7: Language Difficulties in Neurodevelopmental Disorders Flashcards
Most children acquire and use language effortlessly. In these stages we see:
(Morton 2004).
Most children acquire and use language effortlessly. In these stages we see: Babbling, which turns into single 1-word/Holophrastic stage, which turns into 2-word stage and then into Telegraphic stage/speech, later multiword stage developing of a quite a short time frame. With DS and WS where its known early on that the child has the problem, then we able to look some of these really early stages that are quite foundational for some language skills. Expressive Language (spoken) and Receptive Language (comprehension) is acquired automatically in typical development. Early non-verbal social/communication skills are incredibly important in the development of language (joint attention). This will slow up language accusation if we do not see the normal onset of joint attention. Problems in auditory perception and phonological processing (dyslexia/SLI) and/or problem in short-term auditory memory which will impact on the ability to learn long words. A phonological memory that os really impaired then three phoneme words might be much more difficult for the child to represent in memory. Sensory impairments can disrupt language acquisition too. Delayed language onset in VI & HI (but not for infants with signing parents), thus there is an interaction between biological and environment effects (Morton 2004).
Interactive Specialisation Model Interaction of a number of brain regions to produce specialised responses to particular kinds of stimuli (Johnson, 2011).
Interactive Specialisation Model Interaction of a number of brain regions to produce specialised responses to particular kinds of stimuli (Johnson, 2011). Atypical skills in Neurodevelopmental Disorders reflect constraints on cognitive and linguistic development which predicts a different kind of trajectory thats not necessarily a deficit or an area of spared function but a different developmental pathway to acquire a skill.
In a study by Tadic, Pring & Dale (2009) who found that 6–12yr old children with visually impaired VI showed WEAKNESSES in pragmatic language skills (Children’s Communication Checklist; CCC) but STRENGTHS in structural language skills (Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals; CELF).
In a study by Tadic, Pring & Dale (2009) who found that 6–12yr old children with visually impaired VI showed WEAKNESSES in pragmatic language skills (Children’s Communication Checklist; CCC) but STRENGTHS in structural language skills (Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals; CELF). Therefore, there are fractionated kind of pattern, there is not a seamless joining together of different abilities. We see different profiles in these children, when we looked at children with visual and hearing impairment, the blind children had very good emotion word vocabulary. They knew more words for emotions than sighted children of the same age. However they had a corresponding problem, they were not very good at recognising emotions from prosodic patterns e.g. they are much worse at somebodies vocalisations. As they are so good at the words, it can be assumed that they are focussed so strongly on the semantic level of the verbal information that they are missing on the paralinguistic things like prosody that indicate emotion.
Dyck, Farrugia, Shochet & Holmes-Brown (2004) study of children and adolescents with VI and HI showed
Dyck, Farrugia, Shochet & Holmes-Brown (2004) study of children and adolescents with VI and HI showed SUPERIOR emotion word vocabulary in children with VI and HI.
Karmiloff-Smith (1998); Different trajectories “Development itself is the key to understanding developmental disorders”.
Karmiloff-Smith (1998); Different trajectories “Development itself is the key to understanding developmental disorders”. These disorders are very dynamic in the way it changes over time. A snap shot at a particular time is not going to give us as much insight as we’ll gain if we track development in these children.
Down Syndrome have constraints on language development because they have problems with
Down Syndrome have constraints on language development because they have problems with hearing, oral-motor (speech production), auditory short-term memory and cognitive abilities.
Speech recognition is a complex process: incoming sound wave is transformed to
Speech recognition is a complex process: incoming sound wave is transformed to neural signal (aroud the area of the cochlear) and processed by brain and interpreted as meaningful. Even the high level of language interpretation still needs comprehension of whats happening with the acoustic sound wave.
Language in Down Syndrome: Otitis Media with Effusion (OME), a sticky glue infective fluid in the middle ear where
Language in Down Syndrome: Otitis Media with Effusion (OME), a sticky glue infective fluid in the middle ear where these bones are supposed to be vibrating in response to the incoming sound. This is a problem occurs in 96% of young children with DS. YPU can see how much of a problem this is going to be in enabling them to deal with that basic first level of speech analysis. Problem not unique to DS but has less impact on language In TD children.
Problems with phonological analysis (e.g. saying W is problematic) and when people do sound deletion and rhyming tasks there are problems in children with DS.
Problems with phonological analysis (e.g. saying W is problematic) and when people do sound deletion and rhyming tasks there are problems in children with DS. Research has shown that they can be remediated, speech therapists do a wonderful job with children with NDD’s. Children who are terribly impaired in phonological awareness or improve phonological awareness, this will have a knockoff effect in their ability to read and write. It is also the case for TD children in developing literacy. Children with DS are sometimes they are quite good at recognising whole words when they learning to read.
Phonological analysis: Difficulties with phoneme and syllable segmentation, sound deletion and rhyming (e.g. Verucci et al., 2006)
Phonological analysis: Difficulties with phoneme and syllable segmentation, sound deletion and rhyming (e.g. Verucci et al., 2006) “say starfish” “now say starfish without the fish” “say running” “now say running without the ing” “say rant” “now say rant without the r” “say toad” “now say toad without the d”. Phonological awareness difficulties can be improved and are related to reading & writing in DS. Whole word recognition skills may be relatively good (drawing?).
Phonological memory: There are additional verbal short-term memory problems that cannot be explained by hearing loss or speech production problems (Jarrold & Baddeley, 2001; Laws, 2002).
Phonological memory: There are additional verbal short-term memory problems that cannot be explained by hearing loss or speech production problems (Jarrold & Baddeley, 2001; Laws, 2002). Impairments on non-word repetition task (tam/pennel/doppelate) that are associated with poorer comprehension, reduced MLU and reading problems (Laws, 1998; 2004).
Children who do better on non-word reputation tasks are going to have better
Children who do better on non-word reputation tasks are going to have better comprehension of language, longer mean length of utterances (speak coherently for slightly longer periods) and they have better reading. It’s a foundational building block of language in these children in the same way it is in TD children.
There are very mixed findings on tests of Vocabulary Acquisition, reflecting how participants are matched
Glenn & Cunningham, 2005). Price et al., 2007).
There are very mixed findings on tests of Vocabulary Acquisition, reflecting how participants are matched (non-verbal metal aged matched of a child with DS age 6, assessment measure suggesting a non-verbal mental age of 3 thus comparing this child to a TD 3 year old), differences in tests, hearing status and ages of participants, receptive vocab better than would be expected (given non-verbal IQ) (e.g. Glenn & Cunningham, 2005). DS scored lower than nonverbal MA matched TD children on test of receptive vocab (e.g. Price et al., 2007).
Speech Production difficulties in DS:
Barnes et al., 2006
Laws & Bishop, 2003
Speech Production difficulties in DS: Small oral cavity, large tongue, high-arched palate, facial nerves and muscles implicated in DS thus poor speech intelligibility. There is less skilled at speech motor functions and coordinated speech movements involving the lips, tongue, velopharynx and larynx (Barnes et al., 2006). Language involves a lot of coordination across different parts of the body, apart from listening. Expressive skills generally more impaired than receptive skills, children understand more than they can say (Laws & Bishop, 2003).
Using first words Berglund et al., (2012): 12% one year olds with DS produced at least
Abbeduto et al., 2003
Using first words Berglund et al., (2012): 12% one year olds with DS produced at least one word, 90% three year olds & 94% of five year olds produced one or more words. People with DS tend to be very social, there probably will be a drive to use language where possible so 73% of five year olds have 50 or more words. It is nothing like you will see in TD children but its still quite impressive considering the difficulties that these children have. Expressive and receptive syntax more impaired that vocabulary (e.g. Abbeduto et al., 2003), because it’s just much more complex. But its poorer than would be predicted on the basis of non-verbal intelligence. If these children were MA matched to a much younger CA child, they will still be worse on these two components of language (e.g. Abbeduto et al., 2003).
Using Syntax: There are delays in using 2-word combinations (Iverson et al., 2003).
Price et al., 2008
Chapman & Wagner, 2002
Using Syntax: There are delays in using 2-word combinations (Iverson et al., 2003). They continue to use shorter and less complex utterances than nonverbal MA matched TD children (e.g. Price et al., 2008). There are different trajectories, developing comprehension and complexity and length of utterances (mean length of utterances MLU) it carries on into the adolescent period, these children might carry on improving at a later stage than you would expect. This is positive as it means that the developmental window has not closed on them and they are able to continue learning until much later on/ But syntax comprehension, complexity and MLU may continue to develop through late adolescence and young adulthood (e.g. Chapman & Wagner, 2002).
Pragmatics: there are difficulties in
Pragmatics: there are difficulties in initiating and elaborating on conversation topics and initiating repairs during conversational breakdown. DS strengths are that they can stay on topic during conversations, they have good narrative skills (series and jokes etc.) Can respond to requests for clarification in order to repair communication breakdowns.
In Williams Syndrome is where researchers get into a real fist fight as developmental psychologists because there is opposing views about what is going on for these children. Bellugi et al (2000)
In Williams Syndrome is where researchers get into a real fist fight as developmental psychologists because there is opposing views about what is going on for these children. Bellugi et al (2000) who did some of the really early work on WS ‘the general cognitive impairment seen in adolescents and adults with Williams syndrome stands in stark contrast to their relative strength in language, their facility and ease in using sentences with complex syntax, not generally characteristic of other mentally retarded groups’ (Bellugi, Lichtenberger, Jones, Lai, & St. George, 2000). When people first described WS, there was this idea that WS children had a low IQ very similar to DS yet they have these amazing vocabularies and and really good syntax. This was being taken as evidence for modularity of function.
Pam’s spokes person: Karmiloff- Smith “It is theoretically misleading and empirically inaccurate to claim that grammar is spared in WS”.
Pam’s spokes person: Karmiloff- Smith “It is theoretically misleading and empirically inaccurate to claim that grammar is spared in WS”. Rather than thinking about it in modular terms (unimpaired syntax module). Karmiloff- Smith would say that syntax and all aspects of language are the end product of development rather than its starting point. One thing builds on top of each other. Neuroconstructivist account, higher level specialisations such as morphology, syntax, the lexicon and pragmatics are likely to be the emergent product of development rather than its starting state (Karmiloff- Smith, 1992).
Methodological issues in WS research Absolute versus Relative Strengths Compared to Visual Spatial skills language is good in WS: A drawing of an elephant by a child with WS is unrecognisable yet the written description is almost poetic.
Methodological issues in WS research Absolute versus Relative Strengths Compared to Visual Spatial skills language is good in WS: A drawing of an elephant by a child with WS is unrecognisable yet the written description is almost poetic.
If they had an absolute strength in language, it would mean that I could an 8 year old child with WS and compare them to a typically developing 8 year old and they’d do better on the CELF as they’d get a higher score. Instead we are talking about a relative strength in language, in that its relatively much better than visual spatial skills which are incredibly impaired. Some of these studies that support the idea that children with WS have got really good language, have compared to some other clinical groups (e.g., children with DS- of course they are going to have better articulation than children with DS because they don’t have those morphological problems). The results so often reflect the way that the testing has been done in the studies. This is really the problem.
There is definitely a VIQ over NVIQ advantage seen in WS (this is the opposite to ASD).
There is definitely a VIQ over NVIQ advantage seen in WS (this is the opposite to ASD). By looking at how the Wesler intelligence scale is constructed, there are one group of test that are lumped together in verbal IQ and another group that is lumped together in non verbal IQ. In WS the verbal IQ is higher but the problem is it’s driven by exceptionally poor performance on visuo-spatial construction tasks included in non-verbal IQ test battery where they can’t even score 1. A child would not be able to put the 4 bricks together to make a square they are so impaired on visual spatial processing. It is such a profound deficit and comparing language skills with them. We are not comparing language skills with typical development. This is a reason why IQ test can be ready problematic.
