Artificial Grammar Learning in Children With Developmental Language Disorder.
Artificial Grammar Learning in Children With Developmental Language Disorder.
复制标题
患有发展性语言障碍的儿童的人工语法学习。
DOI：
10.1044/2021_jslhr-21-00050
复制
发表时间：
2022
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Arbel,Yael
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gillis,JasmineUrquhart;Gul,Asiya;Fox,Annie;Parikh,Aditi;Arbel,Yael
PurposeThe purpose of the study was evaluate implicit learning in developmental language disorder（DLD）children by employing a visual artificial grammar learning task. Method 13名DLD儿童和24名8 - 12岁典型语言发育儿童完成了一项视觉人工语法学习任务。在任务的训练阶段，参与者会看到遵循有限语法底层结构的形状串。在测试阶段，参与者被要求判断新字符串是否符合语法。对新字符串的语法判断用于衡量潜在语法结构的泛化。背书的基础上组块强度，或相似的训练样本，服务于评估儿童依赖表面功能，以指导他们的task performance.ResultsAs一组，典型发展的儿童表现更好的人工语法学习任务，与DLD的儿童相比，并接受更多的语法字符串，无论他们的相似性，训练样本。两组的任务表现不受表面特征的影响。与DLD的测试准确性超过了0.5的学习阈值的儿童的表现是一致的概括的基本语法结构，不受表面features.ConclusionsThe研究发现组之间的差异与儿童和无DLD的学习成果。与以前的报告相一致，具有典型发展的儿童比DLD儿童正确地认可了更多的语法字符串，这表明他们更好地获得了语法结构。然而，没有证据表明DLD组（学习者和非学习者）的儿童依赖于表面特征（即，熟悉训练范例）在他们的语法判断。这些结果反驳了我们的假设，即DLD组的儿童会根据熟悉程度进行判断。
PurposeThe purpose of the study was to evaluate implicit learning in children with developmental language disorder (DLD) by employing a visual artificial grammar learning task.MethodThirteen children with DLD and 24 children with typical language development between the ages of 8 and 12 years completed a visual artificial grammar learning task. During the training phase of the task, participants were presented with strings of shapes that followed the underlying structure of a finite grammar. During the testing phase, participants were asked to judge whether new strings were grammatical or nongrammatical. Grammatical judgment of new strings served to measure generalization of the underlying grammatical structure. Endorsement based on chunk strength, or similarity to training exemplars, served to evaluate the extent to which children relied on surface features to guide their task performance.ResultsAs a group, children with typical development performed better on the artificial grammar learning task, compared with children with DLD, and accepted more grammatical strings regardless of their similarity to training exemplars. Task performance in both groups was not affected by surface features. Performance of children with DLD whose test accuracy exceeded the learning threshold of 0.5 was consistent with a generalization of the underlying grammatical structure that was unaffected by surface features.ConclusionsThe study found group differences in learning outcomes between children with and without DLD. Consistent with previous reports, children with typical development correctly endorsed more grammatical strings than children with DLD, suggesting a better acquisition of the grammatical structure. However, there was no evidence to suggest that children in the DLD group (learners and nonlearners) relied on surface features (i.e., familiarity to training exemplars) in their grammatical judgment. These results refute our hypothesis that children in the DLD group would show judgment based on familiarity.