A Multimodal Comparison of Emotion Categorization Abilities in Children With Developmental Language Disorder

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Daniela Bahn ◽  
Michael Vesker ◽  
Gudrun Schwarzer ◽  
Christina Kauschke
Keyword(s):  
Facial Expressions ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Emotion Processing ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Current Debate ◽  
Emotional States ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Lower Accuracy ◽  
Verbal Tasks

Purpose Current research has demonstrated that behavioral, emotional, and/or social difficulties often accompany developmental language disorder (DLD). It is an open question to what degrees such difficulties arise as consequence of impaired language and communicative skills, or whether they might also be driven by deficits in verbal and nonverbal emotion processing (e.g., the reduced ability to infer and verbalize emotional states from facial expressions). Regarding the existence of nonverbal deficits, previous research has yielded inconsistent findings. This study was aimed at gaining deeper knowledge of the basic aspects of emotion understanding in children with DLD by comparing their performance on nonverbal and verbal emotion categorization tasks to that of typically developing children. Method Two verbal tasks (Lexical Decision and Valence Decision With Emotion Terms) and two nonverbal tasks (Face Decision and Valence Decision With Facial Expressions) were designed to parallel each other as much as possible, and conducted with twenty-six 6- to 10-year-old children diagnosed with DLD. The same number of typically developed children, carefully matched by age and gender, served as a control group. Results The children with DLD showed lower performance in both verbal tasks and exhibited noticeable problems in the nonverbal emotion processing task. In particular, they achieved lower accuracy scores when they categorized faces by their valence (positive or negative), but did not differ in their ability to distinguish these faces from pictures displaying animals. Conclusions This study provides evidence for the hypothesis that problems in emotion processing in children with DLD might be multimodal. Therefore, the results support the idea of mutual influences in the development of language and emotion skills and contribute to the current debate about the domain specificity of DLD (formerly referred to as specific language impairment).

Considering the Language Disorder Label Debate From a School Speech-Language Pathology Lens

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-54
Author(s):  
Kimberly A. Murza ◽  
Barbara J. Ehren
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Public Awareness ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Speech Language Pathologist ◽  
School Based ◽  
Language Pathology ◽  
Education Act

Purpose The purpose of this article is to situate the recent language disorder label debate within a school's perspective. As described in two recent The ASHA Leader articles, there is international momentum to change specific language impairment to developmental language disorder . Proponents of this change cite increased public awareness and research funding as part of the rationale. However, it is unclear whether this label debate is worthwhile or even practical for the school-based speech-language pathologist (SLP). A discussion of the benefits and challenges to a shift in language disorder labels is provided. Conclusions Although there are important arguments for consistency in labeling childhood language disorder, the reality of a label change in U.S. schools is hard to imagine. School-based services are driven by eligibility through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which has its own set of labels. There are myriad reasons why advocating for the developmental language disorder label may not be the best use of SLPs' time, perhaps the most important of which is that school SLPs have other urgent priorities.

A 200-Year History of the Study of Childhood Language Disorders of Unknown Origin: Changes in Terminology

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurence B. Leonard
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Language Disorders ◽  
Unknown Origin ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
The Past ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Many

Purpose The current “specific language impairment” and “developmental language disorder” discussion might lead to important changes in how we refer to children with language disorders of unknown origin. The field has seen other changes in terminology. This article reviews many of these changes. Method A literature review of previous clinical labels was conducted, and possible reasons for the changes in labels were identified. Results References to children with significant yet unexplained deficits in language ability have been part of the scientific literature since, at least, the early 1800s. Terms have changed from those with a neurological emphasis to those that do not imply a cause for the language disorder. Diagnostic criteria have become more explicit but have become, at certain points, too narrow to represent the wider range of children with language disorders of unknown origin. Conclusions The field was not well served by the many changes in terminology that have transpired in the past. A new label at this point must be accompanied by strong efforts to recruit its adoption by clinical speech-language pathologists and the general public.

scholarly journals Efficacy of the Treatment of Developmental Language Disorder: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 407
Author(s):  
Sara Rinaldi ◽  
Maria Cristina Caselli ◽  
Valentina Cofelice ◽  
Simonetta D’Amico ◽  
Anna Giulia De Cagno ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Language Disorder ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Receptive Vocabulary ◽  
Primary School Children ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Expressive Vocabulary ◽  
Phonological Skills ◽  
Syntactic Skills ◽  
Positive Effect

Background. Language disorder is the most frequent developmental disorder in childhood and it has a significant negative impact on children’s development. The goal of the present review was to systematically analyze the effectiveness of interventions in children with developmental language disorder (DLD) from an evidence-based perspective. Methods. We considered systematic reviews, meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), control group cohort studies on any type of intervention aimed at improving children’s skills in the phono-articulatory, phonological, semantic-lexical, and morpho-syntactic fields in preschool and primary school children (up to eight years of age) that were diagnosed with DLD. We identified 27 full-length studies, 26 RCT and one review. Results. Early intensive intervention in three- and four-year-old children has a positive effect on phonological expressive and receptive skills and acquisitions are maintained in the medium term. Less evidence is available on the treatment of expressive vocabulary (and no evidence on receptive vocabulary). Intervention on morphological and syntactic skills has effective results on expressive (but not receptive) skills; however, a number of inconsistent results have also been reported. Only one study reports a positive effect of treatment on inferential narrative skills. Limited evidence is also available on the treatment of meta-phonological skills. More studies investigated the effectiveness of interventions on general language skills, which now appears as a promising area of investigation, even though results are not all consistent. Conclusions. The effectiveness of interventions over expressive and receptive phonological skills, morpho-syntactic skills, as well as inferential skills in narrative context underscores the importance that these trainings be implemented in children with DLD.

scholarly journals Developmental Language Disorder: Applications for Advocacy, Research, and Clinical Service

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karla K. McGregor ◽  
Lisa Goffman ◽  
Amanda Owen Van Horne ◽  
Tiffany P. Hogan ◽  
Lizbeth H. Finestack
Keyword(s):  
Public Schools ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
The United States ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Language Deficit ◽  
English Speaking

Purpose The CATALISE group (Bishop, Snowling, Thompson, Greenhalgh, & CATALISE Consortium, 2016; Bishop, Snowling, Thompson, Greenhalgh, & CATALISE-2 Consortium, 2017) recommended that the term developmental language disorder (DLD) be used to refer to neurodevelopmental language deficit. In this tutorial, we explain the appropriate application of the term and present advantages in adhering to the CATALISE recommendations. Conclusion Both specific language impairment and DLD refer to a neurodevelopmental condition that impairs spoken language, is long-standing and, is not associated with any known causal condition. The applications of the terms specific language impairment and DLD differ in breadth and the extent to which identification depends upon functional impact. Use of the term DLD would link advocacy efforts in the United States to those in other English-speaking countries. The criteria for identifying DLD presented in the CATALISE consensus offer opportunities for scientific progress while aligning well with practice in U.S. public schools.

scholarly journals The Bouba-Kiki Effect in Children With Childhood Apraxia of Speech

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Rinat Gold ◽  
Dina Klein ◽  
Osnat Segal
Keyword(s):  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Sensory Integration ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Spoken Word ◽  
Speech Development ◽  
Clinical Population ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Apraxia Of Speech ◽  
Childhood Apraxia Of Speech ◽  
Significant Difference

Purpose: The bouba-kiki (BK) effect refers to associations between visual shapes and auditory pseudonames. Thus, when tested, people tend to associate the pseudowords bouba and kiki with round or spiky shapes, respectively. This association requires cross-modal sensory integration. The ability to integrate information from different sensory modalities is crucial for speech development. A clinical population that may be impaired in cross-modal sensory integration is children with childhood apraxia of speech (CAS). The purpose of this study was to examine the involvement of cross-modal sensory integration in children with (CAS). Method: The BK effect was assessed in participants with CAS ( n = 18) and two control groups: One control group was composed of children with developmental language disorder (DLD), also termed specific language impairment ( n = 15), and a second group included typically developing (TD) children ( n = 22). The children were presented with 14 pairs of novel visual displays and nonwords. All the children were asked to state which shape and nonword correspond to one another. In addition, background cognitive (Leiter-3) and language measures (Hebrew PLS-4) were determined for all children. Results: Children in the CAS group were less successful in associating between visual shapes and corresponding auditory pseudonames (e.g., associating the spoken word “bouba” with a round shape; the spoken word “kiki” with a spiky shape). Thus, children with CAS demonstrated a statistically significant reduced BK effect compared with participants with TD and participants with DLD. No significant difference was found between the TD group and the DLD group. Conclusions: The reduced BK effect in children with CAS supports the notion that cross-modal sensory integration may be altered in these children. Cross-modal sensory integration is the basis for speech production. Thus, difficulties in sensory integration may contribute to speech difficulties in CAS.

The Specific Language Impairment/Developmental Language Disorders Forum: Fostering a Discussion of Terminology

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Green
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Public School ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Language Disorders ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Language Deficits ◽  
Developmental Language Disorders ◽  
Specific Language

Purpose This prologue provides an introduction to the SIG 1 Perspectives forum addressing use of a more recently applied term, developmental language disorder (DLD), as well as a term that has been used in research for several decades, specific language impairment (SLI), to describe children who exhibit language deficits. Included are brief summaries of the 5 articles that comprise the forum. Conclusion The articles in this SLI/DLD forum offer perspectives on the use of both terms. Implications include their application in clinical practice, advocacy, research, treatment, funding, and public school speech/language services.

Developmental Language Disorder and the Assessment of Spoken Language

2021 ◽  
pp. 155-170
Author(s):  
Carol-Anne Murphy ◽  
Pauline Frizelle ◽  
Cristina McKean
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Language Skills ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Language Abilities ◽  
Language Sample Analysis ◽  
Language Sample

Developmental language disorder (DLD), previously known as specific language impairment (SLI), is a long-term developmental disorder affecting approximately 7.5% of children. Language abilities in children with DLD are variable and can be challenging to ascertain with confidence. This chapter aims to discuss some of the challenges associated with assessing the language skills of children with DLD through an overview of different forms of language assessment including standardized language testing, language sample analysis, and observations. Uses and limitations of the different forms of assessment are considered, bearing in mind the different functions of assessment and the need to gain a full understanding of children’s profiles of strength and weakness and communicative functioning in context. The authors conclude with requirements for best practice in assessment and promising avenues of development in this area.

scholarly journals Spoken Word Learning in Children with Developmental Language Disorder or Dyslexia

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne Adlof ◽  
Lauren Baron ◽  
Bethany A Bell ◽  
Joanna Scoggins
Keyword(s):  
Word Learning ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Retrieval Practice ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Learning Difficulties ◽  
Learning Task ◽  
Vocabulary Knowledge ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Learning Abilities

Purpose: Word learning difficulties have been documented in multiple studies involving children with dyslexia and developmental language disorder (DLD; see also specific language impairment (SLI)). However, no previous studies have directly contrasted word learning in these two frequently co-occurring disorders. We examined word learning in second grade students with DLD-only and dyslexia-only as compared to each other, peers with both disorders (DLD+dyslexia), and peers with typical development (TD). We hypothesized that children with dyslexia-only and DLD-only would show differences in word learning due to differences in phonological and semantic skills. Method: Children (N = 244) were taught eight novel pseudowords paired with unfamiliar objects. The teaching script included multiple exposures to the phonological form, the pictured object, a verbal semantic description of the object, and spaced retrieval practice opportunities. Word learning was assessed immediately after instruction with tasks requiring recall or recognition of the phonological and semantic information. Results: Children with dyslexia-only performed significantly better on existing vocabulary measures than their peers with DLD-only. On experimental word learning measures, children in the dyslexia-only and DLD+dyslexia groups showed significantly poorer performance than TD children on all word learning tasks. Children with DLD-only differed significantly from the TD group on a single word learning task assessing verbal semantic recall. Conclusions: Overall, results indicated that children with dyslexia display broad word learning difficulties extending beyond the phonological domain; however, this contrasted with their relatively strong performance on measures of existing vocabulary knowledge. More research is needed to understand relations between word learning abilities and overall vocabulary knowledge and how to close vocabulary gaps for children with both disorders.

scholarly journals Clinical Intersections Among Idiopathic Language Disorder, Social (Pragmatic) Communication Disorder, and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (10) ◽  
pp. 3263-3276
Author(s):  
Sean M. Redmond
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Occurrence Rate ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Communication Disorder ◽  
Statistical Manual ◽  
Hyperactivity Disorder ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Pragmatic Communication

Purpose Estimates of the expected co-occurrence rates of idiopathic language disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) provide a confusing and inconsistent picture. Potential sources for discrepancies considered so far include measurement and ascertainment biases ( Redmond, 2016a , 2016b ). In this research symposium forum article, the potential impact of applying different criteria to the observed co-occurrence rate is examined through an appraisal of the literature and an empirical demonstration. Method Eighty-five cases were selected from the Redmond, Ash, et al. (2019) study sample. Standard scores from clinical measures collected on K–3rd grade students were used to assign language impairment status, nonverbal impairment status, social (pragmatic) communication disorder status, and ADHD status. Criteria extrapolated from the specific language impairment ( Stark & Tallal, 1981 ), developmental language disorder ( Bishop et al., 2017 ), and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition language disorder ( American Psychiatric Association, 2013 ) designations were applied. Results The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition language disorder designation and its separation of language disorder from the social (pragmatic) communication disorder designation provided the clearest segregation of idiopathic language deficits from elevated ADHD symptoms, showing only a 2% co-occurrence rate. In contrast, applying the broader developmental language disorder designation raised the observed co-occurrence rate to 22.3%. The specific language impairment designation yielded an intermediate value of 16.9%. Conclusions Co-occurrence rates varied as a function of designation adopted. The presence of pragmatic symptoms exerted a stronger influence on observed co-occurrence rates than low nonverbal abilities. Impacts on clinical management and research priorities are discussed. Presentation Video https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.13063751

scholarly journals Online Statistical Learning in Developmental Language Disorder

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ágnes Lukács ◽  
Krisztina Sára Lukics ◽  
Dorottya Dobó
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Learning ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Forced Choice ◽  
School Age Children ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Combined Use ◽  
Transitional Probabilities ◽  
Online Tests

Purpose: The vulnerability of statistical learning (SL) in developmental language disorder (DLD) has mainly been demonstrated with metacognitive offline measures which give little insight into the more specific nature and timing of learning. Our aims in this study were to test SL in children with and without DLD with both online and offline measures and to compare the efficiency of SL in the visual and acoustic modalities in DLD.Method: We explored SL in school-age children with and without DLD matched on age and sex (n = 36). SL was investigated with the use of acoustic verbal and visual nonverbal segmentation tasks relying on online (reaction times and accuracy) and offline (two-alternative forced choice, 2AFC and production) measures.Results: In online measures, learning was evident in both groups in both the visual and acoustic modalities, while offline measures showed difficulties in DLD. The visual production task showed a significant learning effect in both groups, while the visual two-alternative forced choice (2AFC) and the two acoustic offline tasks only showed evidence of learning in the control group. The comparison of learning indices revealed an SL impairment in DLD, which is present in both modalities.Conclusions: Our findings suggest that children with DLD are comparable to typically developing (TD) children in their ability to extract acoustic verbal and visual nonverbal patterns that are cued only by transitional probabilities in online tasks, but they show impairments on metacognitive measures of learning. The pattern of online and offline measures implies that online tests can be more sensitive and valid indices of SL than offline tasks, and the combined use of different measures provides a better picture of learning efficiency, especially in groups where metacognitive tasks are challenging.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document