The procedural learning deficit hypothesis of language learning disorders: we see some problems

West, Gillian; Vadillo, Miguel A.; Shanks, David R.; Hulme, Charles

doi:10.1111/desc.12552

Cited by 119 publications

(181 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

158

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This allows us to investigate the associations between measures of interest without overestimating the size of any association and avoids results of low statistical power which yield many false positive results (West et al . ). Limitations are that although the Slow‐Retrieval Model is supported by the empirical evidence we have presented regarding cluster size, we have not been able to identify exactly what the reason(s) for this slow retrieval might be.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…An important strength of the study is its inclusion of a large overall sample, which covers a wide range of scores, and large numbers of children in each participating group to study the relationship between measures of interest. This allows us to investigate the associations between measures of interest without overestimating the size of any association and avoids results of low statistical power which yield many false positive results (West et al 2018). Limitations are that although the Slow-Retrieval Model is supported by the empirical evidence we have presented regarding cluster size, we have not been able to identify exactly what the reason(s) for this slow retrieval might be.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Semantic fluency difficulties in developmental dyslexia and developmental language disorder (DLD): poor semantic structure of the lexicon or slower retrieval processes?

Mengisidou

Marshall

Stavrakaki

2019

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Children with dyslexia and/or developmental language disorder (hereafter children with DDLD) have been reported to retrieve fewer words than their typically developing (TD) peers in semantic fluency tasks. It is not known whether this retrieval difficulty can be attributed to the semantic structure of their lexicon being poor or, alternatively, to words being retrieved more slowly despite semantic structure being intact. Aims To test two theoretical models that could potentially account for retrieval difficulties in semantic fluency tasks, namely, the Poor Lexical–Semantic Structure Model and the Slow‐Retrieval Model. Both models predict that children with DDLD will retrieve fewer items compared with TD children. However, while the Poor Lexical–Semantic Structure Model predicts a less sophisticated network of semantic connections between words in the lexicon, as evidenced by smaller clusters of related items in children with DDLD, the Slow‐Retrieval Model predicts intact inter‐item associations in the lexicon, as evidenced by the two groups’ clusters being of a similar size. The groups’ semantic fluency performance was therefore compared. How semantic fluency performance related to children's language, literacy, and phonological skills was also investigated. Methods & Procedures A total of 66 children with DDLD aged 7–12 years and 83 TD children aged 6–12 years, all monolingual Greek speakers, were tested on semantic fluency, using the categories ‘animals’, ‘foods’ and ‘objects from around the house’. The numbers of correct and incorrect responses, clusters and switches, and the average cluster size were computed. Children were also assessed on non‐verbal IQ, language, literacy and phonological tasks. Outcomes & Results In both groups, productivity in semantic fluency tasks correlated strongly with the numbers of clusters and switches, but not with average cluster size. The DDLD group produced significantly fewer correct responses and fewer clusters compared with the TD group, but the two groups showed similar switching and average cluster size. Children's language, literacy and phonological skills significantly predicted the number of correct responses produced, beyond the significant effect of age. Conclusions & Implications We conclude that poorer semantic fluency performance in children with DDLD results not from a lexicon with poor semantic structure, but rather from slower retrieval processes from a lexicon with intact semantic structure. The underlying causes of slow lexical retrieval still need further investigation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Semantic fluency difficulties in developmental dyslexia and developmental language disorder (DLD): poor semantic structure of the lexicon or slower retrieval processes?

Mengisidou

Marshall

Stavrakaki

2019

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…dyslexia, implicit learning, language, procedural deficit hypothesis, procedural memory, specific language impairment In a recent paper ("The procedural learning deficit hypothesis of language learning disorders: We see some problems", Developmental Science, 2018), West, Vadillo, Shanks, and Hulme (2018) aimed to test the procedural deficit hypothesis (PDH) of specific language impairment (SLI) and dyslexia. This hypothesis proposes that abnormalities of brain structures underlying procedural memory can largely explain SLI, and perhaps developmental dyslexia (Ullman, 2004;Ullman & Pierpont, 2005; see also Nicolson & Fawcett, 2007, 2011.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Seeing problems that may not exist: A reply to West et al.'s (2018) questioning of the procedural deficit hypothesis

Conway

Arciuli

Lum

et al. 2019

Developmental Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…On Day 2, participants were tested with the same ASRT sequence as the one they learnt on Day 1. Note that the ASRT task has good test-retest reliability, and it is therefore a suitable tool to assess learning, especially in multiple sessions (Stark-Inbar, Raza, Taylor, & Ivry, 2016;West, Vadillo, Shanks, & Hulme, 2017). After performing the ASRT task on Day 2, we tested the amount of explicit knowledge the participants acquired about the task with a short questionnaire and the Inclusion-Exclusion Task.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus presentation rates affect performance but not the acquired knowledge – Evidence from procedural learning

Kiss

Németh

Janacsek

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Presentation rates -the tempo in which we encounter subsequent items -can alter both our behavioral and neural responses in cognitive domains such as learning, memory, decisionmaking, perception and language. However, it is still unclear to what extent presentation rates affect the momentary performance versus the underlying cognitive function or mentalrepresentation. Here we systemically tested the effect of presentation rate on performance versus competence in procedural learning -a fundamental cognitive function that underlies the acquisition of skills and habits. Procedural learning was assessed by a probabilistic sequence learning task, in which learning typically occurs implicitly. Stimulus presentation rates were systematically manipulated by the Response-to-Stimulus-Intervals (RSIs). Participants were assigned to a fast (120ms) RSI or a slow (850ms) RSI group during the Learning phase, and were tested with both RSIs 24 hours later (Testing phase). We also tested whether they gained explicit knowledge about the sequence or their knowledge remained implicit. We found that the slower RSI led to weaker performance in the Learning phase. Importantly, however, the results of the Testing phase showed that this effect was primarily due to the expression of the acquired knowledge and not the learning itself. Thus, the slower presentation rate affected performance rather than competence. The acquired knowledge remained implicit in both groups, regardless of the presentation rate during learning. These findings call for tasks that can dissociate competence from performance both in experimental and clinical settings. Additionally, our findings can help design more efficient training protocols in education and clinical rehabilitation.

show abstract

The procedural learning deficit hypothesis of language learning disorders: we see some problems

Cited by 119 publications

References 68 publications

Semantic fluency difficulties in developmental dyslexia and developmental language disorder (DLD): poor semantic structure of the lexicon or slower retrieval processes?

Semantic fluency difficulties in developmental dyslexia and developmental language disorder (DLD): poor semantic structure of the lexicon or slower retrieval processes?

Seeing problems that may not exist: A reply to West et al.'s (2018) questioning of the procedural deficit hypothesis

Stimulus presentation rates affect performance but not the acquired knowledge – Evidence from procedural learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About