Procedural Learning in Adolescents With and Without Specific Language Impairment

Tomblin, J. Bruce; Mainela-Arnold, Elina; Zhang, Xuyang

doi:10.1080/15475440701377477

Cited by 199 publications

(273 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

237

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is therefore useful to survey the studies that have supported a variance account, to see what factors are known to be related to variation in implicit learning. The key factor that emerges from this literature is language (Kaufman et al, 2010;Kidd, 2012;Misyak, Christiansen, & Tomblin, 2010a, 2010bTomblin, Mainela-Arnold, & Zhang, 2007). While these studies find that variation in implicit learning is related to variation in language, they are all correlational in nature, making it impossible to determine whether (1) variation in implicit learning ability impacts language ability, (2) variation in language ability impacts implicit learning ability, (3) there is reciprocal influence between the two domains, or (4) both domains are impacted by a shared third factor.…”

Section: Theoretical Concerns About the Auditory Scaffolding Hypothmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of these, the most salient is the Serial Reaction Time (SRT) task (Nissen & Bullemer, 1987), which can also be used with children (Meulemans et al, 1998). It has been found to be robustly sensitive to individual and group differences in language processing (Kidd, 2012;Tomblin et al, 2007) as well as higher-order cognitive skills (Kaufman et al, 2010).…”

Section: Empirical Concerns About the Auditory Scaffolding Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Auditory access, language access, and implicit sequence learning in deaf children

Hall

Eigsti

Bortfeld

et al. 2017

Developmental Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Developmental psychology plays a central role in shaping evidence-based best practices for prelingually deaf children. The Auditory Scaffolding Hypothesis (Conway et al., 2009) asserts that a lack of auditory stimulation in deaf children leads to impoverished implicit sequence learning abilities, measured via an artificial grammar learning (AGL) task. However, prior research is confounded by a lack of both auditory and language input. The current study examines implicit learning in deaf children who were (Deaf native signers) or were not (oral cochlear implant users) exposed to language from birth, and in hearing children, using both AGL and Serial Reaction Time (SRT) tasks. Neither deaf nor hearing children across the three groups show evidence of implicit learning on the AGL task, but all three groups show robust implicit learning on the SRT task. These findings argue against the Auditory Scaffolding Hypothesis, and suggest that implicit sequence learning may be resilient to both auditory and language deprivation, within the tested limits.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Concerns About the Auditory Scaffolding Hypothmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Empirical Concerns About the Auditory Scaffolding Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Auditory access, language access, and implicit sequence learning in deaf children

Hall

Eigsti

Bortfeld

et al. 2017

Developmental Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In serial reaction time tasks -where reduced reaction times to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 6 stimuli are taken to indicate learning of sequences -children with SLI generally perform less well than typically developing children (Hsu & Bishop, 2014;Lum, Gelgic, & ContiRamsden, 2010;Tomblin, Mainela-Arnold, & Zhang, 2007), but such deficits have not been observed systematically (Gabriel, Maillart, Guillaume, Stefaniak, & Meulemans, 2011;Gabriel, Meulemans, Parisse, & Maillart, 2015;Gabriel, Stefaniak, Maillart, Schmitz, & Meulemans, 2012;Lum & Bleses, 2012). In a recent meta-analysis that focused on SRT tasks only, Lum et al (2014) showed that the likelihood that children with SLI will learn probabilistic sequences depends on a number of factors, such as the number of exposures to the sequence and the children's age.…”

Section: The Procedural Deficit (Pd) Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

The sensitivity of children with SLI to phonotactic probabilities during lexical access

Quémart

Maillart

2016

Journal of Communication Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…More recently, several studies have demonstrated impairments of implicit motor learning on the serial reaction time task in children with LI (Tomblin, Mainela-Arnold, & Zhang, 2007;Lum et al, 2010Lum et al, , 2012Mayor-Dubois et al, 2012;Gabriel et al, 2013;Hsu & Bishop, 2013). These studies were prompted by the procedural deficit hypothesis of Ullman and Pierpont (2005) who suggested that children with LI have abnormalities in the procedural memory system, affecting the ability to learn both linguistic and non-linguistic sequences.…”

Section: Sequencingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Tomblin et al, 2007). In the current study, the one task that involved explicitly producing a sequence of motor movements, NEPSY Sequential Fingertip Tapping, did not show a deficit in either RD or LI.…”

Section: Sequencingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fine motor deficits in reading disability and language impairment: same or different?

Bishop

McDonald

et al. 2013

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several studies have found evidence of motor deficits in poor readers. There is no obvious reason for motor and literacy skills to go together, and it has been suggested that both deficits could be indicative of an underlying problem with cerebellar function and/or procedural learning. However, the picture is complicated by the fact that reading problems often co-occur with oral language impairments, which have also been linked with motor deficits. This raises the question of whether motor deficits characterise poor readers when language impairment has been accounted for -and vice versa. We considered these questions by assessing motor deficits associated with reading disability (RD) and language impairment (LI). A large community sample provided a subset of 9-to 10-year-olds, selected to oversample children with reading and/or language difficulties, to give 37 children with comorbid LI+RD, 67 children with RD only, 32 children with LI only, and 117 typicallydeveloping (TD) children with neither type of difficulty. These children were given four motor tasks that taxed speed, sequence, and imitation abilities to differing extents. Different patterns of results were found for the four motor tasks. There was no effect of RD or LI on two speeded fingertip tapping tasks, one of which involved sequencing of movements. LI, but not RD, was associated with problems in imitating hand positions and slowed performance on a speeded peg-moving task that required a precision grip. Fine motor deficits in poor readers may be more a function of language impairment than literacy problems.PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/77v1/ | v1 received: 4

show abstract

Procedural Learning in Adolescents With and Without Specific Language Impairment

Cited by 199 publications

References 58 publications

Auditory access, language access, and implicit sequence learning in deaf children

Auditory access, language access, and implicit sequence learning in deaf children

The sensitivity of children with SLI to phonotactic probabilities during lexical access

Fine motor deficits in reading disability and language impairment: same or different?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About