A Comparison of the Storage-Only Deficit and Joint Mechanism Deficit Hypotheses of the Verbal Working Memory Storage Capacity Limitation of Children With Developmental Language Disorder
| Autor: | Julia L. Evans, Sarah Schwartz, Jamison D. Fargo, James W. Montgomery, Ronald B. Gillam |
|---|---|
| Přispěvatelé: | American Speech - Language - Hearing Association |
| Rok vydání: | 2019 |
| Předmět: |
Male
Linguistics and Language medicine.medical_specialty Memory Long-Term Developmental language disorder developmental language disorder Short-term memory Communication Sciences and Disorders Audiology Verbal learning working memory Language and Linguistics Correlation Speech and Hearing Nonverbal communication medicine Humans Attention Language Development Disorders Child Propensity Score Language Language Tests Working memory Long-term memory Mechanism (biology) Verbal Learning Speech Pathology and Audiology Memory Short-Term Female Psychology controlled attention Child Language |
| Zdroj: | J Speech Lang Hear Res Communicative Disorders and Deaf Education Faculty Publications |
| ISSN: | 1558-9102 1092-4388 |
| DOI: | 10.1044/2019_jslhr-l-19-0071 |
| Popis: | Purpose The storage-only deficit and joint mechanism deficit hypotheses are 2 possible explanations of the verbal working memory (vWM) storage capacity limitation of school-age children with developmental language disorder (DLD). We assessed the merits of each hypothesis in a large group of children with DLD and a group of same-age typically developing (TD) children. Method Participants were 117 children with DLD and 117 propensity-matched TD children 7–11 years of age. Children completed tasks indexing vWM capacity, verbal short-term storage, sustained attention, attention switching, and lexical long-term memory (LTM). Results For the DLD group, all of the mechanisms jointly explained 26.5% of total variance. Storage accounted for the greatest portion (13.7%), followed by controlled attention (primarily sustained attention; 6.5%) and then lexical LTM (5.6%). For the TD group, all 3 mechanisms together explained 43.9% of total variance. Storage accounted for the most variance (19.6%), followed by lexical LTM (16.0%), sustained attention (5.4%), and attention switching (3.0%). There was a significant LTM × Group interaction, in which stronger LTM scores were associated with significantly higher vWM capacity scores for the TD group as compared to the DLD group. Conclusions Results support a joint mechanism deficit account of the vWM capacity limitation of children with DLD. Results provide substantively new insights into the underlying factors of the vWM capacity limitation in DLD. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.9932312 |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|