scholarly journals Effect of Working Memory and Exposure to the Symbols on Sentence Construction using AAC Graphic Symbols

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 392-403
Author(s):  
Sangeun Shin ◽  
Heeyoung Park
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Graphic Symbols ◽  
Sentence Construction

scholarly journals Examining Working Memory during Sentence Construction with an ACT-R Model of Grammatical Encoding

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy Cole ◽  
David Reitter
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Categorial Grammar ◽  
Grammatical Encoding ◽  
Sentence Complexity ◽  
Human Data ◽  
Combinatory Categorial Grammar ◽  
Sentence Construction ◽  
Incremental Strategy

We examine working memory use and incrementality using acognitive model of grammatical encoding. Our model combinesan empirically validated framework, ACT-R, with a linguistictheory, Combinatory Categorial Grammar, to target thatphase of language production. By building the model with theSwitchboard corpus, it can attempt to realize a larger set ofsentences. With this methodology, different strategies may becompared according to the similarity of the model’s sentencesto the test sentences. In this way, the model can still be evaluatedby its fit to human data, without overfitting to individualexperiments. The results show that while having more workingmemory available improves performance, using less workingmemory during realization is correlated with a closer fit,even after controlling for sentence complexity. Further, sentencesrealized with a more incremental strategy are also moresimilar to the corpus sentences as measured by edit distance.As high incrementality is correlated with low working memoryusage, this study offers a possible mechanism by whichincrementality can be explained.

Conceptual short-term memory (CSTM) supports core claims of Christiansen and Chater

2016 ◽  
Vol 39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary C. Potter
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Rapid Serial Visual Presentation ◽  
Language Comprehension ◽  
Short Term Memory ◽  
Visual Presentation ◽  
Long Term Memory ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Term Memory ◽  
Use Of Knowledge

AbstractRapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) of words or pictured scenes provides evidence for a large-capacity conceptual short-term memory (CSTM) that momentarily provides rich associated material from long-term memory, permitting rapid chunking (Potter 1993; 2009; 2012). In perception of scenes as well as language comprehension, we make use of knowledge that briefly exceeds the supposed limits of working memory.

The bottleneck may be the solution, not the problem

2016 ◽  
Vol 39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arnon Lotem ◽  
Oren Kolodny ◽  
Joseph Y. Halpern ◽  
Luca Onnis ◽  
Shimon Edelman
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Recent Theory ◽  
Cognitive Mechanisms ◽  
Selection Pressures ◽  
Biological Trait ◽  
Memory Bottleneck

AbstractAs a highly consequential biological trait, a memory “bottleneck” cannot escape selection pressures. It must therefore co-evolve with other cognitive mechanisms rather than act as an independent constraint. Recent theory and an implemented model of language acquisition suggest that a limit on working memory may evolve to help learning. Furthermore, it need not hamper the use of language for communication.

Do Children With Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) Have Difficulties With Interference Control, Visuospatial Working Memory, and Selective Attention? Developmental Patterns and the Role of Severity and Persistence of DLD

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (9) ◽  
pp. 3036-3050
Author(s):  
Elma Blom ◽  
Tessel Boerma
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Selective Attention ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Visuospatial Working Memory ◽  
Interference Control ◽  
Developmental Patterns ◽  
Search Tasks ◽  
The Impact

Purpose Many children with developmental language disorder (DLD) have weaknesses in executive functioning (EF), specifically in tasks testing interference control and working memory. It is unknown how EF develops in children with DLD, if EF abilities are related to DLD severity and persistence, and if EF weaknesses expand to selective attention. This study aimed to address these gaps. Method Data from 78 children with DLD and 39 typically developing (TD) children were collected at three times with 1-year intervals. At Time 1, the children were 5 or 6 years old. Flanker, Dot Matrix, and Sky Search tasks tested interference control, visuospatial working memory, and selective attention, respectively. DLD severity was based on children's language ability. DLD persistence was based on stability of the DLD diagnosis. Results Performance on all tasks improved in both groups. TD children outperformed children with DLD on interference control. No differences were found for visuospatial working memory and selective attention. An interference control gap between the DLD and TD groups emerged between Time 1 and Time 2. Severity and persistence of DLD were related to interference control and working memory; the impact on working memory was stronger. Selective attention was unrelated to DLD severity and persistence. Conclusions Age and DLD severity and persistence determine whether or not children with DLD show EF weaknesses. Interference control is most clearly impaired in children with DLD who are 6 years and older. Visuospatial working memory is impaired in children with severe and persistent DLD. Selective attention is spared.

Working, Declarative, and Procedural Memory in Children With Developmental Language Disorder

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (12) ◽  
pp. 4162-4178
Author(s):  
Emily Jackson ◽  
Suze Leitão ◽  
Mary Claessen ◽  
Mark Boyes
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Short Term Memory ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Declarative Memory ◽  
Memory Systems ◽  
Procedural Memory ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Term Memory ◽  
Visual Spatial

Purpose Previous research into the working, declarative, and procedural memory systems in children with developmental language disorder (DLD) has yielded inconsistent results. The purpose of this research was to profile these memory systems in children with DLD and their typically developing peers. Method One hundred four 5- to 8-year-old children participated in the study. Fifty had DLD, and 54 were typically developing. Aspects of the working memory system (verbal short-term memory, verbal working memory, and visual–spatial short-term memory) were assessed using a nonword repetition test and subtests from the Working Memory Test Battery for Children. Verbal and visual–spatial declarative memory were measured using the Children's Memory Scale, and an audiovisual serial reaction time task was used to evaluate procedural memory. Results The children with DLD demonstrated significant impairments in verbal short-term and working memory, visual–spatial short-term memory, verbal declarative memory, and procedural memory. However, verbal declarative memory and procedural memory were no longer impaired after controlling for working memory and nonverbal IQ. Declarative memory for visual–spatial information was unimpaired. Conclusions These findings indicate that children with DLD have deficits in the working memory system. While verbal declarative memory and procedural memory also appear to be impaired, these deficits could largely be accounted for by working memory skills. The results have implications for our understanding of the cognitive processes underlying language impairment in the DLD population; however, further investigation of the relationships between the memory systems is required using tasks that measure learning over long-term intervals. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.13250180

Can Behavioral Speech-In-Noise Tests Improve the Quality of Hearing Aid Fittings?

2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-14
Author(s):  
Robert Moore ◽  
Susan Gordon-Hickey
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Performance Test ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Acceptable Noise Level ◽  
Perceptual Performance ◽  
Noise Test

The purpose of this article is to propose 4 dimensions for consideration in hearing aid fittings and 4 tests to evaluate those dimensions. The 4 dimensions and tests are (a) working memory, evaluated by the Revised Speech Perception in Noise test (Bilger, Nuetzel, & Rabinowitz, 1984); (b) performance in noise, evaluated by the Quick Speech in Noise test (QSIN; Killion, Niquette, Gudmundsen, Revit, & Banerjee, 2004); (c) acceptance of noise, evaluated by the Acceptable Noise Level test (ANL; Nabelek, Tucker, & Letowski, 1991); and (d) performance versus perception, evaluated by the Perceptual–Performance test (PPT; Saunders & Cienkowski, 2002). The authors discuss the 4 dimensions and tests in the context of improving the quality of hearing aid fittings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document