1 / 27

Atypical Language

Atypical Language. Gaia Scerif Room 426, Ext. 67926 gs@psychology.nottingham.ac.uk Office Hours: Mon 2-4. Learning objectives. Different theoretical approaches to language development How can genetic disorders impacting language development be used as tools to evaluate these theories?

idania
Download Presentation

Atypical Language

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Atypical Language Gaia Scerif Room 426, Ext. 67926 gs@psychology.nottingham.ac.uk Office Hours: Mon 2-4

  2. Learning objectives • Different theoretical approaches to language development • How can genetic disorders impacting language development be used as tools to evaluate these theories? • Consider specific examples of genetic disorders: • Williams syndrome • KE family • Evaluate theoretical implications for neo-nativist and constructivist theories of language and cognitive development

  3. The role of genes in development • Two contrasting approaches to the role of genes in cognitive development: • Constructivist - in which cognitive abilities emerge as a product of complex dynamic interactions between genes and environment • Nativist - in which a genetic blue-print determines cognitive abilities. (Johnson, 2000)

  4. Theoretical assumptions: • NativistConstructivist • Causegenetic defect genetic defect; • general/specific deficits •    • Brainspecific deficit deviates from normal development   • Cognitiveimpaired acquisition of modules emerge with development; specific modules low-level computational devices •    • Environmentstatic (acts as a trigger) dynamic (∆ with infant’s selection & • processing input •  • Behaviouraldomain-specific outcome specific & general outcomes; specific • outcome with late gene expression • (adapted from Karmiloff-Smith, 1998, 2002) Models of atypical cognition

  5. Genes and Development • Many developmental disorders appear to have a genetic basis • Two basic classes of genetic disorders: • Inherited - transmission of genetic mutations from parents (e.g., KE family), either dominant or recessive - single genes or multiple genes • Sporadic - chance defective chromosomal configuration (e.g. trisomy 21, Down’s syndrome), - chance mutation of a portion of DNA (e.g., deletion, WS) - unknown or possible environmental influence • Both types affect brain and cognitive development from the outset

  6. Genes and Language • Can individual genes be selectively involved in language?

  7. Williams syndrome (WS) • Williams syndrome (Williams-Beuren syndrome): • - affects both males and females • - microdeletion on chromosome 7, involving >20 genes • - autosomal dominant (one copy of chromosome 7 carrying the mutation is sufficient for expressing the WS phenotype) • - incidence of Ω 1 in 20,000 live births

  8. Aetiology: Limited number of genes in the WS critical region Cognitive profile: WS: Theoretical Issues WS?!? CA FACE RECOGNITION VISUO-PERCEPTION VOCABULARY EXECUTIVE CONTROL VISUOSPATIAL NUMBER PROCESSING

  9. WS: Clinical Phenotype • Clinical phenotype of people with Williams syndrome include: - Facial dysmorphology - Atypical brain anatomy /brain biochemistry - Heart abnormalities - typically SVAS - Small stature - Hernias - Hoarse voice - Hyperacusis - Abnormal gait

  10. FKBP6 FZD3 WSTF BCL7B TBL2 CPETR1 STX1A CPETR2 ELN1 ELN2 LIMK1 WBSCR1 WBS15 RFC2 CYCLN2 GTF3 GTF2I WS: Genotype and implications 20+ gene deletion on chromosome 7 DNA Are these genes selectively involved in WS difficulties? For example, debated role of ELN and LIMK1: Frangiskakis et al. (1996) suggest a selective role for LIMK1 in visuo-spatial deficit Tassabehji et al. (1999) argue that this is not the case, because patients with single deletions of LIMK1 do not necessarily have spatial deficits

  11. WS: General Cognitive Phenotype • Cognitive phenotype of adults with Williams syndrome includes: • Low IQ (between 50-65) • BUT: • Relative strengths in language development • Relative strengths in face recognition and face processing • Relative weaknesses in visuo-spatial cognition • Dissociation between general intellect and linguistic skills ?

  12. WS: General Cognitive Phenotype [from Bellugi et al., 2000]

  13. WS adults: Semantics Examples of responses on word fluency test: WS: e.g., brontosaurus, tyranodon, ibex, hippopotamus, bull, yak DS: e.g., goat, bunny, rabbit Semantics: Large expressive and receptive vocabulary are large, but highly atypical

  14. WS: Language Development I “Look! Look at the car.”

  15. WS: Language Development I Understanding of First Words: Paterson et al. (1999) found WS delayed receptive vocabulary (also Singer-Harris et al., 1997)

  16. WS: Language Development II Triadic interaction Joint attention Dyadic interaction First words and joint attention: Laing et al. (2002) found that infants with WS did not follow their caregiver’s focus of attention to a third object, but remained focused on his/her face (dyadic interaction). Furthermore, their social interactions did not correlate with early vocabulary development (unlike DS and controls)

  17. Williams syndrome: Summary • The study of Williams syndrome raises crucial issues (illustrated here with regard to language v. general IQ; and with regard to various linguistic processes) : • Even a domain of strength (language) shows atypical characteristics => Cognitive modularity and dissociations • WS Language does not start as an area of strength => Are deficits innately specified or the product of a developmental trajectory

  18. KE family: Clinical Phenotype • Autosomal dominant condition, associated with the silencing of a single gene (FOXP2) • Clinical phenotype of affected members of the KE family: • Relatively low IQ • To naïve listeners, unintelligible speech, especially early in life, and also later after intensive speech therapy • Affected members first reported by Hurst et al. (1990) as a severe disorder of fine praxis (fine motor control) • Later focus on their specific grammatical impairment (Gopnik & Crago, 1991) • THEORETICAL ISSUE: • Can the single gene mutated in the affected members of the family be selectively involved in the grammatical impairments reported for the affected members?

  19. KE family: Genotype Single-gene deletion on chromosome 7 (FOXP2 gene) [from Vargha-Khadem, et al., 1995; Lai et al., 2001]

  20. KE adults: Syntax Syntax: Initial claims of impaired syntax (Gopnik & Crago, 1991) because of past tense elicitation data (see above for a similar task in the WS literature) and other grammatical errors

  21. KE adults: Syntax Syntax: Initial claims of impaired syntax (Gopnik & Crago, 1991) have been debated (e.g., deficits across multiple tasks, Vargha-Khadem et al., 1995):

  22. KE adults: Orofacial praxis Orofacial praxis: Fine motor control involved in imitation of non-linguistic sequences of movements also shows impairment (Vargha-Khaden et al., 1995; Alcock et al., 2000) Are the affected members characterised by a selective language disorder?

  23. KE: Developmental changes Longitudinal changes in non-verbal abilities: Longitudinal assessments of few cases show declines in non-verbal abilities over time, perhaps supporting the suggestion that their deficits are not specific to language and progressive. [from Watkins et al., 2002]

  24. KE family: Summary • The study of the KE family raises crucial issues about the relationship between a single gene and cognitive effects on language development: • Cognitive modularity and dissociations? • It especially addresses the issue of whether effects this a single-gene mutation are specific to language, or also affect other aspects of fine motor control

  25. References • Bellugi, U., P. Wang, T. L. Jernigan, in Atypical Cognitive Deficits in Developmental Disorders: Implications for Brain Function, S. Broman and J. Graffman, Eds. (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1994), pp. 23-56. • Bellugi, U., Lichtenberger, L., Jones, W., & Lai, Z. (2000). The neurocognitive profile of Williams syndrome: A complex pattern of strengths and weaknesses. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, Supplement, pp. 7-29. • Frangiskakis JM, Ewart AK, Morris CA, Mervis CB, Bertrand J, Robinson BF, Klein BP, Ensing GJ, Everett LA, Green ED, Proschel C, Gutowski NJ, Noble M, Atkinson DL, Odelberg SJ, Keating MT (1996). LIM-kinase1 hemizygosity implicated in impaired visuospatial constructive cognition. Cell, 86, 59-69 • Gopnik, M., & Crago, M.B. (1991). Familial aggregation of a developmental language disorder. Cognition, 39, 1-30. • Grant J, Valian V, Karmiloff-Smith A. A study of relative clauses in Williams syndrome. J Child Lang. 2002 May;29(2):403-16. • Hook, E.B. (1981). Prevalence of chromosome abnormalities during human gestation and implications for studies of environmental mutagens. Lancet, 2, 169.

  26. References • Johnson, M.H. (1997). Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers • Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2002). Development itself is the key to understanding developmental disorders. In M.H. Johnson, Y. Munakata, & R.O. Gilmore (Eds). Brain Development and • Cognition: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. • Karmiloff-Smith A, Tyler LK, Voice K, Sims K, Udwin O, Howlin P, Davies M. Linguistic dissociations in Williams syndrome: evaluating receptive syntax in on-line and off-line tasks. Neuropsychologia. 1998 Apr;36(4):343-51. • Lai, C. et al. (2001). A forkhead-domain gene is mutated in a severe speech and language disorder. Nature, 413, 519-522. • Laing, E. et al. (2002) Atypical development of language and social communication in toddlers with Williams syndrome. Dev Science, 5, 233-246. • Levy Y, Smith J, Tager-Flusberg H. Word reading and reading-related skills in adolescents with Williams syndrome. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2003 May;44(4):576-87.

  27. References • Menghini D, Verucci L, Vicari S. Reading and phonological awareness in Williams syndrome. Neuropsychology. 2004 Jan;18(1):29-37. • Paterson SJ, Brown JH, Gsodl MK, Johnson MH, Karmiloff-Smith A. Cognitive modularity and genetic disorders. Science. 1999 Dec 17;286(5448):2355-8. • Tassabehji M, Metcalfe K, Karmiloff-Smith A, Carette MJ, Grant J, Dennis N, Reardon W, Splitt M, Read AP, Donnai D. (1999). Williams syndrome: use of chromosomal microdeletions as a tool to dissect cognitive and physical phenotypes. Am J Hum Genet., 64(1):118-25. • Thomas et al., (2001). Past tense formation in Williams syndrome. Language and cognitive processes, 16, 143-176. • Vargha-Khadem, F., Watkins, K., Alcock, A., Fletcher, P. & Passingham. R. (1995). Praxic and nonverbal cognitive deficits in a large family with a genetically transmitted speech and language disorder. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 92, 930-933. • Watkins, K. et al. (2002). Behavioural analysis of an inherited speech and language disorder: comparison with acquired aphasia. Brain, 125, 452 - 464.

More Related