Procedural learning and school-age language outcomes in children with and without a history of late talking

Background 'Late talkers' (LTs) are toddlers with late language emergence that cannot be explained by other impairments. It is difficult to predict which of these children continue to present long-term restrictions in language abilities and will later be identified as having a developmental language disorder. Procedural memory weaknesses have been suggested to underlie developmental language disorders, but have not been investigated in LTs. Aims We investigated the relationships between aspects of procedural memory and school-age language abilities in children with and without a history of LT. We hypothesized that children with a history of LT exhibit (1) restrictions in procedural memory when compared with children with typical early development (TED); and (2) a positive association between procedural memory and school-age language abilities. Methods & Procedures We recruited 79 children (7;5-10;5), 43 of whom had a history of LT. Aspects of procedural memory, procedural learning and motor planning were assessed using the serial reaction time and the end-state comfort tasks. School-age language abilities were measured using standardized tests. Outcomes & Results Counter to expectations, motor planning was not associated with a history of LT or school-age language abilities, and the children with TED did not show stronger procedural learning as compared with peers with a history of LT. However, weaker school-age language abilities were associated with weak procedural learning in TED group. Conclusions & Implications Factors other than deficits in procedural memory are likely to underlie LT. Procedural learning shows promise as a potential predictor of language development in children that are not identified as LTs. What this paper adds What is already known on the subject Poor procedural learning has been associated with developmental language disorders and suggested to underlie language difficulties. However, to our knowledge, this study is the first to investigate procedural learning and its associations with language outcomes in LTs. What this paper adds to existing knowledge Consistent with prior research, we found an association between language abilities and procedural learning in school-aged children, but found no evidence for poor procedural learning in children with a history of LT. Furthermore, the school-age language outcomes were only associated with procedural learning in children with no history of LT. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Our findings suggest that factors other than limitations in procedural learning underlie LT. However, procedural learning could be a useful predictor for school-aged language outcomes in children not identified as LTs.</p

Characterizing the Motor Skills in Children with Specific Language Impairment

Background/Aims: Specific language impairment (SLI) is characterized by deficits in language ability. However, studies have also reported motor impairments in SLI. It has been proposed that the language and motor impairments in SLI share common origins. This exploratory study compared the gross, fine, oral, and speech motor skills of children with SLI and children with typical development (TD) to determine whether children with SLI would exhibit difficulties on particular motor tasks and to inform us about the underlying cognitive deficits in SLI. Methods: A total of 13 children with SLI (aged 8–12 years) and 14 age-matched children with TD were administered the Movement Assessment Battery for Children – Second Edition and the Verbal Motor Production Assessment for Children to examine gross and fine motor skills and oral and speech motor skills, respectively.Results: Children with SLI scored significantly lower on gross, fine, and speech motor tasks relative to children with TD. In particular, children with SLI found movements organized into sequences and movement modifications challenging. On oral motor tasks, however, children with SLI were comparable to children with TD. Conclusion: Impairment of the motor sequencing and adaptation processes may explain the performance of children with SLI on these tasks, which may be suggestive of a procedural memory deficit in SLI

Sentence repetition: what does the task measure?

Background: Sentence repetition is gaining increasing attention as a source of information about children's sentence-level abilities in clinical assessment, and as a clinical marker of specific language impairment. However, it is widely debated what the task is testing and therefore how informative it is. Aims: (1) To evaluate the effects of different types of long-term linguistic knowledge on immediate recall, (2) to assess age sensitivity of repetition tasks designed to evaluate these effects, and (3) to establish if the effects are similar across typologically different languages. The study also considers the implications of the findings for the use of sentence repetition as a research and clinical assessment tool. Methods & Procedures: Participants were 50 English-speaking and 50 Czech-speaking typically developing 4–5-year-olds. Children's ability to recall sequences of items was compared in seven linguistic conditions ranging from fully well-formed sentences to sequences of non-words. In each condition, children repeated blocks of successively longer stimuli to establish their span. Outcomes & Results: Results showed significant but differential effects of all linguistic factors in both languages. While syntactic violations and presence of non-words dramatically reduced children's span, semantic implausibility and the removal of sentence prosody played a significant but much smaller role. Familiarity of function words was more important than familiarity of content words. The effects of different linguistic factors on spans were the same for both languages and did not change between 4 and 5 years, although average spans increased over this age range. Conclusions & Implications: Children's ability to repeat sentences is more dependent on their familiarity with morphosyntax and lexical phonology than semantics or prosody, with function words of particular importance. Findings have implications for the use of recall in clinical assessment and as a research tool

Generalized Slowing Rather Than Inhibition Is Associated With Language Outcomes in Both Late Talkers and Children With Typical Early Development

Purpose: While most of the children who are identified as late talkers at the age of 2 years catch up with their peers before school age, some continue to have language difficulties and will later be identified as having developmental language disorder. Our understanding of which children catch up and which do not is limited. The aim of the current study was to find out if inhibition is associated with late talker outcomes at school age.Method: We recruited 73 school-aged children (ages 7– 10 years) with a history of late talking (n = 38) or typical development (n = 35). Children completed measures of language skills and a flanker task to measure inhibition. School-age language outcome was measured as a continuous variable.Results: Our analyses did not reveal associations between inhibition and school-age language index or history of late talking. However, stronger school-age language skills were associated with shorter overall response times on the flanker task, in both congruent and incongruent trials. This effect was not modulated by history of late talking, suggesting that a relationship between general response times and language development is similar in both children with typical early language development and late talkers.Conclusions: Inhibition is not related to late talker language outcomes. However, children with better language outcomes had shorter general response times. We interpret this to reflect differences in general processing speed, suggesting that processing speed holds promise for predicting school-age language outcomes in both late talkers and children with typical early development.</div

Bilingualism and Attention in Typically Developing Children and Children With Developmental Language Disorder

Purpose: The aim of the current study was to investigate whether dual language experience modulates the efficiency of the 3 attentional networks (alerting, orienting, and executive control) in typically developing (TD) children and in children with developmental language disorder (DLD).Method: We examined the attentional networks in monolingual and bilingual school-aged children (ages 8–12 years) with and without DLD. TD children (35 monolinguals, 23 bilinguals) and children with DLD (17 monolinguals, 9 bilinguals) completed the Attention Network Test (Fan et al., 2002; Fan, McCandliss, Fossella, Flombaum, & Posner, 2005).Results: Children with DLD exhibited poorer executive control than TD children, but executive control was not modified by bilingual experience. The bilingual group with DLD and both TD groups exhibited an orienting effect, but the monolingual group with DLD did not. No group differences were found for alerting.Conclusions: Children with DLD have weak executive control skills. These skills are minimally influenced by dual language experience, at least in this age range. A potential bilingual advantage in orienting may be present in the DLD group.</p

Bilingualism and processing speed in typically developing children and children with developmental language disorder.

Purpose: The aim of the current study was to investigate whether dual language experience modulates processing speed in typically developing (TD) children and in children with developmental language disorder (DLD). We also examined whether processing speed predicted vocabulary and sentence-level abilities in receptive and expressive modalities. Method: We examined processing speed in monolingual and bilingual school-age children (ages 8–12 years) with and without DLD. TD children (35 monolinguals, 24 bilinguals) and children with DLD (17 monolinguals, 10 bilinguals) completed a visual choice reaction time task. The Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, and the Expressive Vocabulary Test were used as language measures. Results: The children with DLD exhibited slower response times relative to TD children. Response time was not modified by bilingual experience, neither in children with typical development nor children with DLD. Also, we found that faster processing speed was related to higher language abilities, but this relationship was not significant when socioeconomic status was controlled for. The magnitude of the association did not differ between the monolingual and bilingual groups across the language measures. Conclusions: Slower processing speed is related to lower language abilities in children. Processing speed is minimally influenced by dual language experience, at least within this age range.</p

Gestural abilities of children with specific language impairment

BackgroundSpecific language impairment (SLI) is diagnosed when language is significantly below chronological age expectations in the absence of other developmental disorders, sensory impairments or global developmental delays. It has been suggested that gesture may enhance communication in children with SLI by providing an alternative means to convey words or extend utterances. However, gesture is a complex task that requires the integration of social, cognitive and motor skills, skills that some children with SLI may find challenging. In addition, there is reason to believe that language and gesture form an integrated system leading to the prediction that children with a SLI may also have difficulties with gestural communication. AimsTo explore the link between language and gesture in children with poor language skills. Methods & ProcedureFifteen children with SLI and 14 age-matched typically developing children (TD) participated in this study. The children completed measures of expressive and receptive vocabulary, non-verbal cognition, motor control, gesture comprehension and gesture production. Outcomes & ResultsTD children achieved significantly higher scores on measures of gesture production and gesture comprehension relative to children with SLI. Significant correlations between both measures of vocabulary and both measures of gesture suggest a tight link between language and gesture. Conclusions & ImplicationsThe findings support the idea that gesture and language form one integrated communication system, rather than two separate communication modalities. This implies that children with SLI may have underlying deficits that impact not only on language but also on gesture production and comprehension

CATALISE: A multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study. Identifying language impairments in children

Delayed or impaired language development is a common developmental concern, yet thereis little agreement about the criteria used to identify and classify language impairments inchildren. Children's language difficulties are at the interface between education, medicineand the allied professions, who may all adopt different approaches to conceptualising them.Our goal in this study was to use an online Delphi technique to see whether it was possibleto achieve consensus among professionals on appropriate criteria for identifying childrenwho might benefit from specialist services. We recruited a panel of 59 experts representingten disciplines (including education, psychology, speech-language therapy/pathology, paediatricsand child psychiatry) from English-speaking countries (Australia, Canada, Ireland,New Zealand, United Kingdom and USA). The starting point for round 1 was a set of 46statements based on articles and commentaries in a special issue of a journal focusing onthis topic. Panel members rated each statement for both relevance and validity on a sevenpointscale, and added free text comments. These responses were synthesised by the firsttwo authors, who then removed, combined or modified items with a view to improving consensus.The resulting set of statements was returned to the panel for a second evaluation(round 2). Consensus (percentage reporting 'agree' or 'strongly agree') was at least 80 percentfor 24 of 27 round 2 statements, though many respondents qualified their responsewith written comments. These were again synthesised by the first two authors. The resultingconsensus statement is reported here, with additional summary of relevant evidence, and aconcluding commentary on residual disagreements and gaps in the evidence base.</p

Phase 2 of CATALISE: a multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study of problems with language development: Terminology.

Background: Lack of agreement about criteria and terminology for children’s language problems affects access to services as well as hindering research and practice. We report the second phase of a study using an online Delphi method to address these issues. In the first phase, we focused on criteria for language disorder. Here we consider terminology.Methods: The Delphi method is an iterative process in which an initial set of statements is rated by a panel of experts, who then have the opportunity to view anonymised ratings from other panel members. On this basis they can either revise their views or make a case for their position. The statements are then revised based on panel feedback, and again rated by and commented on by the panel. In this study, feedback from a second round was used to prepare a final set of statements in narrative form. The panel included 57 individuals representing a range of professions and nationalities. Results: We achieved at least 78% agreement for 19 of 21 statements within two rounds of ratings. These were collapsed into 12 statements for the final consensus reported here. The term ‘Language Disorder’ is recommended to refer to a profile of difficulties that causes functional impairment in everyday life and is associated with poor prognosis. The term, ‘Developmental Language Disorder’ (DLD) was endorsed for use when the language disorder was not associated with a known biomedical aetiology. It was also agreed that (a) presence of risk factors (neurobiological or environmental) does not preclude a diagnosis of DLD, (b) DLD can co-occur with other neurodevelopmental disorders (e.g. ADHD) and (c) DLD does not require a mismatch between verbal and nonverbal ability. Conclusions: This Delphi exercise highlights reasons for disagreements about terminology for language disorders and proposes standard definitions and nomenclature. </p