DLD

Question 1

Morton + Frith (1995) theoretical framework

Answer 1

different levels

• behaviour - observe
• cognitive - underlying cog causes
• biological - genetic risk, brain abnormality - structure or function

impact of environment can affect any level
behavioural treatment can turn into cog + bio
-changes in underlying representations
-changes in neurones firing

Question 2

heritability

Answer 2

50% dyslexia chance

Question 3

twin studies

Answer 3

concordance rate

developmental disorders highly heritable

Question 4

simple vs complex disorders

Answer 4

classic involves gross changes to DNA sequence
combinaions of genetic variation + environment

risky genes + bad environment = disorder

Question 5

linkage

Answer 5

twin studies

-identify similar chromosome regions between affected siblings

Question 6

Association

Answer 6

population studies

• identify similar genetic variants that have increased frequency in affected, than unaffected
• whether gene is important in whole disorder or just weaknesses

Question 7

whole genome sequencing

Answer 7

capture common + rare coding variants, deletions/duplications

Question 8

establishing causation

Answer 8

hypothesis

cross sectional study - TD
-correlation in TD children

longitudinal correlation study - TD

• measure different time points
• whether increases in vocab are caused by differences

group studies - cross or long

• poor vocab group + control
• matched on vocab knowledge
• whether vocab groups do worse than younger

intervention - test causation

correlation - end intervention - cheaper + Easier

Question 9

risk factors

Answer 9

disorders caused by multiple risk factors

• DLD + dyslexia - veriability - different risk factors
• genes + env interact to increase likelihood of disorder manifesting

Question 10

behavioural level

Answer 10

DSM 5

• persistent difficulties acquiring + using language
• below age
• early onset
• other components of IQ can vary

Question 11

RADLD

Answer 11

a lot less discussion around - differences experienced have far ranging impacts

Question 12

why dignostic label is important

Answer 12

DSM 5 replaced SLI with language disorder

• lack of consistency in label
• some argue not helpful - pidgenholing
• labels facilitates communication
• allows discussion in media
• label comes with funding for schools

==language delay - suggests can catch up
==primary language impairment - if they have other impairments how do you know the language is primary

Question 13

Diagnostic features

Answer 13

affects receptive + expressive language
affects:
- vocabulary - smaller + less varied - word finding, understanding of words with multiple meanings, learning new words - finds difficult to find words
-grammar - shorter, less complex, particular errors, instructions, difficulties
-discourse - lack of coherence

first words + phrases will be delayed

Question 14

diagnosis

Answer 14

speech language therapists

• family history
• clinical observation - home and school
• scores from standardised tests - guide severity + areas of lang

Question 15

timing

Answer 15

earlier than dyslexia

-difficult to diagnose before 4 - after this differences are more stable

Question 16

early identification

Answer 16

• needed for early intervention - while some difficulties persist, others resolve
• some seem delayed but have normal development

Question 17

standardised tests of languages

Answer 17

e. g. BPVS - receptive vocab tests
- show 4 pictures - tester says word - choose picture that represents meaning
- -suitable range of ages
- -start easy + get more difficult
- finsh when too many errrs = compare to other children of the same age
- look at standardised score for age
- mean 100, SD 15

Question 18

UK prevalance study

Answer 18

Norbury - 7-10%
DLD - 7.5%
role of non-verbal IQ
-compared lang disorder to those who had low NVIQ – no significant differences between the groups – NVIQ doesnt change the nature or severity of child language disorder

Question 19

persistence of SLI

Answer 19

sample of children with SLI

• 4yr — 53% still had at 5.5yr, 56% at 8yr
• group that had persistent SLI and a group that resolved their difficulties

Question 20

Snowling 2015

Answer 20

how disorder presents isnt the same at different ages

• nature of tests used
• persistent group: 8 = 56%
• resolving group: 8 = 16%
• -often the case they fall just above the cut off point
• emerging group:8 = 28%
• -once they enter the more difficult environment of harder education

have to set off cut off for impairment - range cut off across tasks

• cut off + tests arbitrary
• children tend to have good and bad tests

when 2 tests below cut off point = have disorder

• can meet on one test and not on another - dont have great language at all - jsut dont meet criteria
• language tests used at 1 time point are no longer suitable for another - have to change tests and this introduces error

Question 21

different types of language task

Answer 21

2/3 language tests - could be different tests for different children

• nonsense word repetition
• expect to see heterogenity in behaviour
• those who meet criteria can be varied in behaviour and underlying deficits

by being bad on different tests - means different resources

Question 22

cognitive theories

Answer 22

deficits in knowledge vs processing deficits
modular vs distributed across brain regions
failure to develop rules vs general or specific processing

Question 23

linguistic theories - feature blindness

Answer 23

DLD - have impairement in learning grammatical group

-blind to syntactic features - number, gender, tense

Question 24

Gopnik 1991

Answer 24

SLI in family - affected members had problems with plurals, grammar, derivations
-small sample size, single family, particular gene variant

problems - all or none

Question 25

Linguistic theory - EOI/ATOM

Answer 25

Rice + Wexler 2000 -finite verbs have to be marked for agreement + tense -need for marking these verbs isnt clear SLI - children stay in this optional stage for longer than normal = Extended Optional Infinitive Stage

Question 26

linguistic theories - CGC

Answer 26

computational grammatical complexity hypothesis - rare form of SLI - evidence for domain specificity + LAD + modular - didnt have associated semantic difficulties characterised by problems in heirarchal language -tense marking involves these - hrammatical defficulties essential in the disorder - domain general accounts that deficits in auditory processing or memory should always manifest with SLI (dont in Gsli) should be related to lang difficulties

Question 27

computational grammar

Answer 27

regular vs irregular words -SLI cant abract these rules - learn all words as if they're irregular problems with heirarchal phonology -can have words with same number of syllables but prosodic structure differs making one more complex than another linguistic theories tend to be circular - grammatical difficulties becaue impairment in grammatical module

Question 28

cognitive theories - general processing resources

Answer 28

requires general resources - as processing demands increased - performance decreased - slow reaction times

Question 29

thomas 2004

Answer 29

stimulated SLI performance by speeding up speech rate + icnreasing memory load - demands on both processes - make look like have language disorder -sentences at normal speed or sped up -increase sentence length - decrease performance -speed up sentences - decrease interaction -->processing demands might be at the root from DLD

Question 30

cognitive - auditory processing deficitss

Answer 30

Temporal auditory processing deficit - difficulties processing rapid auditory info Frequency discrimination deficit -discriminating frequencies - important differentiating phonemes amplitude envelop onset rise time deficit -difficulties perceiving prosodic differences - variations in rhythm

Question 31

prosodic phrasing hypothesis

Answer 31

impaired sensitivity to ART and poor nonspeech rhythmnic timing should affect sesitivity to prosody SLI do poorer because they have reduced language ability

Question 32

phonological memory defciit

Answer 32

baddeley 1990 - deficit holding phonological memory - poor nonword reprtition in SLI

Question 33

procedural deficit hypothesis

Answer 33

Biological - abnormal frontal/basal ganglia | cognitive -deficit sequence learning

Question 34

Lum 2011

Answer 34

tested declarative + procedural tasks declarative - verbal impaired procedural - impaired visual and verbal hypothesis says shouldnt be impaired on declarative SRT - children with DLD do poor on procedural

Question 35

declarative learning

Answer 35

verbal declarative isnt okay | do have problems but result of language impairment

Question 36

hybrid theories - surface hypotheiss + connectionism - leonard

Answer 36

SLI is result of combo of processing limitations + learnt language - difficult because aspects arent salient - have to work harder e. g. english past tense connectionism = computational model of surface hypothesis - have simulated DLD ]-phonolohical input impaired in model

Question 37

biological level

Answer 37

abnormal lateralisation DLD group - right hemisphere lateralisation for language cause or effect?

Question 38

cortical striatal learning circuits

Answer 38

PLD - declarative or non tasks - striatal circuits - procedural learing DLD bad in procedural show subcortical abnormalities compared siblings, SLI, typical - fmri and mri - subcortical volume reduced in SLI - right hem - caudate nucleus smaller

Question 39

genes - graham + fisher 2013

Answer 39

family with speech + grammar difficulties -mutation FOCP2 -CNTNAP2 gene - allells non word repetition deficits chromosome 16 - nonword repetition abnormal lateralisation genes - lead to speech processing deficit - phonological deficit - WM - grammar - DLD