Planning Deficits in Children With Specific Language Impairment Are Reflected in Unnecessarily Awkward Grasps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Specific language impairment (SLI) affects many children, but its symptomatology is still being characterized. An emerging view, which challenges the notion that SLI is specific to language, is that SLI may actually reflect a domain-general deficit in procedural learning. We explored an extension of this hypothesis that a core deficit in SLI involves a domain-general problem in planning. Method: We used a dowel-transport task to study the extent to which 13 children with SLI and 14 typically developing (TD) controls (ages over both groups between 8;10 [years;months] and 12;11) would adopt initially awkward grasps that ensured comfortable final grasps when reaching out to move a dowel from 1 position to another (the end-state comfort effect). We predicted that children with SLI would be less likely to use end-state comfort grasps than would TD children. Results: Contrary to our prediction, when awkward grasps were needed to ensure comfortable final grasps, participants with SLI showed the end-state comfort effect as often as the TD children did. Unexpectedly, however, in trials where awkward grasps were not needed for comfortable final grasps, the participants with SLI used more awkward grasps than did the TD participants after trials in which initial awkward grasps were needed. Conclusion: We suggest that this perseverative behavior is indicative of a domain-general problem in planning 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".