Aphasia and dyslexia in children

Eisenson, Jon

doi:10.1007/bf02653613

Cited by 13 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although these children do acquire language, they experience deficits in many linguistic areas, including phonology, morphology, and syntax. Among the possible underlying causes that have been considered are deficits in , auditory processing (e.g., Eisenson, 1972). Explanations of these potential processing difficulties range from slower processing across all perceptual modalities (Leonard, 1998;Leonard, McGregor, & Allen, 1992;Miller, Kail, Leonard, & Tomblin, 2001) to a deficit in processing rapidly changing auditory information characteristic of speech (Tallal & Piercy, 1973,1974Tallal, Stark, Kallman, & Mellits, 1981).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Children With Specific Language Impairments Perceive Speech Most Categorically When Tokens Are Natural and Meaningful

Coady

Evans

Mainela-Arnold

et al. 2007

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose-To examine perceptual deficits as a potential underlying cause of specific language impairments (SLI).Method-Twenty-one children with SLI (8;[7][8][9][10][11]11 [years;months]) and 21 age-matched controls participated in categorical perception tasks using four series of syllables for which perceived syllable-initial voicing varied. Series were either words or abstract nonword syllables and either synthesized or high-quality edited natural utterances. Children identified and discriminated (a) digitally edited tokens of naturally spoken "bowl"-"pole", (b) synthesized renditions of "bowl"-"pole", (c) natural "ba"-"pa", and (d) synthetic "ba"-"pa".Results-Identification crossover locations were the same for both groups of children, but there was modestly less accuracy on unambiguous endpoints for children with SLI. Planned comparisons revealed these effects to be limited to synthesized speech. Children with SLI showed overall reduced discrimination, but these effects were limited to abstract nonword syllables.Conclusion-Overall, children with SLI perceived naturally spoken real words comparably to age-matched peers but showed impaired identification and discrimination of synthetic speech and of abstract syllables. Poor performance on speech perception tasks may result from task demands and stimulus properties, not perceptual deficits. Keywordsspecific language impairment; categorical perception; speech perception (C) The American-Speech-Language-Hearing Association is the publisher of this article and holder of the copyright. Further reproduction of this article in violation of copyright is prohibited without the consent of the publisher. To contact the publisher: http:// www.asha.org/ Contact author: Jeffry A. Coady, Sargent College, Boston University, 635 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA 02215. coady@bu.edu. Julia L. Evans is now at the School of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, San Diego State University, and Elina MainelaArnold is now at the Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Pennsylvania State University. HHS Public Access Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript Author ManuscriptThe present investigation was conducted to examine how speech perception abilities of children with specific language impairments (SLI) change as a function of the nature of the tokens with which they are tested. These children have normal hearing and nonverbal intelligence, with no obvious oral-motor or neurological deficits. Nevertheless, they experience difficulty learning language in spite of having all of the requisite cognitive abilities generally considered to support normal language acquisition (see Leonard, 1998, for a review). Although these children do acquire language, they experience deficits in many linguistic areas, including phonology, morphology, and syntax. Among the possible underlying causes that have been considered are deficits in , auditory processing (e.g., Eisenson, 1972). Explanations of these potential processing difficulties range from slower processing acr...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Children With Specific Language Impairments Perceive Speech Most Categorically When Tokens Are Natural and Meaningful

Coady

Evans

Mainela-Arnold

et al. 2007

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In fact, numerous attempts have been made to identify these deficits as the primary cause of LLI (Eisenson, 1972;Elliott & Hammer, 1993;Stark & Tallal, 1988;Tallal et al, 1996;Tallal, Miller, & Fitch, 1993;Tallal & Piercy, 1973;Tallal, Stark, Kallman, & Mellits, 1981). A consistent interpretation has been that children with LLI perform significantly worse than age-matched peers with typically developing language on tasks requiring discrimination of brief sounds (Elliott & Hammer, 1993;Elliott, Hammer, & Scholl, 1989;Tallal, 1990).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Backward and Simultaneous Masking Measured in Children With Language-Learning Impairments Who Received Intervention With Fast ForWord or Laureate Learning Systems Software

Marler

Champlin

Gillam

2001

Am J Speech Lang Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The developers of a computer-assisted language intervention program called Fast ForWord (FFW) have claimed that their software changes temporal processing abilities as a result of specialized modifications to the acoustic and temporal properties of the speech signal within the program. This pilot study compared changes in auditory temporal processing in children who received FFW training and in children who received training with computer-assisted language intervention programs that were not designed to improve auditory perceptual skills. Four boys with Language-Learning Impairments (LLI) and 3 boys with typical language participated. Two of the boys with LLI received the FFW program, and the other 2 received a bundle of computerassisted instruction (CAI) programs published by Laureate Language Systems (LLS). The FFW and LLS programs were presented on the same schedule.To assess temporal processing, signal thresholds in backward and simultaneous masking conditions were evaluated just before, during, and immediately after language training. The boys with typically developing language received no training. Children with typical language produced signal thresholds in the backward masking condition that were markedly lower than those in the simultaneous masking condition. This disparity is indicative of normal temporal processing. Conversely, 3 of 4 children with LLI failed to demonstrate a simultaneous-backward difference during baseline. The lack of a difference implies that temporal processing was not normal in these children. The fourth child with LLI had signal thresholds that paralleled those of the children with normal language development. This child also had the mildest form of LLI.Of the 3 children whose temporal processing was abnormal, 2 boys showed decreased signal thresholds in the backward masking condition. However, the improvement was sudden, occurring relatively early in the training sequence, and observed with both treatment programs. The third child with abnormal temporal processing failed to show a change in backward masking at any time during treatment. Over the course of the experiment, signal thresholds for all listeners decreased by similar amounts in both backward and simultaneous masking. Taken together, these results do not support the presence of a program-specific improvement in temporal processing. In addition to the temporal processing deficits revealed by backward masking, group differences in response patterns implicate auditory memory involvement or differences in maintaining attention.

show abstract

“…In order for a child to acquire an oral language code, (s)he must focus on and attend to stimuli that occur in a sequence or order, hold the sequence in mind so that its components can be stored, scanned, and compared, and assign meaning (Witkin, 1971;Eisenson, 1972).…”

Section: Auditory Memory Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Spelling, following instructions, and ordering phonemes to sound out words all seem to require auditory memory sequencing skills (Dempsey, 1983). Probably the most complex of all sequencing acts is that of articulation in speech (Eisenson, 1972). The speaker must hold the articulatory plan for constituents of sentences until they can be spoken (Kirchner and Klatzky, 1985).…”

Section: Auditory Memory and Speech And Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Normative data on the Auditory memory test battery for ages 9 through 13 years

Carter¹

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Auditory short-term memory (STM) is important for speech and language development and for learning new information presented auditorily.Research has shown that auditory STM ability is of a developmental nature in the 5 through 8 year age range for a variety of auditory stimuli. Many tests and subtests are available to measure auditory STM ability, however one test, the Auditory Memory Test Battery (AMTB) measures auditory memory span and memory for sequence for 5 types of stimuli. The results of this investigation showed an overall improvement in the mean scores for all subtests except sentences. However, the 9 and 10 year old subjects performed fairly equally for all subtests, and the mean scores of the 11 year olds exceeded those of the 12 and 13 year olds on all subtests for both span and sequence. A detailed look at the standard deviations indicated wide variances within age groups and some overlap between age groups for all subtests 3 except sentences. A multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) and a 2-tailed t-test revealed statistically significant age-related differences among the 11 through young adult subjects for the subtests of digits--span and sequence, related words--span and sequence, and unrelated words--span and sequence.The information obtained in this study revealed a developmental plateau for auditory STM at the 9 to 10 year age range. A developmental change in auditory STM appeared to take place from 11 years of age to young adulthood for all subtests except sentences and nonsense syllables. The results support the evaluation of auditory STM through adolescence, as there appears to be continued maturation of this ability up to young adulthood. The AMTB is convenient in that it measures memory for span and for sequence for a variety of stimuli within one battery. However, the wide variance of scores within age groups indicate that the AMTB may demonstrate too much variance to be useful in its current form in a clinical setting. Further refinement of the AMTB to establish a clearer, homogeneous pattern is needed before it can become a useful clinical tool.

show abstract

Aphasia and dyslexia in children

Cited by 13 publications

References 0 publications

Children With Specific Language Impairments Perceive Speech Most Categorically When Tokens Are Natural and Meaningful

Children With Specific Language Impairments Perceive Speech Most Categorically When Tokens Are Natural and Meaningful

Backward and Simultaneous Masking Measured in Children With Language-Learning Impairments Who Received Intervention With Fast ForWord or Laureate Learning Systems Software

Normative data on the Auditory memory test battery for ages 9 through 13 years

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About