scholarly journals Word Learning by Preschool-Age Children With Developmental Language Disorder: Impaired Encoding and Robust Consolidation During Slow Mapping

Author(s):  
Katherine R. Gordon ◽  
Holly L. Storkel ◽  
Stephanie Uglow ◽  
Nancy B. Ohlmann

Purpose Learning novel words, including the specific phonemes that make up word forms, is a struggle for many individuals with developmental language disorder (DLD). Building robust representations of words includes encoding during periods of input and consolidation between periods of input. The primary purpose of the current study is to determine differences between children with DLD and with typical development (TD) in the encoding and consolidation of word forms during the slow mapping process. Method Preschool-age children (DLD = 9, TD = 9) were trained on nine form–referent pairs across multiple consecutive training days. Children's ability to name referents at the end of training days indicated their ability to encode forms. Children's ability to name referents at the beginning of training days after a period of overnight sleep indicated their ability to consolidate forms. Word learning was assessed 1 month after training to determine long-term retention of forms. Results Throughout training, children with DLD produced fewer forms correctly and produced forms with less phonological precision than children with TD. Thus, children with DLD demonstrated impaired encoding. However, children with and without DLD demonstrated a similar ability to consolidate forms between training days and to retain forms across a 1-month delay. Conclusions Difficulties with word form learning are primarily driven by deficits in encoding for children with DLD. Clinicians and educators can support encoding by providing children with adequate exposures to target words via robust training that occurs across multiple sessions. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.16746454

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 239694152110041
Author(s):  
Emily Jackson ◽  
Suze Leitão ◽  
Mary Claessen ◽  
Mark Boyes

Background and aims Previous research into word learning in children with developmental language disorder (DLD) indicates that the learning of word forms and meanings, rather than form-referent links, is problematic. This difficulty appears to arise with impaired encoding, while retention of word knowledge remains intact. Evidence also suggests that word learning skills may be related to verbal working memory. We aimed to substantiate these findings in the current study by exploring word learning over a series of days. Methods Fifty children with DLD (mean age 6; 11, 72% male) and 54 age-matched typically developing (TD) children (mean age 6; 10, 56% male) were taught eight novel words across a four-day word learning protocol. Day 1 measured encoding, Days 2 and 3 measured re-encoding, and Day 4 assessed retention. At each day, word learning success was evaluated using Naming, Recognition, Description, and Identification tasks. Results Children with DLD showed comparable performance to the TD group on the Identification task, indicating an intact ability to learn the form-referent links. In contrast, children with DLD performed significantly worse for Naming and Recognition (signifying an impaired ability to learn novel word forms), and for Description, indicating problems establishing new word meanings. These deficits for the DLD group were apparent at Days 1, 2, and 3 of testing, indicating impairments with initial encoding and re-encoding; however, the DLD and TD groups demonstrated a similar rate of learning. All children found the retention assessments at Day 4 difficult, and there were no significant group differences. Finally, verbal working memory emerged as a significant moderator of performance on the Naming and Recognition tasks, such that children with DLD and poor verbal working memory had the lowest levels of accuracy. Conclusions This study demonstrates that children with DLD struggle with learning novel word forms and meanings, but are unimpaired in their ability to establish new form-referent links. The findings suggest that the word learning deficit may be attributed to problems with encoding, rather than with retention, of new word knowledge; however, further exploration is required given the poor performance of both groups for retention testing. Furthermore, we found evidence that an impaired ability to learn word forms may only be apparent in children who have DLD and low levels of verbal working memory. Implications When working with children with DLD, speech-language pathologists should assess word learning using tasks that evaluate the ability to learn word forms, meanings, and form-referent links to develop a profile of individual word learning strengths and weaknesses. Clinicians should also assess verbal working memory to identify children at particular risk of word learning deficits. Future research should explore the notion of optimal intervention intensity for facilitating word learning in children with poor language and verbal working memory.


2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (8) ◽  
pp. 2763-2776
Author(s):  
Laurence B. Leonard ◽  
Patricia Deevy ◽  
Jeffrey D. Karpicke ◽  
Sharon L. Christ ◽  
Justin B. Kueser

Purpose Children with developmental language disorder (DLD) often have difficulty with word learning. Recent studies have shown that incorporating retrieval practice provides a significant benefit to this learning. However, we have not yet discovered the best balance between the amount of retrieval and the amount of study (hearing the word in the presence of the referent) that is provided. In this investigation, we compared a word learning procedure using more retrieval and less study with a procedure that used more study and less retrieval. Method Participants were 13 children with DLD and 13 same-age peers with typical language development (TD). Both groups ranged in age from 4 to 6 years. The children learned two sets of novel words, with each set taught in two sessions. During an initial criterion period, the children had the opportunity to retrieve all of the words. Following this period, the words were either retrieved without further study or studied without additional retrieval. Recall and recognition testing immediately followed the second learning session and was repeated 1 week later. Testing assessed the children's retention of both the word forms and their meanings. Results Better recall both immediately after learning and after 1 week was seen for the more retrieval/less study condition. This was seen for both groups of children for word form recall and for children with DLD for meaning. Group differences were not found. Conclusion This study served as a stringent test of the benefits of retrieval to children's word learning. Continued retrieval after initial retrieval practice appeared to be helpful even when further study was discontinued and when the comparison study condition had also provided retrieval practice in the initial stages. Further refinement of retrieval procedures might lead to the development of useful clinical tools to promote word learning.


2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 540-561 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Alt ◽  
Shelley Gray ◽  
Tiffany P. Hogan ◽  
Nora Schlesinger ◽  
Nelson Cowan

Purpose The purpose of our study was to test the hypotheses (a) that children with dyslexia have spoken word learning deficits primarily related to phonology and (b) that children with dyslexia and concomitant developmental language disorder (DLD) have word learning deficits related to both phonology and semantic processing when compared to peers with typical development (TD). Method Second-graders with dyslexia ( n = 82), concomitant dyslexia and DLD (dyslexia + DLD; n = 40), and TD ( n = 167) learned names and semantic features for cartoon monsters in 5 carefully controlled word learning tasks that varied phonological and semantic demands. The computer-based tasks were played in 6 different word learning games. We analyzed results using Bayesian statistics. Results In general, the dyslexia + DLD group showed lower accuracy on tasks compared to the dyslexia and TD groups. As predicted, word learning tasks that taxed phonology revealed deficits in the dyslexia group, although there were some exceptions related to visual complexity. Word learning deficits in the dyslexia + DLD group were present in tasks that taxed phonology, semantic processing, or both. Conclusions The dyslexia + DLD group demonstrated word learning deficits across the range of word learning tasks that tapped phonology and semantic processing, whereas the dyslexia group primarily struggled with the phonological aspects of word learning. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.9807929


2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (12) ◽  
pp. 4433-4449 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurence B. Leonard ◽  
Patricia Deevy ◽  
Jeffrey D. Karpicke ◽  
Sharon Christ ◽  
Christine Weber ◽  
...  

Purpose There are strong retention benefits when learners frequently test themselves during the learning period. This practice of repeated retrieval has recently been applied successfully to children's word learning. In this study, we apply a repeated retrieval procedure to the learning of novel adjectives by preschool-age children with developmental language disorder (DLD) and their typically developing (TD) peers. We ask whether the benefits of retrieval extend to children's ability to apply the novel adjectives to newly introduced objects sharing the same characteristics as the objects used during the learning period. Method Fourteen children with DLD ( M age = 62.64 months) and 13 TD children ( M = 62.54 months) learned novel adjectives in 2 sessions. For each child, half of the adjectives were learned in a repeated spaced retrieval condition, and half were learned in a repeated study–only condition. Recall was assessed immediately after the second learning session and 1 week later. A recognition test was also administered at the 1-week mark. Results On the recall tests, for both groups of children, recall was better for adjectives learned in the repeated spaced retrieval condition. Adjectives learned by the 2nd day were retained 1 week later. Every adjective correctly applied to an object used during the learning period was also extended accurately to new objects with the same characteristics. On these recall tests, the children with DLD did not differ from the TD group in the number of items recalled, though their phonetic accuracy was lower. On the recognition test, the DLD group showed greater accuracy for adjectives that had been learned in the repeated spaced retrieval condition than for those learned in the repeated study condition, whereas the TD group performed at high levels in both conditions. Conclusion Repeated spaced retrieval appears to provide an effective boost to word learning. Because its benefits are seen even when a word must be extended to new objects, the application of this procedure seems well suited for learning new language material rather than being limited to item-specific memorization.


2020 ◽  
pp. 027112142094230
Author(s):  
Amy S. Pratt ◽  
Ashley M. Adams ◽  
Elizabeth D. Peña ◽  
Lisa M. Bedore

We explore the classification accuracy of a parent and teacher report measure, the Inventory to Assess Language Knowledge (ITALK), to screen for developmental language disorder (DLD) in bilingual children. Participants included 120 Spanish English bilingual children with typical development (TD) and 19 bilingual children with DLD, ranging in age from 5 to 8 years old. Parents’ and teachers’ reports correlated moderately with each other and significantly predicted children’s performance on language-specific measures of morphosyntax and semantics. Results yielded sensitivity of .90 and specificity of .63 when using a composite of parent and teacher reports in Spanish and English. Examination of structure loadings in follow-up analyses by grade showed that teachers’ report of English and parents’ report of Spanish were the strongest predictors of impairment in kindergarten. In second grade, the strongest predictors were parent and teacher reports in English. Implications for referral and identification are discussed.


2011 ◽  
Vol 108 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mélanie Havy ◽  
Josiane Bertoncini ◽  
Thierry Nazzi

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document