Pub Date : 2016-10-01DOI: 10.1177/2396941516674416
S. Kuppuraj, Prema K. S. Rao, D. Bishop
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 eff
{"title":"Declarative capacity does not trade-off with procedural capacity in children with specific language impairment","authors":"S. Kuppuraj, Prema K. S. Rao, D. Bishop","doi":"10.1177/2396941516674416","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2396941516674416","url":null,"abstract":"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 eff","PeriodicalId":36716,"journal":{"name":"Autism and Developmental Language Impairments","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2396941516674416","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65965472","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-06-01DOI: 10.1177/2396941516654609
N. Botting, Allison Bean-Ellawadi, David M Williams
As any researcher or practitioner working in the field of communication difficulties knows, children who show difficulties with language present with a variety of different symptoms and features. They may have a disorder that is diagnosed based on primary difficulties with communication, such as autism spectrum disorder or developmental language impairment (DLI). They may have other recognised syndromes, such as Down syndrome or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) that impact on language development; or they may have difficulties that stem from different language experiences such as children who are deaf or blind. The sheer heterogeneity of feature presentation across these populations does not stop at inter-group comparisons. Even within each of these groups of children, we are aware of a very large variation in language ability and in the profiles of impairment that each individual might experience. This has often led to important debates about our definition, description and diagnosis of children with different language difficulties. In the domain of autism, for example, there have been recent discussions about the labels ‘Asperger’s Syndrome’ and ‘high functioning autism’ (Kite, Gullifer, & Tyson, 2013). In DLI, there has been a shift away from referring to this disorder as specific language impairment (SLI), but there is no consensus as yet regarding a suitable alterative term (Bishop, 2014; Reilly et al., 2014). The complexity of identifying groups and understanding this variation has implications for future research: Firstly, we need to take into account the heterogeneity of different groups of children with language difficulties and use this to enhance our understanding of the nature, underlying basis, and treatment of language impairments. It may be that different stages of development are observed even across children who are chronologically similar in age, or that different levels of skill can be used to give information about prognosis. In Dohmen, Bishop, Chiat, and Roy (2016), the findings suggest that the range of ability shown by children with late-developing language might be predicted by other underlying skills such as imitation. Secondly, making theoretical links to aetiology within and across different groups of children is complex when the group definitions themselves are fuzzy and when different researchers disagree about how disorders should be described. Levy and Ebstein (2009, p. 657) state that ‘the inherent imprecision of behavioral phenotyping is the single most important factor contributing to the failure to discover the biological factors that are involved in psychiatric and neurodevelopmental disorders’. Understanding the aetiology of various language profiles is also less than straightforward. Although long-standing evidence suggests that most cases of both autism and DLI have a genetic basis (Bailey et al., 1995; Bishop, North, & Donlan, 1995, respectively), these studies often rely on very clear cut cl
任何在沟通困难领域工作的研究人员或实践者都知道，表现出语言困难的儿童表现出各种不同的症状和特征。他们可能患有一种疾病，这种疾病是根据主要的沟通困难来诊断的，比如自闭症谱系障碍或发育性语言障碍(DLI)。他们可能患有其他公认的综合症，如唐氏综合症或注意力缺陷多动障碍(ADHD)，这些症状会影响语言发育;或者他们可能有源于不同语言经历的困难，比如失聪或失明的孩子。在这些人群中，特征呈现的纯粹异质性并没有在组间比较中停止。即使在每一组孩子中，我们也意识到每个人在语言能力和可能经历的障碍方面都有很大的差异。这经常导致关于我们对不同语言障碍儿童的定义、描述和诊断的重要争论。例如，在自闭症领域，最近有关于“阿斯伯格综合症”和“高功能自闭症”标签的讨论(Kite, Gullifer， & Tyson, 2013)。在DLI中，人们已经不再将这种障碍称为特殊语言障碍(SLI)，但对于一个合适的替代术语尚未达成共识(Bishop, 2014;Reilly et al.， 2014)。识别群体和理解这种差异的复杂性对未来的研究具有重要意义:首先，我们需要考虑不同语言障碍儿童群体的异质性，并利用这一点来增强我们对语言障碍的本质、潜在基础和治疗的理解。这可能是，即使在年龄相近的儿童中，也可以观察到不同的发展阶段，或者不同的技能水平可以用来提供预后的信息。在Dohmen, Bishop, Chiat和Roy(2016)中，研究结果表明，语言发育较晚的儿童所表现出的能力范围可以通过模仿等其他潜在技能来预测。其次，当群体定义本身是模糊的，当不同的研究人员在如何描述疾病的问题上存在分歧时，在不同的儿童群体内部和群体之间建立与病因学的理论联系是复杂的。Levy和Ebstein (2009, p. 657)指出，“行为表型固有的不精确性是导致无法发现与精神和神经发育障碍有关的生物因素的最重要因素”。理解各种语言概况的病因也不是那么简单。尽管长期存在的证据表明，大多数自闭症和重度自闭症病例都有遗传基础(Bailey et al.， 1995;Bishop, North， & Donlan, 1995)，这些研究通常依赖于非常明确的临床病例，并且有许多儿童落在诊断标准的边缘。基因对这些儿童语言障碍的影响尚不清楚。尽管儿童语言障碍的情况相当模糊，但令人惊讶的是，在同一项研究中，很少有研究试图直接比较不同群体的能力;这将抽样考虑在内;或者仔细地把不同的任务分开
{"title":"Language impairments in childhood – A range of profiles, a variety of reasons","authors":"N. Botting, Allison Bean-Ellawadi, David M Williams","doi":"10.1177/2396941516654609","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2396941516654609","url":null,"abstract":"As any researcher or practitioner working in the field of communication difficulties knows, children who show difficulties with language present with a variety of different symptoms and features. They may have a disorder that is diagnosed based on primary difficulties with communication, such as autism spectrum disorder or developmental language impairment (DLI). They may have other recognised syndromes, such as Down syndrome or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) that impact on language development; or they may have difficulties that stem from different language experiences such as children who are deaf or blind. The sheer heterogeneity of feature presentation across these populations does not stop at inter-group comparisons. Even within each of these groups of children, we are aware of a very large variation in language ability and in the profiles of impairment that each individual might experience. This has often led to important debates about our definition, description and diagnosis of children with different language difficulties. In the domain of autism, for example, there have been recent discussions about the labels ‘Asperger’s Syndrome’ and ‘high functioning autism’ (Kite, Gullifer, & Tyson, 2013). In DLI, there has been a shift away from referring to this disorder as specific language impairment (SLI), but there is no consensus as yet regarding a suitable alterative term (Bishop, 2014; Reilly et al., 2014). The complexity of identifying groups and understanding this variation has implications for future research: Firstly, we need to take into account the heterogeneity of different groups of children with language difficulties and use this to enhance our understanding of the nature, underlying basis, and treatment of language impairments. It may be that different stages of development are observed even across children who are chronologically similar in age, or that different levels of skill can be used to give information about prognosis. In Dohmen, Bishop, Chiat, and Roy (2016), the findings suggest that the range of ability shown by children with late-developing language might be predicted by other underlying skills such as imitation. Secondly, making theoretical links to aetiology within and across different groups of children is complex when the group definitions themselves are fuzzy and when different researchers disagree about how disorders should be described. Levy and Ebstein (2009, p. 657) state that ‘the inherent imprecision of behavioral phenotyping is the single most important factor contributing to the failure to discover the biological factors that are involved in psychiatric and neurodevelopmental disorders’. Understanding the aetiology of various language profiles is also less than straightforward. Although long-standing evidence suggests that most cases of both autism and DLI have a genetic basis (Bailey et al., 1995; Bishop, North, & Donlan, 1995, respectively), these studies often rely on very clear cut cl","PeriodicalId":36716,"journal":{"name":"Autism and Developmental Language Impairments","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2396941516654609","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65964939","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-06-01DOI: 10.1177/2396941516645251
A. Pickles, K. Durkin, P. Mok, Umar Toseeb, G. Conti-Ramsden
Background Language impairment is a common developmental disorder which is frequently associated with externalising problems. In this study, we investigate for the first time, joint trajectories of conduct problems and hyperactivity in children with language impairment from childhood to adolescence. We determine patterns of co-occurrence of symptoms and identify specific risk and protective factors. Methods We develop a trajectory grouping method to examine simultaneously the conduct and hyperactivity problem scores of 164 children with language impairment at 7, 8, 11 and 16 years of age. Results We identified five groups of children with distinct trajectories of symptoms. Three trajectory groups all had different conduct/hyperactivity problems: a persistent problems group (15%), an adolescent-onset group (24%) and a childhood-limited group (17%). There were two trajectory groups that did not show conduct problems. Conclusions Conduct problems always co-occurred with hyperactivity in children with language impairment regardless of differences in the onset of symptoms (childhood versus adolescence) or their persistence (persistent versus childhood limited). Reading difficulties were strongly associated with mixed conduct/hyperactivity problems that started early (childhood) and continued into adolescence (the persistent trajectory group). Prosocial behaviours were found to be protective against conduct problems.
{"title":"Conduct problems co-occur with hyperactivity in children with language impairment: A longitudinal study from childhood to adolescence","authors":"A. Pickles, K. Durkin, P. Mok, Umar Toseeb, G. Conti-Ramsden","doi":"10.1177/2396941516645251","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2396941516645251","url":null,"abstract":"Background Language impairment is a common developmental disorder which is frequently associated with externalising problems. In this study, we investigate for the first time, joint trajectories of conduct problems and hyperactivity in children with language impairment from childhood to adolescence. We determine patterns of co-occurrence of symptoms and identify specific risk and protective factors. Methods We develop a trajectory grouping method to examine simultaneously the conduct and hyperactivity problem scores of 164 children with language impairment at 7, 8, 11 and 16 years of age. Results We identified five groups of children with distinct trajectories of symptoms. Three trajectory groups all had different conduct/hyperactivity problems: a persistent problems group (15%), an adolescent-onset group (24%) and a childhood-limited group (17%). There were two trajectory groups that did not show conduct problems. Conclusions Conduct problems always co-occurred with hyperactivity in children with language impairment regardless of differences in the onset of symptoms (childhood versus adolescence) or their persistence (persistent versus childhood limited). Reading difficulties were strongly associated with mixed conduct/hyperactivity problems that started early (childhood) and continued into adolescence (the persistent trajectory group). Prosocial behaviours were found to be protective against conduct problems.","PeriodicalId":36716,"journal":{"name":"Autism and Developmental Language Impairments","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2396941516645251","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65964795","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-06-01DOI: 10.1177/2396941516656636
A. Dohmen, D. Bishop, S. Chiat, P. Roy
Background and aims Over recent decades much research has focused on detecting predictors of different language trajectories in children with early language delay but there has been very little exploration of social communication trajectories in these children. We report a longitudinal study that investigated the predictive value and clinical significance of elicited body movement imitation and language for later social communication and language outcome in Late Talkers. Methods Participants were 29 German-speaking children who were identified with delayed onset and progression of language at two years and followed up at four years. Novel assessments of posture and gesture imitation were administered at Time 1, together with standardised language measures. All body movement imitation items involved self-other mappings, assumed to rely on sociocognitive capacities. At Time 2, children were assessed on standard language tests, together with parental reports of social communication. Results Early language skills at Time 1 were significantly associated with later language outcome and body movement imitation skills at Time 1 with later social communication outcome. Logistic regression analyses revealed that body movement imitation as well as language at Time 1 added significantly to the prediction of language outcome at Time 2, whereas only body movement imitation made a significant contribution to the prediction of social communication outcome at Time 2. Conclusions and implications Theoretically, results highlight the need to account for the heterogeneity of different language and communication trajectories in children with early language delay and point to the importance of sociocognitive difficulties observed in some of these children. Clinically, this study demonstrated that body movement imitation measures have the potential to improve the identification of pre-schoolers who are at risk of later social communication and language problems.
{"title":"Body movement imitation and early language as predictors of later social communication and language outcomes: A longitudinal study","authors":"A. Dohmen, D. Bishop, S. Chiat, P. Roy","doi":"10.1177/2396941516656636","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2396941516656636","url":null,"abstract":"Background and aims Over recent decades much research has focused on detecting predictors of different language trajectories in children with early language delay but there has been very little exploration of social communication trajectories in these children. We report a longitudinal study that investigated the predictive value and clinical significance of elicited body movement imitation and language for later social communication and language outcome in Late Talkers. Methods Participants were 29 German-speaking children who were identified with delayed onset and progression of language at two years and followed up at four years. Novel assessments of posture and gesture imitation were administered at Time 1, together with standardised language measures. All body movement imitation items involved self-other mappings, assumed to rely on sociocognitive capacities. At Time 2, children were assessed on standard language tests, together with parental reports of social communication. Results Early language skills at Time 1 were significantly associated with later language outcome and body movement imitation skills at Time 1 with later social communication outcome. Logistic regression analyses revealed that body movement imitation as well as language at Time 1 added significantly to the prediction of language outcome at Time 2, whereas only body movement imitation made a significant contribution to the prediction of social communication outcome at Time 2. Conclusions and implications Theoretically, results highlight the need to account for the heterogeneity of different language and communication trajectories in children with early language delay and point to the importance of sociocognitive difficulties observed in some of these children. Clinically, this study demonstrated that body movement imitation measures have the potential to improve the identification of pre-schoolers who are at risk of later social communication and language problems.","PeriodicalId":36716,"journal":{"name":"Autism and Developmental Language Impairments","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2396941516656636","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65965332","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：