Working Memory Deficits in Poor Comprehenders Reflect Underlying Language Impairments

1999 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
pp. 139-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Nation ◽  
John W. Adams ◽  
Claudine A. Bowyer-Crane ◽  
Margaret J. Snowling
2018 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 426-434 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephan Heinzel ◽  
Christian Kaufmann ◽  
Rosa Grützmann ◽  
Robert Hummel ◽  
Julia Klawohn ◽  
...  

1997 ◽  
Vol 24 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 138
Author(s):  
Stephan F. Taylor ◽  
Edward E. Smith ◽  
John Jonides ◽  
Laura Decker ◽  
Irma C. Smet ◽  
...  

2000 ◽  
Vol 91 (2) ◽  
pp. 181-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Wareing ◽  
John E. Fisk ◽  
Philip N. Murphy

1995 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 376-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan W. King ◽  
Marta Kutas

ERPs were recorded from 24 undergraduates as they read sentences known to differ in syntactic complexity and working memory requirements, namely Object and Subject Relative sentences. Both the single-word and multiword analyses revealed significant differences due to sentence type, while multiword ERPs also showed that sentence type effects differed for Good and Poor comprehenders. At the single-word level, ERPs to both verbs in Object Relative sentences showed a left anterior negativity between 300 and 500 msec postword-onset relative to those to Subject Relative verbs. At the multiword level, a slow frontal positivity characterized Subject Relative sentences, but was absent for Object Relatives. This slow positivity appears to index ease of processing or integration. and was more robust in Good than in Poor comprehenders.


1995 ◽  
pp. 353-382 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip S. Holzman ◽  
Michael Coleman ◽  
Mark F. Lenzenweger ◽  
Deborah L. Levy ◽  
Steven Matthysse ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 170 (5) ◽  
pp. 1669-1675 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonella Caccamo ◽  
Salvatore Oddo ◽  
Lana X. Tran ◽  
Frank M. LaFerla

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document