Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

DOLL > DLD > Flashcards

DLD Flashcards

1
Q

Morton + Frith (1995) theoretical framework

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

heritability

A

50% dyslexia chance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

twin studies

A

concordance rate

developmental disorders highly heritable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

simple vs complex disorders

A

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

risky genes + bad environment = disorder

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

linkage

A

twin studies

-identify similar chromosome regions between affected siblings

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Association

A

population studies

  • identify similar genetic variants that have increased frequency in affected, than unaffected
  • whether gene is important in whole disorder or just weaknesses
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

whole genome sequencing

A

capture common + rare coding variants, deletions/duplications

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

establishing causation

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

risk factors

A

disorders caused by multiple risk factors

  • DLD + dyslexia - veriability - different risk factors
  • genes + env interact to increase likelihood of disorder manifesting
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

behavioural level

A

DSM 5

  • persistent difficulties acquiring + using language
  • below age
  • early onset
  • other components of IQ can vary
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

RADLD

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

why dignostic label is important

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Diagnostic features

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

diagnosis

A

speech language therapists

  • family history
  • clinical observation - home and school
  • scores from standardised tests - guide severity + areas of lang
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

timing

A

earlier than dyslexia

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

early identification

A
  • needed for early intervention - while some difficulties persist, others resolve
  • some seem delayed but have normal development
17
Q

standardised tests of languages

A

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

18
Q

UK prevalance study

A

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

19
Q

persistence of SLI

A

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
20
Q

Snowling 2015

A

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
21
Q

different types of language task

A

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

22
Q

cognitive theories

A

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

23
Q

linguistic theories - feature blindness

A

DLD - have impairement in learning grammatical group

-blind to syntactic features - number, gender, tense

24
Q

Gopnik 1991

A

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

problems - all or none

25
Q

Linguistic theory - EOI/ATOM

A

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

26
Q

linguistic theories - CGC

A

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
27
Q

computational grammar

A

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

28
Q

cognitive theories - general processing resources

A

requires general resources

  • as processing demands increased - performance decreased
  • slow reaction times
29
Q

thomas 2004

A

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

30
Q

cognitive - auditory processing deficitss

A

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

31
Q

prosodic phrasing hypothesis

A

impaired sensitivity to ART and poor nonspeech rhythmnic timing should affect sesitivity to prosody

SLI do poorer because they have reduced language ability

32
Q

phonological memory defciit

A

baddeley 1990

  • deficit holding phonological memory
  • poor nonword reprtition in SLI
33
Q

procedural deficit hypothesis

A

Biological - abnormal frontal/basal ganglia

cognitive -deficit sequence learning

34
Q

Lum 2011

A

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

35
Q

declarative learning

A

verbal declarative isnt okay

do have problems but result of language impairment

36
Q

hybrid theories - surface hypotheiss + connectionism - leonard

A

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

37
Q

biological level

A

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

38
Q

cortical striatal learning circuits

A

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
39
Q

genes - graham + fisher 2013

A

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

DOLL (7 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions