Search

Impaired procedural learning has been suggested as a possible cause of developmental dyslexia (DD) and specific language impairment (SLI). This study examined the relationship between measures of verbal and non‐verbal implicit and explicit learning and measures of language, literacy and arithmetic attainment in a large sample of 7 to 8‐year‐old children. Measures of verbal explicit learning were correlated with measures of attainment. In contrast, no relationships between measures of implicit learning and attainment were found. Critically, the reliability of the implicit learning tasks was poor. Our results show that measures of procedural learning, as currently used, are typically unreliable and insensitive to individual differences. A video abstract of this article can be viewed at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnvV-BvNWSo

Purpose With the global expansion of technology, our reading platform has shifted from traditional text to hypertext, yet little consideration has been given to how this shift might help or hinder students' reading comprehension. The purpose of this study was to compare reading comprehension of computer-based and paper-based texts in adolescents with and without language-learning disabilities (LLD). Method Fourteen adolescents with LLD and 25 adolescents with typical language development (TLD) read literary texts in computer-based and paper-based formats and then answered reading comprehension questions. Results The LLD group scored significantly lower than the TLD group on the reading comprehension measure, but there were no significant between-group differences for reading or answering time. In addition, there were no significant within-group differences for the computer-based or paper-based conditions. Predictors for reading comprehension varied by group and condition. Conclusion Neither group appeared to be affected by the additional cognitive load imposed by hypertext in the computer-based condition; however, the load between conditions may not have been sufficient to differentially impact reading comprehension. Based on the regression analyses, it appears that working memory, oral language, and decoding differed in their contribution to reading comprehension for each group and condition.

Objective: To evaluate interictal language functions in patients with medically intractable left and right sided mesial temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE). Methods: Spontaneous speech, language comprehension, confrontation naming, repetition, reading, writing, and word fluency were examined in 12 patients with left sided TLE and 11 patients with right sided TLE. Results: Four patients out of 23 displayed language deficits in more than one language domain. Three further patients exhibited isolated language deficits. Linguistic deficits were observed in both left TLE and right TLE. In quantitative analyses left and right TLE only differed in spontaneous speech (p = 0.02); no difference was found in other language functions, laterality quotient of Wada test, or overall IQ. Qualitative error analysis of object naming, however, showed typical errors associated only with left TLE. Patients with linguistic deficits were older at testing compared to patients without linguistic deficits (p = 0.003), whereas other factors including side of TLE, handedness, educational level, age at epilepsy onset, and duration of epilepsy did not differ between groups. Conclusions: Possible explanations for these findings include neuronal cell loss and deafferentiation in cortical areas, and disruption of the basal temporal language area pathways. Our study suggests that some patients with chronic mesial TLE exhibit linguistic deficits when specifically tested, and underlines the need to routinely investigate linguistic functions in TLE.

Purpose This study investigated whether computers are a useful tool in the assessment of people with aphasia (PWA). Computerized and traditionally administered versions of tasks were compared to determine whether (a) the scores were equivalent, (b) the administration was comparable, (c) variables such as age affected performance, and (d) the participants' perceptions of the computerized and traditionally administered versions of the tasks were similar. Method Fifteen PWA were assessed on 2 language tasks—sentence-picture matching and grammaticality judgment—in 3 conditions: computer only, computer with the clinician present, and traditional. The participants also completed questionnaires rating aspects of each condition. Results Scores from the traditionally administered tasks were highly correlated with those from the computerized tasks, but scores from the computerized tasks were significantly lower. There was no significant difference in the time taken between the conditions. Whereas some individuals felt comfortable with the computer, overall, participants preferred the traditional assessment method or when another person was in the room. No factors were identified that predicted participants' relative performance in the computer condition. Conclusion The results suggest that PWA can be assessed using computerized versions of tasks, but that caution should be exercised when comparing scores to those collected using traditional methods, including norms. The variation in participants' opinions regarding computerized tasks suggests that this method might be more suitable for some participants than others.

The trends in medical publishing are towards electronic versions and the use of the English language. The objective of this study was to compare general practitioners' ability to retain information when reading on paper versus on screen, and in their mother tongue versus in the English.Randomized controlled trial of 114 Scandinavian general practitioners. They read a review article for 10 minutes either on paper/in English, on screen/in English, on paper/in their mother tongue, or on screen/in their mother tongue. Afterwards they completed a questionnaire with six open questions from the article. The main outcome measure was sum score on a scale from 0 (no correct answers) to 13 (all questions answered correctly).We found no difference between readers of paper and screen versions (median (interquartile range) 4 (2-6) vs. 4 (2-5), p = 0.97). Those who read their mother tongue scored significantly higher than those who read English (4 (3-6) vs. 3 (2-4), p = 0.01).The medium (paper vs. screen) does not influence the ability of general practitioners to retain medical information. Doctors best retain medical information when reading it in their mother tongue.