Procedural Learning and Individual Differences in Language

Abstract

The aim of the current study was to examine different aspects of procedural memory in young adults who varied with regard to their language abilities. We selected a sample of procedural memory tasks, each of which represented a unique type of procedural learning, and has been linked, at least partially, to the functionality of the corticostriatal system. The findings showed that variance in language abilities is associated with performance on different domains of procedural memory, including the motor domain (as shown in the pursuit rotor task), the cognitive domain (as shown in the weather prediction task), and the linguistic domain (as shown in the nonword repetition priming task). These results implicate the corticostriatal system in individual differences in language.

Insensitivity to response-contingent feedback in adolescents with developmental language disorder (DLD)

“…This neural network involves a variety of human behaviors, including acquisition of habits, learning of sequence and categorization, working memory function, and reinforcement learning (Koziol & Budding, 2009). Previous studies showed that individuals with DLD have difficulty with different types of procedural learning as well as reinforcement learning (Lee & Tomblin, 2012, 2015; Lum & Conti-Ramsden, 2013; Ullman & Pierpont, 2005), which is consistent with brain imaging findings showing structural and functional alterations in the corticostriatal pathways of DLD (Badcock et al, 2012; Jernigan et al, 1991; Lee, Nopoulos, & Tomblin, 2013; Soriano-Mas et al, 2009). …”

Learning trajectories for speech motor performance in children with specific language impairment

“…Those authors observed impaired performance in children with SLI relative to same-age peers on a serial reaction time task and a word learning task. In contrast to Lee and Tomblin (2014), they observed a non-significant difference between the groups in a pursuit rotor task. The two groups even performed similarly after a two-week hiatus.…”

“…Concomitant impairments have been observed in the domains of auditory processing (Tallal et al, 1996), short-term phonological memory (Dollaghan & Campbell, 1998; Gathercole, 2006), statistical and procedural learning (Hedenius et al, 2011; Lum, Conti-Ramsden, Morgan, & Ullman, 2014; Plante, Gómez, & Gerken, 2002; Tomblin, Mainela-Arnold, & Zhang, 2007), and motor skill (Bishop & Edmundson, 1987; Hill, 2001; Zelaznik & Goffman, 2010). One notable exception is general intelligence, which by definition, is not implicated in SLI (Leonard, 2014; Lee & Tomblin, 2014; but cf. Gallinat & Spaulding, 2014).…”

“…Lum, Conti-Ramsden, Morgan, & Ullman, 2014 for a meta-analysis). For example, Lee and Tomblin (2014) had young adults (age range 19-25) with and without language difficulties complete several procedural learning tasks, including a serial reaction time task, a pursuit rotor task, a weather prediction task, and a nonword repetition priming task. Participants with language difficulties performed significantly more poorly than their typical peers on all tasks but the first, suggesting that language impairment correlates with procedural learning impairment across a variety of tasks.…”

Neurobiological Basis of Language Learning Difficulties

“…Both children and adults with dyslexia showed similar implicit learning to controls in non-sequential contextual cueing tasks 29, 30, 31. Children with SLI also show learning similar to that of age-matched controls in other non-sequential procedural learning tasks such as the pursuit rotor task ([7], but see [32]); they do not differ from controls in eyeblink conditioning , which engages corticocerebellar circuits 33, 34. However, a sequential learning deficit cannot explain all the evidence.…”