Associations Between Key Language-Related Measures in Typically Developing School-Age Children

No AccessPerspectives on School-Based IssuesArticle1 Dec 2004Sharpen Your Focus! Using Evidence-Based Practices in Standards-Based Therapy Units Debbie Lozo, and Vicky Carter Debbie Lozo Cobb County School DistrictMarietta, GA Google Scholar More articles by this author and Vicky Carter Cobb County School DistrictMarietta, GA Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/sbi5.4.11 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In References Anderson, R.G, & NagyW. E. (1992). The vocabulary conundrum,.American Educator, Winter,–14–18, 44–47. Google Scholar Applebee, A. N. (1977). A sense of story..Theory into practice,, 16,342–347. Google Scholar Arwood, E. L., & Mclnroy, J. (1994). Reading: It’s so easy to see-pictured language.Portland, OR: APRICOT. Google Scholar Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (1991). Conditions of vocabulary acquisition.. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson, (Eds.), Handbook of reading research II (pp. 789–814). Whiteplains, NY: Longman. Google Scholar Beck, I. L.,Perfetti, C. A., & McKeown, M.G. (1982). The effects of long term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension..Journal ofEducational Psychology, 74, 506–521. Google Scholar Blackowicz, C. L., & Lee, J. L. (1991). Vocabulary development in the whole literacy classroom..The Reading Teacher, 45,188–195. Google Scholar Blackowicz, C. L., & Fisher, P. (2004). Keeping the “fun” in fundamental.. In J. F. Bauman & D. J. Kame’enui (Eds), Vocabulary to practice (pp. 218–237). New York: Guilford Press. Google Scholar Butler, K. G. (1999). From oracy to literacy: Changing clinical perspectives..Topics in Language Disorders, 20,14–32. Google Scholar Catts, H. W.,Fey, M. E., & Proctor-Williams, K. (2000). The relationship between language and reading: Preliminary results from a longitudinal investigation..Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology,, 25,3–11. Google Scholar DeThorne, L. S., & Watkins, R. V. (2001). Listeners’ perceptions of language use in children..Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 142–148. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Elley, W. B. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories..Reading Research Quarterly, 24,174–187. Google Scholar Gillam, R.B. & Carlisle, R. M. (1997). Oral reading and story retelling of students with specific language impairments..Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, ( 28 (1), 30–42. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Gillam R. B. (2002, July). Teaching narration through children’s literature.Paper presented at ASHA Schools 2002 Conference, Nashville, TN. Google Scholar Graves, M. F.,Juel, C., & Graves, B. B. (2001). Teaching reading in the 21st century. .Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Google Scholar Gummersoll, D. M., &Strong, C. J. (1999). Assessment of complex sentence production in a narrative context..Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 30,152–164. Google Scholar Kaderavek, J., &Sulzby, E. (2000). Narrative production by children with and without specific language impairment: Oral narratives and emergent readings..Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research,, 43, 34–49. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Kaderavek, J., & Justice, L. (2004). Embedded-explicit emergent literacy intervention 2: Goal selection and implementation in the early childhood classroom..Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools.( 35(3), 212–228. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Marzano,R. J. (2003). What works in schools..Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Google Scholar Marzano, R. J.,Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works..Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Google Scholar Merrit, D. D., & Liles, B. Z. (1987). Story grammar ability in children with and without language disorder: Story generation, story retelling and story comprehension.Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, , 30,539–552. Google Scholar McCabe, A., & Rollins, P.R. (1993). Assessment of preschool narrative skills..American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 3(1), 45–56. Google Scholar Nagy, W. E., & Herman, P. A. (1984). Limitations ofvocabulary instruction..Rep. No. 326). Urbana, IL:University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading. Google Scholar National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.. (2000). Report of the national reading panel: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research.literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Bethesda, MD: NICHD Clearing House. Google Scholar Rogers, S., & Graham, S. (2003). The high performance toolbox..Evergreen, CO: Peak Learning Systems. Google Scholar Scarborough, H. S. (1990). Very early language deficits in dyslexic children..Child Development, 61,1728–1743. Google Scholar Scott, J. A., & Nagy, W. E. (2004). Developing word consciousness. In J. F. Bauman & D. J. Kame’enui (Eds), Vocabulary to practice (pp. 201–217). New York: Guilford Press. Google Scholar Snow, C. E.,Scarborough, H. S., & Burns, M. S. (1999). What speech-language pathologists need to know about early reading..Topics in Language Disorders, 20(1), 48–58. Google Scholar Strong, C. J. (1998). The Strong narrative assessment procedure..Eau Clair, WI: Thinking Publications. Google Scholar Thompson, M., & Thomason, J. (2002). Leadership, achievement, and accountability..Boone, NC: Learning Concepts. Google Scholar Turner, G. Y. (1996). Thematic approaches to learning: Research shows ten clear benefits.In Teacher’s desk reference (pp. 51–58). New York:Scholastic. Google Scholar Wallach, G. P., & Butler, K. G. (1994). Language learning disabilities in school-age children and adolescents: Some principles and applications..Needham Heights, M A:Allyn and Bacon. Google Scholar Wiggins, G.,&McTighe,J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA.Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Google Scholar Additional Resources FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 5Issue 4December 2004Pages: 11-16 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in issue: Dec 1, 2004 Metrics Topicsasha-topicsasha-sigsasha-article-typesCopyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2004 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationPDF downloadLoading ...

Applications of disfluencies in measurements of stuttering.

The Adverse Effects of a Language Disorder

Long-Term Care Approaches to Aphasia Treatment and Management

Event Abstract Back to Event The multiplex interplay between phonological and semantic networks impacts word production across different types of aphasia Nichol Castro1* and Massimo Stella2 1 Georgia Institute of Technology, United States 2 University of Southampton, United Kingdom The structure of mental lexicon networks, where similar words are connected, influences several language processes in healthy (e.g., De Deyne, Navarro, & Storms, 2013; Vitevitch, Goldstein, Siew, & Castro, 2015) and clinical (e.g., Castro, Pelczarski, & Vitevitch, 2017) populations, above and beyond traditional psycholinguistic measures. Specific to aphasia, phonological networks were found to influence picture naming performance by people with Broca’s and Wernicke’s aphasia (Vitevitch & Castro, 2015). However, these previous endeavors only examined one type of word-word similarity (e.g., phonological similarity; Vitevitch, 2008). The more recent approach of multiplex lexical networks (Stella, Beckage, & Brede, 2017; Stella, Beckage, Brede, & De Domenico, 2018) allows consideration of semantic and phonological relationships among words simultaneously. We extend the previous analysis of picture naming by people with aphasia to include the multiplex lexical network defined in Stella et al. (2018), where words are connected on four layers representing free associations, synonyms, generalizations, and phonological similarities. We focused on three network measures, namely degree, PageRank, and closeness centrality, for each word on each layer and over the entire multiplex. Degree is a local network measure equal to the number of immediate links of a node. PageRank highlights meso-scale network patterns by identifying the most important nodes in the network. Closeness centrality is a global network measure quantifying how fast information can flow from one node to all others. As multiplex generalizations of these measures we used multidegree (the sum of word degrees across layers), PageRank versatility (De Domenico, Solé-Ribalta, Omodei, Gómez, & Arenas, 2015), and multiplex closeness centrality, respectively. To assess picture naming performance, we conducted logistic regression models predicting the probability of correct picture naming from traditional psycholinguistic predictors (word length, frequency, and age of acquisition), type of aphasia (Anomic, Conduction, Wernicke, Broca, and healthy controls), and each of the network measures (layer-specific and multiplex variants) using archival data. We found that for local and meso-structural measures (i.e. degree and PageRank), the layer-specific variants were more predictive of picture naming performance than the multiplex variants. Conversely, for the global measure of closeness centrality, we found the multiplex variant being twice more predictive of picture naming performance than layer-specific variants. Furthermore, the difference in production likelihood between words with high and low multiplex closeness centrality is considerably greater for people with different types of aphasia than healthy controls, suggesting that this measure is particularly sensitive to picture naming performance in this clinical population (Fig. 1). These findings indicate that picture naming by people with aphasia crucially depends on the global interplay between phonology and semantics, which is captured by the whole multiplex structure. These findings may have particular relevance for the treatment of aphasia. Potentially, selecting words with high multiplex closeness centrality for treatment will lead to greater generalization of treatment to untrained words than when selecting words with low closeness centrality, given that words with high multiplex closeness centrality are 1) already better accessed by people with aphasia and 2) well-connected within the entire multiplex lexical network through semantic and phonological connections. Figure 1 Acknowledgements Portions of this work were made possible with a Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA) Institutional Research Training Grant from the National Institutes of Health (National Institute on Aging) 5T32AG000175 to NC. MS acknowledges support from a Doctoral Training Centre grant (EP/G03690X/1). References Castro, N., Pelczarski, K. M., & Vitevitch, M. S. (2017). Using Network Science Measures to Predict the Lexical Decision Performance of Adults Who Stutter. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60(7), 1911-1918. De Deyne, S., Navarro, D. J., & Storms, G. (2013). Better explanations of lexical and semantic cognition using networks derived from continued rather than single-word associations.Behavior research methods, 45(2), 480-498. De Domenico, M., Solé-Ribalta, A., Omodei, E., Gómez, S., & Arenas, A. (2015). Ranking in interconnected multilayer networks reveals versatile nodes. Nature communications, 6, 6868. Stella, M., Beckage, N. M., & Brede, M. (2017). Multiplex lexical networks reveal patterns in early word acquisition in children.Scientific Reports, 7, 46730. Stella, M., Beckage, N. M., Brede, M., & De Domenico, M. (2018). Multiplex model of mental lexicon reveals explosive learning in humans. Scientific reports, 8(1), 2259. Vitevitch, M. S. (2008). What can graph theory tell us about word learning and lexical retrieval?. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51(2), 408-422. Vitevitch, M. S., & Castro, N. (2015). Using network science in the language sciences and clinic. International journal of speech-language pathology, 17(1), 13-25. Vitevitch, M. S., Goldstein, R., Siew, C. S., & Castro, N. (2014). Using complex networks to understand the mental lexicon. In Yearbook of the Poznan Linguistic Meeting, 1(1), 119-138. Keywords: Aphasia, multiplex lexical networks, Psycholinguistics, complex networks, picture naming, clinical applications Conference: Academy of Aphasia 56th Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada, 21 Oct - 23 Oct, 2018. Presentation Type: poster presentation Topic: not eligible for a student prize Citation: Castro N and Stella M (2019). The multiplex interplay between phonological and semantic networks impacts word production across different types of aphasia. Conference Abstract: Academy of Aphasia 56th Annual Meeting. doi: 10.3389/conf.fnhum.2018.228.00035 Copyright: The abstracts in this collection have not been subject to any Frontiers peer review or checks, and are not endorsed by Frontiers. They are made available through the Frontiers publishing platform as a service to conference organizers and presenters. The copyright in the individual abstracts is owned by the author of each abstract or his/her employer unless otherwise stated. Each abstract, as well as the collection of abstracts, are published under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 (attribution) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and may thus be reproduced, translated, adapted and be the subject of derivative works provided the authors and Frontiers are attributed. For Frontiers’ terms and conditions please see https://www.frontiersin.org/legal/terms-and-conditions. Received: 16 Apr 2018; Published Online: 22 Jan 2019. * Correspondence: Dr. Nichol Castro, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, United States, nichol.castro@psych.gatech.edu Login Required This action requires you to be registered with Frontiers and logged in. To register or login click here. Abstract Info Abstract The Authors in Frontiers Nichol Castro Massimo Stella Google Nichol Castro Massimo Stella Google Scholar Nichol Castro Massimo Stella PubMed Nichol Castro Massimo Stella Related Article in Frontiers Google Scholar PubMed Abstract Close Back to top Javascript is disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser settings in order to see all the content on this page.

No AccessPerspectives on Aural Rehabilitation and Its InstrumentationArticle1 May 2003Multicultural Issues In Audiology Karen Beverly-Ducker Karen Beverly-Ducker Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/arii11.1.12 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In References ASHA. (2000). 2000 Omnibussurvey: Practice trends in audiology. Rockville, MD: Author. Google Scholar ASHA. (2002). 2002 Omnibus survey Practice trends in audiology. Rockville, MD: Author. Google Scholar Ballachanda, B. B. (2001a). Audiological assessment of “We, the foreign born.”.Division 14, Communication Disorders and Sciences in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations Newsletter, 7(1), 11–13. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Ballachanda, B. B. (2001b). Meeting the needs of multicultural clients.Advance for Audiologists, 3(5), 50–53. Google Scholar Bierman, N., & Nungesser, N. (2002). Home remedies used in the treatment of hearing or ear problems.Division 14, Communication Disorders and Sciences in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations Newsletter, 8(1), 6–8. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Boyd, S., & Pearlman, R. (1988). Otitis media, genetics and environment: Some considerations for emerging nations.The Howard Journal of Communications, 1, 27–32. Google Scholar Cohen, M., Branch, W., McKie, V., & Adams, R. (1994). Neuropsychological impairments in children with sickle cell anemia and cerebrovascular accidents.Clinical Pediatrics, 33, 517–534. Google Scholar Cokely, J. A., & Yager, C. R. (1993). Scoring Spanish word-recognition measures.Ear and Hearing, 14, 395–400. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Crago, M. B., Hurteau, A. M., & Ayukawa, H. M. (1990). Culturally based audiological services for hearing impaired Inuit in northern Quebec.Journal of Speech Language Pathology and Audiology, 14, 33–46. Google Scholar Crandell, C. (1996). Effects of sound field amplification on the speech perception of ESL children.Educational Audiology Monograph, 4, 1–5. Google Scholar Crandell, C. C., & Smaldino, J.J. (1996). Speech perception in noise by children for whom English is a second language.American Journal of Audiology, 5(3), 47–51. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Davis, P. N., Gentry, B., & Dancer, J. (2001). Sickle cell disease and communication disorders.Division, 14, Communication Disorders and Sciences in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations Newsletter, 7(1), 4–8. Google Scholar Doyle, J., & Wong, L. L. N. (1996). Mismatch between aspects of hearing impairment and hearing disability/handicap in adult/elderly Cantonese speakers: Some hypotheses concerning cultural and linguistic influences.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 7, 442–446. Google Scholar Eriks-Brophy, A., & Ayukawa, H. (2000). The benefits of sound field amplification in classrooms of Inuit students of Nunavik: A pilot project.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31(4), 324–335. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Flores, P., Martin, F. N., & Champlin, C. A. (1996). Providing audiological services to Spanish speakers.American Journal of Audiology, 5(1), 69–73. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Gentry, B., Davis, P., & Dancer, J. (1997). Failure rates of young patients with sickle cell disease on a hearing screening test.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 84, 434. Google Scholar Gravel, J. S., & Wallace, I. F. (2000). Effects of otitis media with effusion on hearing in the first 3 years of life.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43(3), 631–644. Google Scholar Hodgson, W. R., & Montgomery, P. (1994). Hearing impairment and bilingual children: Considerations in assessment and intervention.Seminars in Speech and Language, 15, 174–182. Google Scholar Jones, R. C., & Kretschmer, L. W. (1988). The attitudes of parents of Black hearing-impaired students.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 19, 41–50. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Jones, R. C., & Richardson, J. R. (1995). A study of the availability of hearing healthcare services in African-American communities.ECHO, 17, 29–32. Google Scholar Jupiter, T., & Palagonia, C. L. (2001). The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly Screening Version adapted for use with elderly Chinese American individuals.American Journal of Audiology, 10(2), 99–103. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Knight, J. (1997). Speech tests in some other languages than English. In M. Martin (Ed.), Speech audiometry (pp. 315–324). San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group. Google Scholar Lau, C. C., & So, K. W. (1988). Material for Cantonese speech audiometry constructed by appropriate phonetic principles.British Journal of Audiology, 22, 297–304. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Lee, D. J., Carlson, D. L., Lee, H. M., Ray, L. A., & Markides, K. S. (1991). Hearing loss and hearing aid use in Hispanic adults: Results from the Hispanic Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.American Journal of Public Health, 81, 1471–1474. Google Scholar Levi, A. V., Boyett-Solano, J., Nicholson, B., & Eisenberg, L. S. (2001). Multilingualism and children with cochlear implants. How multilingualism may influence functional speech perception and language test measures of young recipients of cochlear implants.The Hearing Review, 8(6), 44–49. Google Scholar Lichenstein, M. J., & Hazuda, H. P. (1998). Cross-cultural adaptation of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly-Screening Version (H.H.IE-S) for use with Spanish-speaking Mexican Amer-icans.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 46, 492–498. Google Scholar Lopez, S. M., Martin, F. N., & Thibodeau, L. M. (1997). Performance of monolingual and bilingual speakers of English and Spanish on the Synthetic Sentence Identification Test.American Journal of Audiology, 6 (3), 33–38. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Martin, F. N., Villalobos, A., & Champlin, C.A. (1993). A comparison between English and Spanish word recognition tests.Tejas, 19( spring/ summer), 25–27. Google Scholar McCullough, J. A., Wilson, R. H., Birck, J. D., & Anderson, L. G. (1994). A multimedia approach for estimating speech recognition of multilingual clients.American Journal of Audiology, 3, 19–22. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Moore, J. A. (1999). Comparison of risk of conductive hearing loss among three ethnic groups of Arctic audiology patients.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42(6), 1311–1322. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Naeem, A., & Newton, V. (1996). Prevalence of sensorineural hearing loss in Asian children.British Journal of Audiology, 30(5), 332–339. Google Scholar Newman-Ryann, J., Northrup, B. D., & Villarreal-Emery, C. (1995). Testing balance function in Spanish-speaking patients: Guidelines for non-Spanish-speaking clinicians.American Journal of Audiology, 4, 15–23. Google Scholar Plant, G., Gnosspelius, J., & Levitt, H. (2000). The use of tactile supplements in lipreading Swedish and English: A single-subject study.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43(1), 172–183. Google Scholar Proctor, A., & Ramkissoon, I. (2001). Speech materials for testing hearing of deaf and hard of hearing children from non-English speaking backgrounds.Division 14, Communication Disorders and Sciences in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations Newsletter, 7(1), 8–10. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Ramkissoon, I. (2001). Speech recognition thresholds for multilingual populations.Communication Disorders Quarterly, 22(3), 158–162. Google Scholar Ramkissoon, I., BilgermR. C., & Proctor, A. (2000). Digit-speech reception thresholds among non-native speakers of English.The ASHA Leader, 5 (16), 72. Google Scholar Ramkissoon, I., & Khan, F. (2002). Serving multicultural clients with hearing loss: How linguistic diversity affects audiologic management.The ASHA Leader, 8 (3), 110–11, 27. Google Scholar Ramkissoon, I., Proctor, A., Lansing, C. R., & Bilger, R. C. (2002). Digit Speech Recognition Thresholds (SRT) for non-native speakers of English.American Journal of Audiology, 11 (1), 23–28. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Ramos, H. S., Windham, R. A., & Katz, J. (1992). Introducing a Spanish-language version of the Staggered Word Test.The Hearing Journal, 45, 39–43. Google Scholar Schneider, B. S. (1992). Effect of dialect on the determination of speech-reception thresholds in Spanish-speaking children.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 23, 159–162. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Scott, D. M. (1998). Multicultural aspects of hearing disorders and audiology. In. D. E. Battle (Ed.), Communication disorders in multicultural populations, (2nd ed., pp. 335–354). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. Google Scholar Takayanagi, S., Dirks, D. D., & Moshfegh, A. (2002). Lexical and talker effects on word recognition among native and non-native listeners with normal and impaired hearing.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45(3), 585–597. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Tur-Kaspa, H., & Dromi, E. (2001). Grammatical deviations in the spoken and written language of Hebrew-speaking children with hearing impairments.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32 (2), 79–89. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Von Hapsburg, D., & Peña, E. D. (2002). Understanding bilingualism and its impact on speech audiometry.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 202–213. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Additional Resources FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 11Issue 1May 2003Pages: 12-15 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in issue: May 1, 2003 Metrics Topicsasha-topicsasha-sigsasha-article-typesCopyright & Permissions© 2003 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationPDF downloadLoading ...

Response to Craig

Purpose: Word learning difficulties have been documented in multiple studies involving children with dyslexia and developmental language disorder (DLD; see also specific language impairment). 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. We hypothesized that children with dyslexia-only and DLD-only would show differences in word learning due to differences in their core language strengths and weaknesses.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 typically developing 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.Supplemental Material S1. Analyses using more restrictive inclusionary criteria, as is common in studies of specific language impairment (SLI; i.e., nonverbal intelligence scores > 85). The document contains three tables:A. Descriptive statistics and group comparisons for subgrouping and descriptive assessments using SLI criteria;B. One-way ANOVA summary table examining group differences for the primary outcome for each word learning task using SLI criteria; andC. Primary accuracy scores of word learning tasks by group using SLI criteria; Effect size and significance of pairwise comparisons.Supplemental Material S2. Additional information about the word learning training script.Adlof, S. M., Baron, L. S., Bell, B. A., & Scoggins, J. (2021). Spoken word learning in children with developmental language disorder or dyslexia. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_JSLHR-20-00217

You have accessThe ASHA LeaderFeature1 Apr 2011Auditory Remediation for Patients With Landau-Kleffner Syndrome Annette HurleyPhD, CCC-A Annette Hurley Google Scholar More articles by this author , PhD, CCC-A https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.FTR5.16042011.5 SectionsAbout ToolsAdd to favorites ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In http://www.asha.org/Publications/leader/2011/110405/Auditory-Remediation-for-Patients-With-Landau-Kleffner-Syndrome.htm Landau-Kleffner syndrome (LKS) is a rare neurological disorder that affects children and is characterized by aphasia that can develop suddenly or over a period of time. Often the deterioration in language is rapid, but it also may decline over several months (Miller et al, 1984). Although there is a body of evidence to support medical treatment for LKS, there is limited information about the clinical management for the language disorder or acquired (central) auditory processing disorder [(C)APD]. The prognosis of a child with LKS is unpredictable due to variability in the time and amount of recovery and the severity of the disorder. Speech-language pathologists are often challenged with the task of maximizing language recovery. Treatment techniques have relied on visual aids such as graphic symbols and visual language systems, as well as cued speech (for a review of language treatment options, see Alpern, 2010). Thomas Gibson listens to dichotic sentences during his treatment session with SLP Kristen Beckner. It also is important for clinicians to recognize auditory processing deficits associated with the acquired (C)APD that results from LKS and to offer a deficit-specific remediation plan to improve the patient’s auditory processing ability. Previous reports of auditory processing deficits in LKS patients have cited difficulty listening in background noise or other degraded environments, challenges with auditory discrimination, and problems with dichotic listening tasks (Bamiou, Musiek, & Luxon, 2001). An assistive listening device such as an FM system may be useful to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. Speech-in-noise training may also improve the patient’s listening ability. Dichotic listening treatment is one type of direct remediation for (C)APD that takes advantage of the brain’s lifelong capacity for plasticity and adaptive reorganization (Musiek, Chermak, & Weihing, 2007). LKS patients have an abnormal electroencephalogram (EEG) typified by abnormal spike activity in the temporal and/or parietal regions (Deonna, Beaumanoir, Gaillard, & Assal, 1991). The abnormal EEG activity occurs predominantly in the left temporal lobe, but may be present in both temporal lobes (Deonna et al., 1991). From anatomical and physiologic dichotic listening modeling, it is reasonable that the only way to isolate the damaged auditory pathway is to force this auditory pathway to work by direct auditory stimulation—dichotic listening. In normal listening conditions, auditory information is conducted to the auditory cortex by both ipsilateral and contralateral auditory pathways; however, during controlled dichotic listening, the ipsilateral pathway is suppressed by the dominant contralateral pathway. This dominant contralateral model was first proposed by Kimura (1961), whose data led her to hypothesize that the contralateral pathway must have greater neuronal innervation that enables it to be dominant over the ipsilateral pathway. Early work in the 19th century noted that most aphasia is the result of lesions in the left cerebral hemisphere, leading to the conclusion that most people are left-hemisphere-dominant for expressive and receptive language. Further, a language-related auditory signal presented to the right ear travels from the dominant contralateral right auditory pathway directly to the left hemisphere. Conversely, a language-related auditory signal directed to the left ear is conducted to the right cortex, but must be transferred to the left hemisphere via corpus callosum in order for the person to repeat what was heard in the left ear. Thus, it is not surprising that there is a slight right-ear advantage for neurologically normal listeners when listening to dichotic tasks (Kimura, 1961; Lowe, Cullen, Berlin, Thompson, & Willett, 1970; Berlin, Lowe-Bell, Cullen & Thompson, 1973). When there is damage or a lesion in the auditory temporal lobe, the ear contralateral to the lesion will be affected in dichotic listening tasks, as the contralateral pathway is the dominant pathway. Because lesions often are found in the left temporal lobe in LKS patients, a right-ear deficit on dichotic testing is expected. Dichotic listening training is an innovative treatment for the remediation of the compromised central auditory pathway (Musiek et al., 2007). Dichotic interaural intensity difference (DIID) training uses dichotic listening tasks in which the signal intensity presented to the unimpaired pathway is first decreased and then slowly increased over time as the weaker, impaired pathway grows stronger. DIID training purports to target the deficit ear specifically, thus activating brain regions that receive auditory sensory input on the side of the lesion. Previous investigations have shown behavioral and electrophysiological evidence of improvement of the central auditory nervous system after DIID training (Musiek, Baran, & Shinn, 2004; Hurley & Billiet, 2007; for a complete review of the DIID procedure, see Musiek et al., 2007). Improvement after auditory rehabilitative dichotic listening in dichotic scores and language scores also were shown in a group of children with language disorders. Until recently, dichotic listening programs could be completed only in a controlled laboratory environment; now dichotic stimuli are available on compact discs. Dichotic exercises directly stimulate areas of the cortex, which in turn forces the auditory pathways to these areas to exercise and recruit existing neuronal connections or build new neural connections and pathways. As the integrity of these areas pathways is improved, speech stimuli can reach the language processing temporal lobe more efficiently, resulting in improvement of dichotic skills. Dichotic Training: Case Studies Two patients participated in dichotic listening training. “Michael” participated in dichotic listening therapy for two clinic semesters. “Thomas” lives in another state and participated in dichotic listening therapy with his speech-language pathologist. In dichotic training, stimuli are presented at different interaural intensities with a higher intensity directed to the poorer (dichotic scoring) and lower intensity directed to better (dichotic scoring) ear. Initial presentation level is at a comfortable level to the poorer scoring ear, and a soft level to the better (dichotic scoring) ear. When the individual’s target ear’s score reaches >70%, the intensity level delivered to the poorer ear is increased by 1, 2, or 5 dB. This continues until there are equal intensities presented to both ears. Because of the limited amount of dichotic listening materials, available, new recordings of digits, words, sentences, CVs and short stories were created and used in the training sessions. Case One: Michael Michael was the product of a normal pregnancy and birth. All developmental milestones were developing appropriately until the age of three. At that time, Michael’s speech and language skills began to decline. Initially, this decline in speech and language was attributed to sibling jealousy as this decline coincided with the birth of a younger sibling. Michael was sent for a hearing evaluation which established normal peripheral hearing. As Michael had a history of otitis media, the lack of progression in speech and language was next related to his history of ear infections. Subsequently, autism and pervasive developmental disorder were also erroneously diagnosed. With the onset of seizure activity at the age of three and a half years, the diagnosis of LKS was made after a characteristic spiking EEG. Nocturnal seizure activity continued until Michael was eleven years old, even though anticonvulsants were prescribed. At age 11, Michael had his first normal EEG. Our involvement with Michael began when he was 12.5 years old, as he was a subject in a study examining pre and post behavioral and electrophysiological measures after Fast ForWord® training, provided by Michael’s local school system. Approximately four weeks after Michael completed the Fast ForWord® program, Dichotic listening therapy began weekly for a total of twenty one hour dichotic listening training sessions. Post-testing showed improvement in dichotic scores after dichotic listening training, as well as improvements in electrophysiologic responses (auditory late response). In addition, unsolicited parental reports were positive. Extended family member, as well as Michael’s teachers, commented that his speech was improving and that he was speaking in complete sentences and thoughts, rather than in a telegraphic-type speech. They also reported that he rarely used signs. This cannot be validated, as we did not measure pre and post mean length utterance. Case Two: Thomas Thomas was the product of a normal pregnancy and birth history was normal. Gross motor development milestones were achieved at appropriate times. At age 3, Thomas had a speech-language evaluation to address articulation concerns. This assessment yielded normal results. Sleep concerns were noted as early as age 3 ½; at age 5 ½, a tonsillectomy/ adenoidectomy was performed for sleep apnea. Early behavioral, attention, language and hearing were first noted when Thomas was in pre-school. A speech-language assessment at that time (age 6.25) indicated a severe receptive language delay. Language regression and concerns continued over the next few years. Thomas had an abnormal EEG at age 8 years, 2 months indicated bilateral abnormalities, but left temporal lobe activity greater on the left side. Approximately six months later, an EEG indicated abnormalities on the right side, as well. Thomas is currently managed medically for his abnormal nocturnal EEG. In July, 2009, Thomas was formally diagnosed with Landau-Kleffner Syndrome (LKS). Thomas began dichotic listening in October, 2009. He was seen at the LSU Health Sciences Center in July, 2010. Because of the geographical distance, Thomas has been working with his speech language pathologist on dichotic listening via recorded compact discs. Training began 20 minutes, twice per week, and is now listening weekly. Although we do not have comprehensive pre and post (C)APD test results, we have dichotic test scores from an assessment in July, 2009. Scores previously abnormal are now within normal limits. Reference Alpern C. A. (2010). Identification and Treatment of Landau-Kleffner Syndrome. ASHA Leader, September 21, 34–35. Google Scholar Bamiou D. E., Musiek F. M., & Luxon L. M. (2001). Aetiology and clinical presentations of auditory processing disorders—a review.Archives of Disease in Children, 85, 361–365. Google Scholar Berlin C. I., Lowe-Bell S. S., Culen J. K., & Thompson C. L. (1973). Dichotic speech perception: an interpretation of right-ear advantage and temporal offset effects.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 53, 699–709. Google Scholar Berlin C. I., Lowe-Bell S. S., Jannetta P. J., & Kline D. G. (1972). Central auditory deficits after temporal lobectomy.Archives of Otolaryngology, 96, 4–10. Google Scholar Deonna T., Beaumanoir A., Gaillard F., Assal G. (1977). Acquired aphasia in childhood with seizure disorder: a heterogeneous syndrome.Neuropadiatrie, 8, 263–273. Google Scholar Hurley A., & Billiet C. (2009). Dichotic interaural intensity difference (DIID) training; auditory remediation after CVA.Poster Presentation at the annual ASHA Convention, Chicago, IL. Google Scholar Kimura D. (1961). Cerebral dominance and the perception of verbal stimuli.Canadian Journal of Psychology, 15, 166–171. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Lowe S. S., Cullen J. K., Berlin C. I., Thompson C. L., & Willett M. E. (1970). Perception of simultaneous dichotic and monotic monosyllables.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 13, 812–822. LinkGoogle Scholar Miller J. F., Campbell T. F., Chapman R. S., & Weismer S. E. (1984). Language behavior in acquired childhood aphasia.In Holland A. (Ed.), Language disorders in childhood: Recent advances (pp. 57–99). San Diego: College Hill Press. Google Scholar Musiek F. E., Chermak G., & Weihing J. (2007). Auditory training.In In. Musiek F.E. and Chermak G. D. (Eds.), Handbook of (Central) Auditory Processing Disorder: Comprehensive Intervention, (Vol II, pp. 77-106). San Diego: Plural Publishing, 2007. Google Scholar Musiek F. E., Baran J. A., & Shinn J. (2004). Assessment and remediation of an auditory processing disorder associated with head trauma.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 15, 117–132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Author Notes is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication Sciences at Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center in New Orleans, La. Contact her at [email protected]. Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Additional Resources FiguresSourcesRelatedDetails Volume 16Issue 4April 2011 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in print: Apr 1, 2011 Metrics Downloaded 806 times Topicsasha-topicsleader_do_tagasha-article-typesCopyright & Permissions© 2011 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationLoading ...

The Nature of Specific Language Impairment in Children

This study investigates the oral language skills of 8-year-old children with impaired reading comprehension. Despite fluent and accurate reading and normal nonverbal ability, these children are poor at understanding what they have read. Tasks tapping 3 domains of oral language, namely phonology, semantics, and morphosyntax, were administered, along with measures that reflect an interaction of language domains that we refer to as broader language skills. Relative to control children matched for age and decoding ability, poor comprehenders were impaired across all measures except those tapping phonological skills. In addition to low oral language ability characterizing the group as a whole, some individuals had marked language impairments; it is argued that a substantial minority can be classified as having specific language impairment. However, none of the children had been previously recognized as having a language or reading impairment. These findings demonstrate that serious reading and language impairments are not always obvious in children who have good phonological ability and appear, superficially at least, to read well.

In many languages a weakness in non-word repetition serves as a useful clinical marker of specific language impairment (SLI) in children. However, recent work in Italian has shown that the repetition of real words may also have clinical utility. For young typically developing Italian children, real word repetition is more predictive of particular grammatical abilities than is non-word repetition. This finding is important because these particular grammatical abilities--the production of present-tense third-person plural inflections and direct-object clitic pronouns--are precisely those that are problematic for Italian-speaking children with SLI. Along with their grammatical requirements, these two morpheme types present a significant phonological/prosodic challenge for these children. To replicate the findings with young typically developing Italian children and to determine whether real word repetition is also more predictive of the use of these two morpheme types than is non-word repetition in a group of Italian-speaking children with SLI. Seventeen Italian-speaking children with SLI and 17 younger typically developing children matched for mean length of utterance participated in tasks of real word and non-word repetition as well as tasks requiring the production of direct-object clitic pronouns and present-tense third-person plural inflections. Children with SLI were less accurate than their younger peers on all measures. Importantly, for the younger typically developing children, real word repetition explained a significant amount of variance in the use of third-person plural inflections and direct-object clitic pronouns. For the children with SLI, in contrast, non-word repetition was a significant predictor, whereas real word repetition was not a contributing factor. It is argued that in Italian SLI, the grammatical details showing the greatest weakness present phonological/prosodic obstacles as well as grammatical challenges to these children. Consequently, non-word repetition emerges as a predictor of these grammatical weaknesses in SLI, unlike the profile observed in typically developing Italian children.

Rhythm cues have been shown to be important for deciphering speech in adverse listening conditions, even when the rhythm cues are corrupted. In an initial attempt to document the relationship between rhythm perception and processing of a naturally dysrhythmic speech signal, we found that listeners with expertise in rhythm perception were not advantaged with initial intelligibility of ataxic dysarthria but were significantly advantaged with adaptation to the degraded speech signal [Borrie, Lansford, and Barrett, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60, 561–570 (2017)]. We speculated that listeners with skills in rhythm perception are better able to exploit experience (familiarization) with the degraded speech, learning something useful about corrupted rhythm cues for subsequent processing. This current study investigated whether the relationship between rhythm perception and perceptual adaptation of dysrhythmic speech, observed in our previous study with ataxic dysarthria, holds for other forms of dysrhythmic speech. Here, we replicate our original study with two different forms of dysarthria: the largely irregular and unpredictable speech of hyperkinetic dysarthria secondary to Huntington’s disease, and the relatively regular and predictable speech of hypokinetic dysarthric speech secondary to Parkinson’s disease. Results will bear on models of dysrhythmic speech perception as well as clinical practice.

Young adults with a history of specific language impairment (SLI) differ from reading-impaired (dyslexic) individuals in terms of limited vocabulary and poor verbal short-term memory. Phonological short-term memory has been shown to play a significant role in learning new words. We investigated the neural signatures of auditory word recognition and word repetition in young adults with SLI, dyslexia and normal language development using magnetoencephalography. The stimuli were 7-8 letter spoken real words and pseudo-words. They evoked a transient peak at 100 ms (N100m) followed by longer-lasting activation peaking around 400 ms (N400m) in the left and right superior temporal cortex. Both word repetition (first vs. immediately following second presentation) and lexicality (words vs. pseudowords) modulated the N400m response. An effect of lexicality was detected about 400 ms onwards as activation culminated for words but continued for pseudo-words. This effect was more pronounced in the left than right hemisphere in the control subjects. The left hemisphere lexicality effect was also present in the dyslexic adults, but it was non-significant in the subjects with SLI, possibly reflecting their limited vocabulary. The N400m activation between 200 and 700 ms was attenuated by the immediate repetition of words and pseudo-words in both hemispheres. In SLI adults the repetition effect evaluated at 200-400 ms was abnormally weak. This finding suggests impaired short-term maintenance of linguistic activation that underlies word recognition. Furthermore, the size of the repetition effect decreased from control subjects through dyslexics to SLIs, i.e. when advancing from milder to more severe language impairment. The unusually rapid decay of speech-evoked activation could have a detrimental role on vocabulary growth in children with SLI.

Stimulating Swallowing: Essential Central and Peripheral Nervous System Targets