EEG Correlates of Language Impairment in Left Brain-Lesioned Patients

2015 ◽  
pp. 106-118
Author(s):  
Luigi Murri ◽  
Enrica Bonanni ◽  
Roberto Massetani ◽  
Carlo Navona ◽  
Franco Denoth
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Left Brain

Evaluation and fMRI Analysis of Cognitive and Language Impairment of Perinatally Acquired Left Brain Injury

2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Xiuyuan ZHENG ◽  
Fenyan HUANG ◽  
Tiebin YAN ◽  
Lingjun XIAO ◽  
Nan YAN ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Brain Injury ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Left Brain ◽  
Perinatally Acquired ◽  
Fmri Analysis

Eliciting Verbs From Children With Specific Language Impairment

1996 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 17-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane Frome Loeb ◽  
Clifton Pye ◽  
Sean Redmond ◽  
Lori Zobel Richardson
Keyword(s):  
Young Children ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Syntactic Complexity ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Lexical Skills

The focus of assessment and intervention is often aimed at increasing the lexical skills of young children with language impairment. Frequently, the use of nouns is the center of the lexical assessment. As a result, the production of verbs is not fully evaluated or integrated into treatment in a way that accounts for their semantic and syntactic complexity. This paper presents a probe for eliciting verbs from children, describes its effectiveness, and discusses the utility of and problems associated with developing such a probe.

Productivity of Emerging Word Combinations in Toddlers With Specific Expressive Language Impairment

1997 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 34-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven H. Long ◽  
Lesley B. Olswang ◽  
Julianne Brian ◽  
Philip S. Dale
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Young Children ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Treatment Approach ◽  
Expressive Language ◽  
Semantic Consistency ◽  
Session Analysis

This study investigated whether young children with specific expressive language impairment (SELI) learn to combine words according to general positional rules or specific, grammatic relation rules. The language of 20 children with SELI (4 females, 16 males, mean age of 33 months, mean MLU of 1.34) was sampled weekly for 9 weeks. Sixteen of these children also received treatment for two-word combinations (agent+action or possessor+possession). Two different metrics were used to determine the productivity of combinatorial utterances. One metric assessed productivity based on positional consistency alone; another assessed productivity based on positional and semantic consistency. Data were analyzed session-by-session as well as cumulatively. The results suggest that these children learned to combine words according to grammatic relation rules. Results of the session-by-session analysis were less informative than those of the cumulative analysis. For children with SELI ready to make the transition to multiword utterances, these findings support a cumulative method of data collection and a treatment approach that targets specific grammatic relation rules rather than general word combinations.

Considering the Language Disorder Label Debate From a School Speech-Language Pathology Lens

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-54
Author(s):  
Kimberly A. Murza ◽  
Barbara J. Ehren
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Public Awareness ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Speech Language Pathologist ◽  
School Based ◽  
Language Pathology ◽  
Education Act

Purpose The purpose of this article is to situate the recent language disorder label debate within a school's perspective. As described in two recent The ASHA Leader articles, there is international momentum to change specific language impairment to developmental language disorder . Proponents of this change cite increased public awareness and research funding as part of the rationale. However, it is unclear whether this label debate is worthwhile or even practical for the school-based speech-language pathologist (SLP). A discussion of the benefits and challenges to a shift in language disorder labels is provided. Conclusions Although there are important arguments for consistency in labeling childhood language disorder, the reality of a label change in U.S. schools is hard to imagine. School-based services are driven by eligibility through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which has its own set of labels. There are myriad reasons why advocating for the developmental language disorder label may not be the best use of SLPs' time, perhaps the most important of which is that school SLPs have other urgent priorities.

Deficits in Explicit Language Problem Solving Rather Than in Implicit Learning in Specific Language Impairment: Evidence From Learning an Artificial Morphological Rule

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (10) ◽  
pp. 3790-3807 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Ferman ◽  
Liat Kishon-Rabin ◽  
Hila Ganot-Budaga ◽  
Avi Karni
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Explicit Knowledge ◽  
Procedural Memory ◽  
Procedural Learning ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Language Problems ◽  
Morphological Rule ◽  
Semantic Distinction

Purpose The purpose of this study was to delineate differences between children with specific language impairment (SLI), typical age–matched (TAM) children, and typical younger (TY) children in learning and mastering an undisclosed artificial morphological rule (AMR) through exposure and usage. Method Twenty-six participants (eight 10-year-old children with SLI, 8 TAM children, and ten 8-year-old TY children) were trained to master an AMR across multiple training sessions. The AMR required a phonological transformation of verbs depending on a semantic distinction: whether the preceding noun was animate or inanimate. All participants practiced the application of the AMR to repeated and new (generalization) items, via judgment and production tasks. Results The children with SLI derived significantly less benefit from practice than their peers in learning most aspects of the AMR, even exhibiting smaller gains compared to the TY group in some aspects. Children with SLI benefited less than TAM and even TY children from training to judge and produce repeated items of the AMR. Nevertheless, despite a significant disadvantage in baseline performance, the rate at which they mastered the task-specific phonological regularities was as robust as that of their peers. On the other hand, like 8-year-olds, only half of the SLI group succeeded in uncovering the nature of the AMR and, consequently, in generalizing it to new items. Conclusions Children with SLI were able to learn language aspects that rely on implicit, procedural learning, but experienced difficulties in learning aspects that relied on the explicit uncovering of the semantic principle of the AMR. The results suggest that some of the difficulties experienced by children with SLI when learning a complex language regularity cannot be accounted for by a broad, language-related, procedural memory disability. Rather, a deficit—perhaps a developmental delay in the ability to recruit and solve language problems and establish explicit knowledge regarding a language task—can better explain their difficulties in language learning.

Dynamic Assessment Language Tasks and the Prediction of Performance on Year-End Language Skills in Preschool Dual Language Learners

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 1226-1240
Author(s):  
Janet L. Patterson ◽  
Barbara L. Rodríguez ◽  
Philip S. Dale
Keyword(s):  
Head Start ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Dual Language ◽  
Dynamic Assessment ◽  
Dual Language Learners ◽  
Achievement Testing ◽  
Potential Applications ◽  
Language Screening ◽  
Relationship Of

Purpose Early identification is a key element for accessing appropriate services for preschool children with language impairment. However, there is a high risk of misidentifying typically developing dual language learners as having language impairment if inappropriate tools designed for monolingual children are used. In this study of children with bilingual exposure, we explored performance on brief dynamic assessment (DA) language tasks using graduated prompting because this approach has potential applications for screening. We asked if children's performance on DA language tasks earlier in the year was related to their performance on a year-end language achievement measure. Method Twenty 4-year-old children from Spanish-speaking homes attending Head Start preschools in the southwestern United States completed three DA graduated prompting language tasks 3–6 months prior to the Head Start preschools' year-end achievement testing. The DA tasks, Novel Adjective Learning, Similarities in Function, and Prediction, were administered in Spanish, but correct responses in English or Spanish were accepted. The year-end achievement measure, the Learning Accomplishment Profile–Third Edition (LAP3), was administered by the children's Head Start teachers, who also credited correct responses in either language. Results Children's performance on two of the three DA language tasks was significantly and positively related to year-end LAP3 language scores, and there was a moderate and significant relationship for one of the DA tasks, even when controlling for age and initial LAP3 scores. Conclusions Although the relationship of performance on DA with year-end performance varies across tasks, the findings indicate potential for using a graduated prompting approach to language screening with young dual language learners. Further research is needed to select the best tasks for administration in a graduated prompting framework and determine accuracy of identification of language impairment.

A 200-Year History of the Study of Childhood Language Disorders of Unknown Origin: Changes in Terminology

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurence B. Leonard
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Language Disorders ◽  
Unknown Origin ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
The Past ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Many

Purpose The current “specific language impairment” and “developmental language disorder” discussion might lead to important changes in how we refer to children with language disorders of unknown origin. The field has seen other changes in terminology. This article reviews many of these changes. Method A literature review of previous clinical labels was conducted, and possible reasons for the changes in labels were identified. Results References to children with significant yet unexplained deficits in language ability have been part of the scientific literature since, at least, the early 1800s. Terms have changed from those with a neurological emphasis to those that do not imply a cause for the language disorder. Diagnostic criteria have become more explicit but have become, at certain points, too narrow to represent the wider range of children with language disorders of unknown origin. Conclusions The field was not well served by the many changes in terminology that have transpired in the past. A new label at this point must be accompanied by strong efforts to recruit its adoption by clinical speech-language pathologists and the general public.

A View of the Lexical–Grammatical Link in Young Latinos With Specific Language Impairment Using Language-Specific and Conceptual Measures

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (6) ◽  
pp. 1775-1786 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucía I. Méndez ◽  
Gabriela Simon-Cereijido
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Vocabulary Skills ◽  
In The Beginning ◽  
Study Participants ◽  
L1 And L2

Purpose This study investigated the nature of the association of lexical–grammatical abilities within and across languages in Latino dual language learners (DLLs) with specific language impairment (SLI) using language-specific and bilingual measures. Method Seventy-four Spanish/English–speaking preschoolers with SLI from preschools serving low-income households participated in the study. Participants had stronger skills in Spanish (first language [L1]) and were in the initial stages of learning English (second language [L2]). The children's lexical, semantic, and grammar abilities were assessed using normative and researcher-developed tools in English and Spanish. Hierarchical linear regressions of cross-sectional data were conducted using measures of sentence repetition tasks, language-specific vocabulary, and conceptual bilingual lexical and semantic abilities in Spanish and English. Results Results indicate that language-specific vocabulary abilities support the development of grammar in L1 and L2 in this population. L1 vocabulary also contributes to L2 grammar above and beyond the contribution of L2 vocabulary skills. However, the cross-linguistic association between vocabulary in L2 and grammar skills in the stronger or more proficient language (L1) is not observed. In addition, conceptual vocabulary significantly supported grammar in L2, whereas bilingual semantic skills supported L1 grammar. Conclusions Our findings reveal that the same language-specific vocabulary abilities drive grammar development in L1 and L2 in DLLs with SLI. In the early stages of L2 acquisition, vocabulary skills in L1 also seem to contribute to grammar skills in L2 in this population. Thus, it is critical to support vocabulary development in both L1 and L2 in DLLs with SLI, particularly in the beginning stages of L2 acquisition. Clinical and educational implications are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document