Sequence learning pattern in children with specific language impairment

Sengottuvel, Kuppuraj; Rao, Prema K. S.

doi:10.1515/ijdhd-2013-0003

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings were in contrast to those from recent studies exploring procedural learning in SLI with the SRT task (Hedenius et al, 2011; Lum et al, 2010, 2012; Sengottuvel & Rao, 2013, in press; Tomblin et al, 2007; but see Gabriel et al, 2011, 2012; Lum & Bleses, 2012; Mayor-Dubois et al, 2012). Recently, Gabriel et al (2013) noted that poor learning of the SRT task in individuals with SLI might be dependent upon the length or complexity of the sequence used in the SRT paradigm.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Procedural Learning and Individual Differences in Language

Lee

Tomblin

2014

Language Learning and Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Procedural Learning and Individual Differences in Language

Lee

Tomblin

2014

Language Learning and Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies examining procedural memory using this method showed poorer motor sequence learning in children with SLI compared to their TD peers (Conti-Ramsden, Ullman, & Lum, 2015; Desmottes, Meulemans, & Maillart, 2016; Gabriel et al., 2013; Lum, Gelgic, & Conti-Ramsden, 2010; Lum et al., 2012; Tomblin, Mainela-Arnold, & Zhang, 2007). These findings held up after controlling for attention and general motor speed (Lum et al., 2010; Sengottuvel & Rao, 2013b, 2013c) and were also obtained in verbal sequence learning (i.e. reduced Hebb effect: Hsu & Bishop, 2014a) and artificial language learning tasks (Evans, Saffran, & Robe-Torres, 2009; Mayor-Dubois, Zesiger, Van der Linden, & Roulet-Perez, 2012; Plante, Gomez, & Gerken, 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 57%

“…We justify the validity of LPT for detecting SLI based on earlier published studies where the participants selected this way showed the hallmark clinical characteristics of SLI, i.e. poor non-word repetition (Kuppuraj & Rao, 2012), normal non-verbal ability, poor sentence construction (Sengottuvel & Rao, 2014) and poor sequence learning (Sengottuvel & Rao, 2013b, 2013c).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Declarative capacity does not trade-off with procedural capacity in children with specific language impairment

Sengottuvel

Rao²,

Bishop

2016

Autism & Developmental Language Impairments

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and aims The procedural deficit hypothesis attributes the language phenotype in children with specific language impairment to an impaired procedural and relatively intact declarative memory system. The declarative compensatory hypothesis is an extension of the procedural deficit hypothesis which claims that the declarative system in specific language impairment compensates for the procedural deficit. The present study’s aim was to examine the claims of the procedural deficit hypothesis and declarative compensatory hypothesis by examining these memory systems and relation between them in specific language impairment. Methods Participants were children aged 8–13 years, 30 with specific language impairment and 30 typically developing controls, who spoke Kannada (an agglutinating language of the Dravidian family). Procedural learning was assessed using a serial reaction time task. Declarative memory was assessed using two non-verbal tasks that differed at the level of encoding and retrieval: a recognition memory task after incidental encoding using real and novel object images and a recall task after intentional encoding using visual paired associates. Retrieval was examined after short (10 min) and long (60 min) delays after encoding on both declarative tasks. Results Findings confirmed that children with specific language impairment (SLI) have impaired procedural memory on a non-verbal serial reaction time task. On recognition memory task after incidental encoding though children with specific language impairment encoded less well, they recognized items as well as typically developing controls. Both the groups retrieved more at short compared to long intervals and retrieved real (verbalizable) objects better than novel objects. On visual paired associates (recall task with intentional encoding) children with specific language impairment retrieved less than typically developing children (even after controlling for non-verbal ability and age). Furthermore, across retrieval types of declarative tasks, although children with specific language impairment did less well than typically developing, their pattern of performance was comparable to typically developing children. Finally, the correlation between memory systems did not support a trade-off between memory systems in children with SLI as predicted by the compensatory wing of procedural deficit hypothesis. Conclusions The findings supported the major claim of the procedural deficit hypothesis – a procedural learning deficit in specific language impairment and an intact declarative system, however, only if measured on task that was designed to be undemanding. Furthermore, there was no evidence for a trade-off between these systems. Implications and future directions Some interventions with specific language impairment use explicit teaching of grammar, an approach that uses the declarative rather than the procedural system. Our findings cast doubt on whether this is likely to be the most effective strategy.

show abstract

“…Two studies have found intact procedural learning when using raw RT data but a deficit when employing normalized RT data (Gabriel et al, 2013; Lukács & Kemény, ), but one other study reported intact procedural learning for both raw and normalized RTs (Gabriel et al ., ). Furthermore, several studies that analysed raw RTs only also reported deficits (Hsu & Bishop, ; Mayor‐Dubois et al ., ; Sengottuvel & Rao, , ; Tomblin et al ., ). Higher error rates in SLI have been reported in some (Gabriel et al ., , ; Lum, Gelgic, & Conti‐Ramsden, ) but not all studies (Desmottes et al ., ; Gabriel et al ., ; Hsu & Bishop, ; Lum & Bleses, ; Lum, Conti‐Ramsden, Page, & Ullman, ).…”

Section: Atypical Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Procedural learning across the lifespan: A systematic review with implications for atypical development

Zwart

Vissers²,

Kessels

et al. 2017

Journal of Neuropsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic review aimed to investigate procedural learning across the lifespan in typical and atypical development. Procedural learning is essential for the development of everyday skills, including language and communication skills. Although procedural learning efficiency has been extensively studied, there is no consensus yet on potential procedural learning changes during development and ageing. Currently, three conflicting models regarding this trajectory exist: (1) a model of age invariance; (2a) a model with a peak in young adulthood; and (2b) a model with a plateau in childhood followed by a decline. The aims of this study were (1) to investigate this debate on procedural learning across the lifespan by systematically reviewing evidence for each model from studies using the serial reaction time task; and (2) to review procedural learning in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and specific language impairment (SLI), two developmental disorders characterized by deficits in communication skills, in the light of these models. Our findings on typical development strongly support a model of age-related changes (Model 2a or 2b) and show that mixed findings regarding the developmental trajectory during childhood can be explained by methodological differences across studies. Applying these conclusions to systematic reviews of studies of ASD and SLI makes it clear that there is a strong need for the inclusion of multiple age groups in these clinical studies to model procedural learning in atypical development. Clinical implications of the findings are discussed. Future research should focus on the role of declarative learning in both typical and atypical development.

show abstract

Sequence learning pattern in children with specific language impairment

Cited by 8 publications

References 22 publications

Procedural Learning and Individual Differences in Language

Procedural Learning and Individual Differences in Language

Declarative capacity does not trade-off with procedural capacity in children with specific language impairment

Procedural learning across the lifespan: A systematic review with implications for atypical development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About