An assessment of cerebral dominance in language-disordered children via a time-sharing paradigm

Generalized and lateralized interference between concurrent tasks performed by children: Effects of age, sex, and skill

“…A nonverbal task yielded leftgreater-than-right interference for average readers and dyseidetic boys, but not for the dysphonetic and nonspecific groups. Hughes and Sussman (1983) failed to find any differences between language-disordered children and their controls as the children engaged in concurrent speaking and finger tapping. Neither group exhibited the usual pattern of asymmetric interference.…”

“…If speaking tends to establish the pace of concurrent tapping, then the older children, by virtue of speaking faster, would tap faster and show smaller decrements in tapping rate, relative to those of younger children (cf. Hughes & Sussman, 1983). Tasks without vocalization do not seem to impose the same timing constraints upon finger tapping.…”

“…First, the presence or absence of the normal pattern of dual-task asymmetry may depend on the choice of tasks and task parameters, and on the strategy chosen by the subject. As illustrated by the Hughes and Sussman (1983) findings, some combinations of tasks may fail to yield the expected interference asymmetries, even among control subjects. The second source of ambiguity is unequal performance between impaired children and their controls.…”

Verbal Fluency Deficits in Children With Specific Language Impairment: Slow Rapid Naming or Slow to Name?

“…Results suggest that language impairment in SLI may be related to more general limitations resulting in a broader range of de®cits in verbal and some aspects of nonverbal abilities, perhaps through their in¯uence on attention (Ellis Riddle, 1992), concept formation (Bishop & Adams, 1992;Johnston & Weismer, 1983;Kail, 1994;Montgomery, 1993), mental representation (Morehead & Ingram, 1973), processing speed (Hughes & Sussman, 1983;Nichols, Townsend, & Wulfeck, 1995), symbolic play (Moscovitch, 1994;Udwin & Yule, 1983), mental imagery (Johnston & Ramstad, 1983;Johnston & Weismer, 1983), hypothesis testing (Nelson, Kamhi, & Apel, 1987), analogical reasoning (Kamhi, Gentry, Mauer, & Gholson, 1990;Nippold, Erskine, & Freed, 1988), and hierarchical planning (Cromer, 1983). While many children with SLI show weaknesses on nonlinguistic tasks, these children often attain scores on standardized nonverbal tests of intelligence well within the normal range.…”

Non‐specific nature of specific language impairment: a review of the literature with regard to concomitant motor impairments

“…Typically children with SLI are reported to be impaired relative to their normally developing peers ( Johnston et al 1981, Hughes and Sussman 1983, Bishop and Edmundson 1987, Katz et al 1992, Powell and Bishop 1992, Bradford and Dodd 1994, Owen and McKinlay 1997, Preis et al 1997, although on some repetitive nger tapping tasks performance is unimpaired (Archer andWitelson 1988, Dewey et al 1988), as is the task of placing crosses in boxes (Owen and McKinlay 1997). In contrast, where performance accuracy on a ne motor task has been assessed, children with SLI tend to be unimpaired versus their normally developing peers ( Johnston et al 1981, Preis et al 1997 with the exception of performance on the Ayres (1980) Motor Accuracy Test-Revised (Bradford and Dodd 1994).…”