MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765231191 · doi:10.1044/2017_jslhr-l-16-0457

Procedural Motor Learning in Children With Specific Language Impairment

2017· article· en· W2765231191 on OpenAlexaff
Teenu Sanjeevan, Elina Mainela‐Arnold

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcedural memorySpecific language impairmentPsychologyMotor skillCognitive psychologySerial reaction timeTask (project management)Typically developingTyingDevelopmental psychologyAudiologyCognitionSequence learningNeuroscienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Specific language impairment (SLI) is a developmental disorder that affects language and motor development in the absence of a clear cause. An explanation for these impairments is offered by the procedural deficit hypothesis (PDH), which argues that motor difficulties in SLI are due to deficits in procedural memory. The aim of this study was to test the PDH by examining the procedural motor learning abilities of children with and without SLI. Method: Thirteen children with SLI and 14 age-matched typically developing children completed the following procedural measures: (a) a knot-tying task as a measure of motor sequencing and (2) a mirror-drawing task as a measure of visual-motor adaptation. Results: Although children with SLI produced significantly more errors on certain knot-tying tasks, they performed comparably on others. Also, children with SLI performed comparably with typically developing children on the mirror-drawing task. Conclusions: The PDH requires reframing. The sequence learning deficits in SLI are modest and specific to more difficult tasks. Visual-motor adaptation, on the other hand, appears to be unaffected 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.330 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations18
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Speech Language and Hearing ResearchSame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207