Dissociation between online and offline learning in developmental dyslexia

Abstract

Most studies investigating procedural learning in developmental dyslexia (DD) have focused on the acquisition stage, ignoring later stages involved in the process of skill learning. The current study examined sequence learning among DD and control groups in two sessions. Both groups completed a sequence-learning task over a first session (online learning) and a second session 24 hours later (offline learning). While both groups showed improvements in performance during offline learning, only the control group showed improvements in performance during online learning. Moreover, the DD group differed from the control group in their ability to recover from the introduction of a different sequence.

Incidental learning of sound categories is impaired in developmental dyslexia

“…The non-phonological deficits observed in individuals with dyslexia have been suggested to relate to selective impairment in procedural learning associated with the learning and control of established sensorimotor and cognitive habits, skills and procedures (Nicolson & Fawcett, 2011). However, despite evidence for procedural learning impairments among individuals with dyslexia (Gabay et al, 2012a, 2012b, 2012c; Howard et al, 2006; Lum, Ullman, & Conti-Ramsden, 2013; Pavlidou & Williams, 2014; Stoodley, Harrison, & Stein, 2006; Stoodley et al, 2008; Vicari et al, 2005; Vicari et al, 2003), the nature of the link between impaired procedural learning and phonological deficits remains uncertain. The current version of the procedural learning hypothesis (Nicolson & Fawcett, 2011) suggests language-based, as opposed to motor-based, aspects of the procedural learning system should be the most impaired among those with dyslexia (although some individuals may present with motor deficits, as well).…”

“…Individuals with dyslexia are impaired at a variety of tasks believed to be sub-served by procedural learning including motor adaptation (Brookes, Nicolson, & Fawcett, 2007), implicit sequence learning (Howard et al, 2006; Vicari, Marotta, Menghini, Molinari, & Petrosini, 2003), probabilistic category learning (Gabay, Vakil, Schiff, & Holt, in press), and artificial grammar learning (Pavlidou, Williams, & Kelly, 2009). Procedural learning among individuals with dyslexia is less stable, more prone to interference (Gabay, Schiff, & Vakil, 2012b), and less effectively consolidated (Gabay, Schiff, & Vakil, 2012a). Neuroimaging studies have revealed impairments in brain regions associated with procedural learning tasks among individuals with dyslexia (Nicolson et al, 1999; Pernet, Poline, Demonet, & Rousselet, 2009; Rae et al, 1998).…”

Impaired Statistical Learning in Developmental Dyslexia

“…Children and adults with DD exhibit impaired performance on common implicit learning paradigms such as the serial reaction time task (SRT; Gabay, Schiff, & Vakil, 2012c; Menghini, Hagberg, Caltagirone, Petrosini, & Vicari, 2006; Pugh et al, 2014; Stoodley, Harrison, & Stein, 2006; Vicari et al, 2005; Vicari, Marotta, Menghini, Molinari, & Petrosini, 2003) and artificial grammar learning (AGL; Pavlidou & Williams, 2014). Furthermore, implicit motor learning skills among those with DD have been found to be more fragile, to be less resistant to interference (Gabay, Schiff, & Vakil, 2012b) and to consolidate less effectively (Gabay, Schiff, & Vakil, 2012a; Hedenius et al, 2013) compared to implicit learning among normal readers.…”

Initial and Later Procedural Learning Rates of Implicit Sequences in Good and Poor Readers of English

“…Two subcomponents are argued to contribute to this initial-a 'generalized skill learning' which is the proficiency in executing the RT task by successfully mapping the stimulus to response key locations and 'sequence specific learning' which is the knowledge about the order in which the stimulus location occurs (Ferraro, Balota, & Connor, 1993;Knopman & Nissen, 1991). Of few studies we reviewed that focused on this initial phase of procedural learning in children with DD using SRT task, some showed impaired learning in children with DD compared to typical readers (Gabay, Schiff, & Vakil, 2012); (Howard, Howard, Japikse, & Eden, 2006;Jiménez-Fernández, Vaquero, Jiménez, & Defior, 2011;Stoodley, Harrison, & Stein, 2006;Stoodley, Ray, Jack, & Stein, 2008;Vicari, Marotta, Menghini, Molinari, & Petrosini, 2003) while others did not show group differences (Deroost et al, 2010;Hedenius et al, 2013;Kelly, Griffiths, & Frith, 2002;Rüsseler, Gerth, & Münte, 2006;van Witteloostuijn, Boersma, Wijnen, & Rispens, 2017). A meta-analysis of data from 14 studies that used SRT showed that children with DD have affected procedural learning ).On the other hand, a meta-analysis that controlled for publication bias showed that the effect size may be zero between children with and without DD on implicit sequence learning (van Witteloostuijn et al, 2017).…”