue condition, a visual cue condition with two cue types (perceptual vs. referential) and a linguistic cue condition with two cue types (topicalization of the agent/patient with and without subsequent sentence initiation). Results showed that all participants produced more passives after having been presented with a patient cue, regardless of cue type (cue > no cue), but linguistic cues facilitated the production of passives significantly more than visual cues (linguistic cue > visual cue). We also found that children with DLD were more sensitive than children with ADHD to visual cues (DLD > ADHD), which were more implicit than the linguistic cues and may have required more attentional resources. The opposite pattern (ADHD > DLD) was true for the linguistic cues, which required syntactic processing. These findings highlight how the development of dynamic tools using cue modality and cue sensitivity might be useful for discriminating children with and without syntactic impairment.