Recent studies on specific language impairment (SLI) have suggested that language deficits are directly associated with poor procedural learning abilities (Kemény & Lukács, 2010; Lum, Gelgec, & Conti-Ramsden, 2009; Tomblin, Mainela-Arnold, & Zang, 2007; Ullman & Pierpont, 2005). Findings from our previous work (Gabriel, Stefaniak, Maillart, Schmitz, & Meulemans., submitted) are contrary to this hypothesis; we found that children with SLI were able to learn 8 element long sequences as fast and as accurately as children with normal language NL on a serial reaction time (SRT) task. A probabilistic rather than a deterministic SRT paradigm was used in the current study to explore procedural learning in children with SLI in order to mimic real conditions of language learning. Fifteen children with or without SLI were compared on an SRT task including a probabilistic 8 element long sequence. Results show that children with SLI were able to learn this sequence as fast and as accurately as children with NL, and that similar sequence-specific learning was observed in both groups. These results are novel and suggest that children with SLI do not display global procedural system deficits.

Usage-based theory considers analogical reasoning as a cognitive process required in language development. We hypothesized that difficulties with analogical reasoning could hinder the abstraction of construction schemas, thus slowing down morphosyntactic development for children with specific language impairment (SLI). We also hypothesized, in accordance with usage-based theory, that the same analogy mechanism is shared by linguistic and non-linguistic processes. The current study investigated the performance of 15 children with SLI in comparison with age-matched peers on a non-linguistic analogical reasoning task. Our experimental setting targeted two prerequisites of analogical reasoning: structural alignment and the discovery of relational similarity in comparison with perceptual similarity. The results obtained are compatible with our hypotheses according to which children with SLI would encounter problems building more abstract construction schemas, related to difficulties with analogical reasoning. The study also shows that children with SLI have specific cognitive difficulties regardless of their linguistic development.

According to the procedural deficit hypothesis (PDH), abnormal development in the procedural memory system could account for the language deficits observed in specific language impairment (SLI). Recent studies have supported this hypothesis by using a serial reaction time (SRT) task, during which a slower learning rate is observed in children with SLI compared to controls. Recently, we obtained contrasting results, demonstrating that children with SLI were able to learn a sequence as quickly and as accurately as controls. These discrepancies could be related to differences in the statistical structure of the SRT sequence between these studies. The aim of this study was to further assess, in a group of 21 children with SLI, the PDH with second-order conditional sequences, which are more difficult to learn than those used in previous studies. Our results show that children with SLI had impaired procedural memory, as evidenced by both longer reaction times and no sign of sequencespecific learning in comparison with typically developing controls. These results are consistent with the PDH proposed by Ullman and Pierpont (2005) and suggest that procedural sequence-learning in SLI children depends on the complexity of the to-be-learned sequence.

Purpose According to the procedural deficit hypothesis (PDH), difficulties in the procedural learning (PL) system may contribute to the language difficulties observed in children with specific language impairment (SLI). Method Fifteen children with SLI and their typically developing (TD) peers were compared on visual PL tasks—specifically, deterministic serial reaction time (SRT) tasks. In the first experiment, children with SLI and their TD peers performed the classical SRT task using a keyboard as response mode. In the second experiment, they performed the same SRT task but gave their responses through a touchscreen (instead of a keyboard) to reduce the motor and cognitive demands of the task. Results Although in Experiment 1 , children with SLI demonstrated learning, they were slower and made more errors than did their TD peers. Nevertheless, these relative weaknesses disappeared when the nature of the response mode changed ( Experiment 2 ). Conclusions In this study, the authors report that children with SLI may exhibit sequential learning. Moreover, the generally slower reaction times observed in previous deterministic SRT studies may be explained by the response mode used. Thus, our findings are not consistent with the predictions of the PDH, and these findings suggest that language impairments in SLI are not sustained by poor procedural learning abilities.

The present research examined the quality of the phonological representations of French children with specific language impairment (SLI) and those with normal language development (NLD). Twenty-five children with SLI and 50 children with NLD matched on lexical age level participated in an auditory lexical decision task. The observations gathered in our study can be summarized as follows. First, children with a higher receptive lexical level performed better, and this was true both for children with NLD and children with SLI. Second, both children with NLD and those with SLI were more likely to reject pseudowords resulting from a modification affecting the number of syllables of a word than pseudowords resulting from a slight modification with the number of syllables unchanged. This difference, however, was greater for the children with SLI, who appeared to have much difficulty rejecting pseudowords resulting from slight modifications. Finally, the performance of children with SLI was particularly poor when presented with pseudowords resulting from a slight modification at the beginning or the end of a word. These findings are interpreted as supporting the hypothesis of an under-specification of phonological representations in children with SLI.