A Comparison of the Storage-Only Deficit and Joint Mechanism Deficit Hypotheses of the Verbal Working Memory Storage Capacity Limitation of Children With Developmental Language Disorder.
A Comparison of the Storage-Only Deficit and Joint Mechanism Deficit Hypotheses of the Verbal Working Memory Storage Capacity Limitation of Children With Developmental Language Disorder.
复制标题
发育性语言障碍儿童言语工作记忆存储容量限制的仅存储缺陷和联合机制缺陷假设的比较。
DOI：
10.1044/2019_jslhr-l-19-0071
复制
发表时间：
2019
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Fargo,JamisonD
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Montgomery,JamesW;Gillam,RonaldB;Evans,JuliaL;Schwartz,Sarah;Fargo,JamisonD
目的单纯存储缺陷假说和联合机制缺陷假说是学龄期发展性语言障碍（DLD）儿童言语工作记忆（vWM）存储容量受限的两种可能解释。我们在一大群患有DLD的儿童和一群同龄典型发育（TD）儿童中评估了每个假设的优点。方法选取117例DLD患儿和117例7 ~ 11岁倾向匹配的TD患儿。儿童完成了索引vWM容量、言语短期存储、持续注意、注意转换和词汇长期记忆（LTM）的任务。结果对于DLD组，所有机制共同解释了总方差的26.5%。存储所占比例最大（13.7%），其次是控制注意（主要是持续注意，6.5%），然后是词汇LTM（5.6%）。对于TD组，所有3种机制加起来解释了总方差的43.9%。存储对变异的影响最大（19.6%），其次是词汇LTM（16.0%）、持续注意（5.4%）和注意转换（3.0%）。LTM与组之间存在显著的相互作用，与DLD组相比，TD组的LTM得分越高，vWM能力得分越高。结论：研究结果支持DLD儿童vWM能力限制的联合机制缺陷解释。结果为DLD中vWM容量限制的潜在因素提供了实质性的新见解。补充Materialhttps: / / doi.org/10.23641/asha.9932312
PurposeThe storage-only deficit and joint mechanism deficit hypotheses are 2 possible explanations of the verbal working memory (vWM) storage capacity limitation of school-age children with developmental language disorder (DLD). We assessed the merits of each hypothesis in a large group of children with DLD and a group of same-age typically developing (TD) children.MethodParticipants were 117 children with DLD and 117 propensity-matched TD children 7–11 years of age. Children completed tasks indexing vWM capacity, verbal short-term storage, sustained attention, attention switching, and lexical long-term memory (LTM).ResultsFor the DLD group, all of the mechanisms jointly explained 26.5% of total variance. Storage accounted for the greatest portion (13.7%), followed by controlled attention (primarily sustained attention; 6.5%) and then lexical LTM (5.6%). For the TD group, all 3 mechanisms together explained 43.9% of total variance. Storage accounted for the most variance (19.6%), followed by lexical LTM (16.0%), sustained attention (5.4%), and attention switching (3.0%). There was a significant LTM × Group interaction, in which stronger LTM scores were associated with significantly higher vWM capacity scores for the TD group as compared to the DLD group.ConclusionsResults support a joint mechanism deficit account of the vWM capacity limitation of children with DLD. Results provide substantively new insights into the underlying factors of the vWM capacity limitation in DLD.Supplemental Materialhttps://doi.org/10.23641/asha.9932312