MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2338756838

Short-term and Working Memory in Children with Specific L anguage Impairment

2006· article· en· W2338756838 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa M. D. Archibald

Bibliographic record

VenueDurham e-Theses (Durham University) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerm (time)PsychologyComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Investigations of the cognitive processes underlying Specific Language Impairment (SLI) have implicated deficits in the storage and processing of phonological or verbal information. This thesis reports five studies that investigated the role of short-term and working memory in children with SLI. Study 1 demonstrated SLI deficits on measures of verbal working memory, and short-term memory for verbal but not visuospatial information. Study 2 provided evidence that children with SLI perform at age-level on visuospatial working memory measures. Study 3 demonstrated slower processing in the SLI group across domains, as well as verbal storage decrements, with the greatest deficits found for tasks tapping both of these. Study 4 found SLI deficits on measures of nonword repetition in common use, with greater impairments on the task that relied to a lesser extent on short-term memory. Study 5 established more accurate recall for multisyllabic nonwords than matched single syllable lists for all groups, although the SLI group showed different patterns of phoneme retention. It is suggested that the combination of deficits in generalized processing speed and verbal storage in SLI may be expected to have a drastic and detrimental impact on learning, and provides an account of the disorder that could encompass the range of impairments observed in SLI. The findings also suggest that factors additional to short-term memory contribute to poor nonword repetition in SLI.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDurham e-Theses (Durham University)Same topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207