Agnes Lukács1, Ferenc Kemény1. 1. Department of Cognitive Science, Budapest University of Technology and Economics.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Grammar-specific accounts of specific language impairment (SLI) have been challenged by recent claims that language problems are a consequence of impairments in domain-general mechanisms of learning that also play a key role in the process of language acquisition. Our studies were designed to test the generality and nature of this learning deficit by focusing on both sequential and nonsequential, and on verbal and nonverbal, domains. METHOD: Twenty-nine children with SLI were compared with age-matched typically developing (TD) control children using (a) a serial reaction time task (SRT), testing the learning of motor sequences; (b) an artificial grammar learning (AGL) task, testing the extraction of regularities from auditory sequences; and (c) a weather prediction task (WP), testing probabilistic category learning in a nonsequential task. RESULTS: For the 2 sequence learning tasks, a significantly smaller proportion of children showed evidence of learning in the SLI than in the TD group (χ2 tests, p < .001 for the SRT task, p < .05 for the AGL task), whereas the proportion of learners on the WP task was the same in the 2 groups. The level of learning for SLI learners was comparable with that of TD children on all tasks (with great individual variation). CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, these findings suggest that domain-general processes of implicit sequence learning tend to be impaired in SLI. Further research is needed to clarify the relationship of deficits in implicit learning and language.
OBJECTIVE: Grammar-specific accounts of specific language impairment (SLI) have been challenged by recent claims that language problems are a consequence of impairments in domain-general mechanisms of learning that also play a key role in the process of language acquisition. Our studies were designed to test the generality and nature of this learning deficit by focusing on both sequential and nonsequential, and on verbal and nonverbal, domains. METHOD: Twenty-nine children with SLI were compared with age-matched typically developing (TD) control children using (a) a serial reaction time task (SRT), testing the learning of motor sequences; (b) an artificial grammar learning (AGL) task, testing the extraction of regularities from auditory sequences; and (c) a weather prediction task (WP), testing probabilistic category learning in a nonsequential task. RESULTS: For the 2 sequence learning tasks, a significantly smaller proportion of children showed evidence of learning in the SLI than in the TD group (χ2 tests, p < .001 for the SRT task, p < .05 for the AGL task), whereas the proportion of learners on the WP task was the same in the 2 groups. The level of learning for SLI learners was comparable with that of TD children on all tasks (with great individual variation). CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, these findings suggest that domain-general processes of implicit sequence learning tend to be impaired in SLI. Further research is needed to clarify the relationship of deficits in implicit learning and language.