The Procedural Deficit Hypothesis (PDH) posits that Specific Language Impairment (SLI) can be largely explained by abnormalities of brain structures that subserve procedural memory. The PDH predicts impairments of procedural memory itself, and that such impairments underlie the grammatical deficits observed in the disorder. Previous studies have indeed reported procedural learning impairments in SLI, and have found that these are associated with grammatical difficulties. The present study extends this research by examining the consolidation and longer-term procedural sequence learning in children with SLI. The Alternating Serial Reaction Time (ASRT) task was given to children with SLI and typically-developing (TD) children in an initial learning session and an average of three days later to test for consolidation and longer-term learning. Although both groups showed evidence of initial sequence learning, only the TD children showed clear signs of consolidation, even though the two groups did not differ in longer-term learning. When the children were re-categorized on the basis of grammar deficits rather than broader language deficits, a clearer pattern emerged. Whereas both the grammar impaired and normal grammar groups showed evidence of initial sequence learning, only those with normal grammar showed consolidation and longer-term learning. Indeed, the grammar-impaired group appeared to lose any sequence knowledge gained during the initial testing session. These findings held even when controlling for vocabulary or a broad non-grammatical language measure, neither of which were associated with procedural memory. When grammar was examined as a continuous variable over all children, the same relationships between procedural memory and grammar, but not vocabulary or the broader language measure, were observed. Overall, the findings support and further specify the PDH. They suggest that consolidation and longer-term procedural learning are impaired in SLI, but that these impairments are specifically tied to the grammatical deficits in the disorder. The possibility that consolidation and longer-term learning are problematic in the disorder suggests a locus of potential study for therapeutic approaches. In sum, this study clarifies our understanding of the underlying deficits in SLI, and suggests avenues for further research.

No abstract

Developmental dyslexia (DD) has previously been associated with a number of cognitive deficits. Little attention has been directed to cognitive functions that remain intact in the disorder, though the investigation and identification of such strengths might be useful for developing new, and improving current, therapeutical interventions. In this study, an old/new recognition memory paradigm was used to examine previously untested aspects of declarative memory in children with DD and typically developing control children. The DD group was not only not impaired at the task, but actually showed superior recognition memory, as compared to the control children. These findings complement previous reports of enhanced cognition in other domains (e.g., visuo-spatial processing) in DD. Possible underlying mechanisms for the observed DD advantage in declarative memory, and the possibility of compensation by this system for reading deficits in dyslexia, are discussed.

We studied expressive and receptive language, oral motor ability, attention, memory, and intelligence in 20 6-year-old children with epilepsy (14 females, six males; mean age 6y 5mo, range 6y-6y 11mo) without learning disability, cerebral palsy (CP), and/or autism, and in 30 reference children without epilepsy (18 females, 12 males; mean age 6y 5mo, range 6y-6y 11mo). Ten children had partial, six primarily generalized, and four unclassified epilepsy. Fourteen were having monotherapy and six were taking two or more antiepileptic drugs; 13 children were free from seizures 3 months before the assessment. Results show no statistically significant difference between the groups concerning Verbal IQ, expressive and receptive grammar, and receptive vocabulary. The children with epilepsy had a significantly lower Performance IQ and lower scores in tests of oral motor ability, articulation, emerging literacy, auditory attention, short-term memory, and rapid word retrieval. Parent ratings revealed no significant difference in communicative ability. Polytherapy and early onset of epilepsy influenced some results. Preschool children with epilepsy without learning disability, CP, and/or autism may have receptive verbal ability within the normal range but visuoperceptual, auditory attentional, and speechlanguage difficulties that could affect school achievement. Careful testing of children with epilepsy who appear to be functioning within the normal range is needed because this may reveal specific impairments that require appropriate professional input.

Aim: To study language development at age 6.5 y in 230 children who had required neonatal intensive care (NIC) and 71 full‐term neonatally healthy control children, all born in 1986–1989, with a focus on comparison between genders. Methods: Eight aspects of spontaneous speech, 3 fine motor functions, 10 linguistic areas, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, and digit recall (ITPA) were assessed. Results: Achievements for gender and gestational age groups were analysed (group I, 23–31 wk; subgroup IA, 23–27 wk; IB, 28–31 wk; group II, 32–36 wk; group III, >36 wk), with children with congenital malformations as a separate group. As a group, at 6.5 y NIC girls had more developed spontaneous speech than NIC boys, and performed better than NIC boys in some linguistic areas. NIC girls of group I had lower results than control girls in spontaneous speech aspects such as speech motor function, interaction and motivation, and in many areas of linguistic skills. In contrast, NIC boys of group I had higher results than control boys in auditory memory, and only regarding information and speech motor function in spontaneous speech were their results lower. Analysis of results of matched pairs of group I NIC girls versus control girls and group I NIC boys versus control boys revealed even more marked differences between NIC girls and their matched controls than between NIC boys and their matched controls. Conclusion: Language development in extremely or very preterm NIC boys seems to be less influenced than that in NIC girls by the need for and administration of NIC. The neonatal factors associated with low scores in girls are different from those in boys.