Naming & SLI

1. Heilmann, J., Ellis Weismer, S., Evans, J. and C. Hollar. (2005). Utility of the MacArthur–Bates Communicative Development Inventory in Identifying Language Abilities of Late-Talking and Typically Developing Toddlers. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 14, 40-51 IRIS 10/1

2. Naming & SLI 37-924-01 Sharon-Armon-Lotem Bar-Ilan University

3. Dockrell et al.(1998) – 25% of children with language impairment have word finding difficulties (WFD)

4. *Lahey, M., and J. Edwards (1999). Naming Errors of Children With Specific Language Impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 42 195-205 Children with SLI are less accurate at naming pictures of common objects (nouns) than age-matched peers with no language impairment (NLI)

5. Items in online naming task

8. Possible sources Lexico-Semantic deficits Phonological processing deficits Lexical retrieval problems Mapping of lexical competence onto other language modules

9. Lexical-Semantic organization in SLI (Sheng & McGregor 2010)

10. Online word association task: “Say the first word that comes to your mind”.

11. McGregor, K. K., Newman, R. M., Reilly, R.M., and N. C. Capone. (2002). Semantic Representation and Naming in Children With Specific Language Impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 45 998-1014 INBAL 10/1

12. Gray, S. (2004).Word Learning by Preschoolers With Specific Language Impairment Predictors and Poor Learners. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47 1117-1132 SARIT 10/1

13. Object & Action Naming Sheng, L. & K. K. McGregor. 2010. Object and action naming in children with SLI Is there a difference between nouns and verbs?

14. Nouns vs. verbs Nouns are processed in the posterior areas of the left hemisphere Verbs are processed in Broca’s area, in the frontal or prefrontal motor areas of the left hemisphere

16. > <

17. Patterns of Naming Objects and Actions in Monolingual and Bilingual Cypriot-Greek Children with SLI and WFDs Maria Kambanaros, PhD CSPMSPA (EUC) M.Kambanaros@euc.ac.cy Kleanthes. K. Grohmann, PhD (UCY) EleniTheodorou, MSc (UCY) Paper presented at COST Action IS0804

18. Participants • 8 children with SLI – ages 6-11 • 13 children with WFD – ages 6-11 • 30 children with TLD – ages 6-7 Task – Naming • 42 objects • 42 actions

19. Finding – correct percentage * *

20. What influences success? Frequency – only TLD object naming Age of acquisition – both object and action naming by all groups Word imageability & Picture complexity - both object and action naming by SLI and WFD, only object naming by TLD

21. Possible sources Lexico-Semantic deficits Phonological processing deficits Lexical retrieval problems Mapping of lexical competence onto other language modules

22. Rate of input and lexical learning Fast speaking rates have an adverse effect on comprehension and production. Temporal processing constraints for rapidly presented verbal and nonverbal stimuli in children with SLI (Tallal et al.)

23. Auditory (temporal processing) deficit hypothesis Merzenich, M. Jenkins, W., Johnston, P., S., Schreiner, C., Miller, S. L. & Tallal, P., (1996) Temporal Processing Deficits of Language-Learning Impaired Children Ameliorated by Training, Science, v. 271, p. 77-81. (=Fast ForWord) • Task: discriminate between speech stimuli -six syllable contrasts ([ba] versus [da], [da] versus [ta], [ε] versus [ae], [dab] versus [daeb], [sa] versus [sta] and [sa] versus [sha]). • Findings: • LI group made most errors discriminating syllables which were differentiated by consonants and fewest errors on those differentiated by vowels. • The LI group was significantly poorer than the normal in discriminating all syllables that incorporated brief temporal cues followed rapidly in succession by other acoustic cues. • They also were impaired in discriminating [sa] versus [sha]. • They were unimpaired discriminating stimuli differentiated by vowels.

24. Ellis Weismer and Hesketh (1993) Novel word learning. Linguistic input conditions: • variations in speaking rate, • Emphatic versus neutral stress • use of supplemental visual cues (i.e., gestures). 16 kindergarten children: 8 with SLI and 8 with TLD. Rate Condition yielded significant differences: • Production: slow > fast, normal > fast. • Comprehension: slow > fast. A trend for the group with SLI to exhibit more pronounced effects in response to rate variations.

25. Ellis Weismer and Hesketh (1996) Research questions (p. 179): 1. Do prosodic manipulations of the linguistic input involving variations in speaking rate affect lexical learning by children with SLI? 2. Do these linguistic input modifications result in different patterns of performance for children with SLI than for those with NL development?

26. 32 7-years old children: 16 with SLI and 16 with TLD. Novel word learning (CVC and CVCC) Three speeds – every child receives all three with different items. Testing for production, comprehension and recognition (where RT was measured).

27. *

28. Production

30. CVCC were more difficult than CVC

31. Possible sources Lexico-Semantic deficits Phonological processing deficits Lexical retrieval problems Mapping of lexical competence onto other language modules

32. Pizzioli, Fabrizio & Marie-Anne Schelstraete. 2011. Auditory lexical decision in children with specific language impairment. BUCLD

33. Sound detection and discrimination

34. Lexical decision task – word/nonword

35. Possible sources Lexico-Semantic deficits Phonological processing deficits Lexical retrieval problems Mapping of lexical competence onto other language modules