Search

According to the Procedural Deficit Hypothesis (PDH), abnormalities of brain structures underlying procedural memory largely explain the language deficits in children with specific language impairment (SLI). These abnormalities are posited to result in core deficits of procedural memory, which in turn explain the grammar problems in the disorder. The abnormalities are also likely to lead to problems with other, non-procedural functions, such as working memory, that rely at least partly on the affected brain structures. In contrast, declarative memory is expected to remain largely intact, and should play an important compensatory role for grammar. These claims were tested by examining measures of working, declarative and procedural memory in 51 children with SLI and 51 matched typically-developing (TD) children (mean age 10). Working memory was assessed with the Working Memory Test Battery for Children, declarative memory with the Children's Memory Scale, and procedural memory with a visuo-spatial Serial Reaction Time task. As compared to the TD children, the children with SLI were impaired at procedural memory, even when holding working memory constant. In contrast, they were spared at declarative memory for visual information, and at declarative memory in the verbal domain after controlling for working memory and language. Visuo-spatial short-term memory was intact, whereas verbal working memory was impaired, even when language deficits were held constant. Correlation analyses showed neither visuo-spatial nor verbal working memory was associated with either lexical or grammatical abilities in either the SLI or TD children. Declarative memory correlated with lexical abilities in both groups of children. Finally, grammatical abilities were associated with procedural memory in the TD children, but with declarative memory in the children with SLI. These findings replicate and extend previous studies of working, declarative and procedural memory in SLI. Overall, we suggest that the evidence largely supports the predictions of the PDH. (C) 2011 Elsevier Srl. All rights reserved.

Meta-analysis and meta-regression were used to evaluate whether evidence to date demonstrates deficits in procedural memory in individuals with specific language impairment (SLI), and to examine reasons for inconsistencies of findings across studies. The Procedural Deficit Hypothesis (PDH) proposes that SLI is largely explained by abnormal functioning of the frontal-basal ganglia circuits that support procedural memory. It has also been suggested that declarative memory can compensate for at least some of the problems observed in individuals with SLI. A number of studies have used Serial Reaction Time (SRT) tasks to investigate procedural learning in SLI. In this report, results from eight studies that collectively examined 186 participants with SLI and 203 typically-developing peers were submitted to a meta-analysis. The average mean effect size was .328 (CI95: .071, .584) and was significant. This suggests SLI is associated with impairments of procedural learning as measured by the SRT task. Differences among individual study effect sizes, examined with meta-regression, indicated that smaller effect sizes were found in studies with older participants, and in studies that had a larger number of trials on the SRT task. The contributions of age and SRT task characteristics to learning are discussed with respect to impaired and compensatory neural mechanisms in SLI.

The cortex constituting Broca's area does not exist in isolation. Rather, like other cortical regions, Broca's area is connected to other brain structures, which likely play closely related functional roles. This paper focuses on the basal ganglia, a set of subcortical structures that project through topographically organized "channels" via the thalamus to different frontal regions. It is hypothesized that the basal ganglia project to Broca's area. This circuitry is further posited to encompass at least two channels. One channel can be characterized as subserving procedural memory, while the other underlies the retrieval of knowledge from declarative memory. These hypotheses are supported by both anatomical and functional evidence. Implications and issues for further investigation are discussed.