Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T16:45:37.602Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do statistical segmentation abilities predict lexical-phonological and lexical-semantic abilities in children with and without SLI?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2013

ELINA MAINELA-ARNOLD  and
JULIA L. EVANS
ELINA MAINELA-ARNOLD*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto, ON, Canada
JULIA L. EVANS
Affiliation:
Speech Language and Hearing Sciences and Joint Doctoral Program in Language & Communication Disorders, SDSU/UCSD, San Diego, CA, USA
*
Address for correspondence: Elina Mainela-Arnold, Department of Speech-Language Pathology, Rehabilitation Sciences Building, 500 University Avenue, Toronto, ON M5G 1V7, Canada. tel: 1-416-978-8331; e-mail: elina.mainela.arnold@utoronto.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study tested the predictions of the procedural deficit hypothesis by investigating the relationship between sequential statistical learning and two aspects of lexical ability, lexical-phonological and lexical-semantic, in children with and without specific language impairment (SLI). Participants included forty children (ages 8;5–12;3), twenty children with SLI and twenty with typical development. Children completed Saffran's statistical word segmentation task, a lexical-phonological access task (gating task), and a word definition task. Poor statistical learners were also poor at managing lexical-phonological competition during the gating task. However, statistical learning was not a significant predictor of semantic richness in word definitions. The ability to track statistical sequential regularities may be important for learning the inherently sequential structure of lexical-phonological, but not as important for learning lexical-semantic knowledge. Consistent with the procedural/declarative memory distinction, the brain networks associated with the two types of lexical learning are likely to have different learning properties.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , March 2014 , pp. 327 - 351
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[*]

This research was supported by two grants from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (F31 DC 6536, Elina Mainela-Arnold, Principal Investigator, and R01 DC 5650, Julia Evans, Principal Investigator). We thank Lisbeth Heilmann for her assistance in collecting the data. Parts of this research were reported at the Symposium on Research in Child Language Disorders in Madison, Wisconsin, June 2011 and June 2012, and the American Speech Language Hearing Association Conference in San Diego, CA, November 2011.

References

REFERENCES

Alt, M. & Plante, E. (2006). Factors that influence lexical and semantic fast mapping of young children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 49, 941–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alt, M., Plante, E. & Creusere, M. (2004). Semantic features in fast-mapping: performance of preschoolers with specific language impairment versus preschoolers with normal language. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47, 407–420.Google Scholar
Astell, A. J. & Harley, T. A. (2002). Accessing semantic knowledge in dementia: evidence from a word definition task. Brain and Language 82, 312–26.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1955). Logical syntax and semantics: their linguistic relevance. Language 31, 36–45.Google Scholar
Coady, J. A. & Aslin, R. N. (2003). Phonological neighbourhoods in the developing lexicon. Journal of Child Language 30, 441–69.Google Scholar
Dell, G. S. & O'Seaghdha, P. G. (1992). Stages of lexical access in language production. Cognition 42, 287–314.Google Scholar
Dunn, L. & Dunn, L. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, 3rd ed.Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Eichenbaum, H. & Cohen, N. J. (2001). From conditioning to conscious recollection: memory systems of the brain. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, J. L., Saffran, J. R. & Robe-Torres, K. (2009). Statistical learning in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 52, 321–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiser, J. & Aslin, R. N. (2002). Statistical learning of higher-order temporal structure from visual shape sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology–Learning Memory and Cognition 28, 458–67.Google Scholar
Garlock, V. M., Walley, A. C. & Metsala, J. L. (2001). Age-of-acquisition, word frequency, and neighborhood density effects on spoken word recognition by children and adults. Journal of Memory and Language 45, 468–92.Google Scholar
Gomez, R. L. & Gerken, L. (1999). Artificial grammar learning by 1-year-olds leads to specific and abstract knowledge. Cognition 70, 109–135.Google Scholar
Gupta, P. & Dell, G. S. (1999). The emergence of language from serial order and procedural memory. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), The emergence of language, 447–81. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Hsu, H. J. & Bishop, D. V. (2011). Grammatical difficulties in children with Specific Language Impairment: Is learning deficient? Human Development 53, 264–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunt, R. H. & Aslin, R. N. (2001). Statistical learning in a serial reaction time task: access to separable statistical cues by individual learners. Journal of Experimental Psychology 130, 658–80.Google Scholar
Kan, P. F. & Windsor, J. (2010). Word learning in children with primary language impairment: a meta-analysis. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 53, 739–56.Google Scholar
Knowlton, B. J. & Squire, L. R. (1996). Artificial grammar learning depends on implicit acquisition of both abstract and exemplar-specific information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 22, 169–81.Google Scholar
Lahey, M. & Edwards, J. (1996). Why do children with specific language impairment name pictures more slowly than their peers? Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 39, 1081–98.Google Scholar
Lai, C. S. L., Fisher, S. E., Hurst, J. A., Vargha-Khadem, F. & Monaco, A. P. (2001). A forkhead-domain gene is mutated in a severe speech and language disorders. Nature 413, 519–23.Google Scholar
Lai, C. S. L., Gerrelli, D., Monaco, A. P., Fisher, S. E. & Copp, A. J. (2003). FOXP2 expression during brain development coincides with adult sites of pathology in a severe speech and language disorder. Brain 126, 2455–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, L. B. (1998). Children with Specific Language Impairment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Leonard, L. B., Ellis, W. S., Miller, C. A., Francis, D. J., Tomblin, J. B. & Kail, R. V. (2007). Speed of processing, working memory, and language impairment in children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 50, 408–428.Google Scholar
Leonard, L. B., Nippold, M. A., Kail, R. & Hale, C. A. (1983). Picture naming in language-impaired children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 26, 609–615.Google Scholar
Luce, P. A. & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: the neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing 19, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mainela-Arnold, E., Evans, J. L. & Coady, J. A. (2008). Lexical representations in children with SLI: evidence from a frequency-manipulated gating task. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 51, 381–93.Google Scholar
Mainela-Arnold, E., Evans, J. L. & Coady, J. A. (2010). Explaining lexical-semantic deficits in specific language impairment: the role of phonological similarity, phonological working memory, and lexical competition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 53, 1742–56.Google Scholar
Marinellie, S. A. & Johnson, C. J. (2002). Definitional skill in school-age children with specific language impairment. Journal of Communication Disorders 35, 241–59.Google Scholar
Maye, J., Werker, J. F. & Gerken, L. (2002). Infant sensitivity to distributional information can affect phonetic discrimination. Cognition 82, B101–B111.Google Scholar
McGregor, K. K. & Appel, A. (2002). On the relation between mental representation and naming in a child with specific language impairment. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 16, 1–20.Google Scholar
McGregor, K. K., Newman, R. M., Reilly, R. M. & Capone, N. C. (2002). Semantic representation and naming in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 45, 998–1014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McMurray, B., Samelson, V. M., Lee, S. H. & Tomblin, J. B. (2010). Individual differences in online spoken word recognition: implications for SLI. Cognitive Psychology 60, 1–39.Google Scholar
Metsala, J. L. (1997). An examination of word frequency and neighborhood density in the development of spoken-word recognition. Memory & Cognition 25, 47–56.Google Scholar
Newcomer, P. & Hammill, D. (1988). Test of Language Development-2: Primary. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
Nicolson, R. I. & Fawcett, A. J. (2007). Procedural learning difficulties: reuniting the developmental disorders? Trends in Neurosciences 30, 135–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perruchet, P. & Pacton, S. (2006). Implicit learning and statistical learning: one phenomenon, two approaches. Trends in Cognitive Science 10, 233–38.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct: how the mind creates language. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Plante, E., Gomez, R. & Gerken, L. (2002). Sensitivity to word order cues by normal and language/learning disabled adults. Journal of Communication Disorders 35 453–62.Google Scholar
Plunkett, K., Hu, J. F. & Cohen, L. B. (2008). Labels can override perceptual categories in early infancy. Cognition 106, 665–81.Google Scholar
Poldrack, R. A., Desmond, J. E., Glover, G. H. & Gabrieli, J. D. (1998). The neural basis of visual skill learning: an fMRI study of mirror reading. Cerebral Cortex 8, 1–10.Google Scholar
Rice, M. L. & Wexler, K. (1996). Toward tense as a clinical marker of specific language impairment in English-speaking children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 39, 1239–57.Google Scholar
Roid, M. & Miller, L. (1997). Leiter International Performance Scale, rev. ed.Dale Wood, IL: Stoelting.Google Scholar
Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N. & Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science 274, 1926–28.Google Scholar
Saffran, J. R., Johnson, E. K., Aslin, R. N. & Newport, E. L. (1999). Statistical learning of tone sequences by human infants and adults. Cognition 70, 27–52.Google Scholar
Saffran, J. R., Newport, E. L., Aslin, R. N., Tunick, R. A. & Barrueco, S. (1997). Incidental language learning: listening (and learning) out of the corner of your ear. Psychological Science 8, 101–105.Google Scholar
Samuelson, L. K. (2002). Statistical regularities in vocabulary guide language acquisition in connectionist models and 15–20-month-olds. Developmental Psychology 38, 1016–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Semel, E., Wiig, E. & Secord, W. (1995). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-3 (CELF-3). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Sheng, L. & McGregor, K. K. (2010). Lexical-semantic organization in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 53, 146–59.Google Scholar
Squire, L. R. (1992). Memory and the hippocampus: a synthesis from findings with rats, monkeys, and humans. Psychological Review 99, 195–231.Google Scholar
Squire, L. R. & Knowlton, B. J. (2000). The medial temporal lobe, the hippocampus, and the memory systems of the brain. In Gazzaniga, M. S. (ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences, 765–80. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Squire, L. R. & Zola, S. M. (1996). Structure and function of declarative and nondeclarative memory systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A 93, 13515–22.Google Scholar
Takahashi, K., Liu, F. C., Hirokawa, K. & Takahashi, H. (2003). Expression of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language, in the developing and adult striatum. Journal of Neuroscience Research 73, 61–72.Google Scholar
Teramitsu, I. & White, S. A. (2008). Motor learning: the FOXP2 puzzle piece. Current Biology 18, R335–R337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomblin, J. B., Mainela-Arnold, E. & Zhang, X. (2007). Procedural learning in children with and without specific language impairment. Language Learning and Development 3, 269–93.Google Scholar
Tulvig, E. (1991). Concepts of human memory. In Squire, L. R., Lynch, G., Weinberger, N. M. & McGaugh, J. L. (eds.), Memory: organization and locus of change, 3–32. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2001). The declarative/procedural model of lexicon and grammar. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 30, 37–69.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: the declarative/procedural model. Cognition 92, 231–70.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T. & Gopnik, M. (1999). Inflectional morphology in a family with inherited specific language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics 20, 51–117.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T. & Pierpont, E. I. (2005). Specific language impairment is not specific to language: the procedural deficit hypothesis. Cortex 41, 399–433.Google Scholar
Vitevitch, M. S. & Luce, P. A. (1998). When words compete: levels of processing in perception of spoken words. Psychological Science 9, 325–29.Google Scholar
Williams, K. T. (1997). Expressive Vocabulary Test. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services, Inc.Google Scholar
Younger, B. A. (1985). The segregation of items into categories by ten-month-old infants. Child Development 56, 1574–83.Google Scholar