Motor Control and Nonword Repetition in Specific Working Memory Impairment and SLI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Debate around the underlying cognitive factors leading to poor performance in the repetition of nonwords by children with developmental impairments in language has centered around phonological short-term memory, lexical knowledge, and other factors. The present study examined the impact of motor-control demands on nonword repetition in groups of school children with specific impairments in either language, working memory, or both. METHOD: Children repeated two lists of nonwords matched for motoric complexity either without constraint, or with a gummi bear bite block held between their teeth. The bite block required motoric compensation to reorganize the motor plan for speech production. RESULTS: Overall, the effect of the biomechanical constraint was very small for all groups. When analyses focused only on the most complex nonwords, children with language impairment were found to be significantly more impaired in the motorically constrained nonword repetition task than the typically developing group. In contrast, working memory difficulties were not differentially linked to motor condition. CONCLUSIONS: These findings add to the growing evidence that there is a motoric component to developmental language disorders. The results also suggest that the role of speech motor skill in nonword repetition is relatively modest.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".