What Components of Working Memory Are Impaired in Children with Reading and/or Mathematics Difficulties?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both reading difficulties (RD) and mathematics difficulties (MD) are common neurodevelopmental disorders. The co-occurrence of RD and MD, known as comorbid RDMD, is estimated to range between 21% and 45% of children with learning disabilities. Deficits in working memory have been reported in both RD and MD groups, as well as among comorbid RDMD. However, previous comorbidity studies have only examined the role of some components of working memory, and they do not strictly match their groups on relevant reading and mathematics tasks. Thus, the purpose of this study is to examine the nature of working memory deficits in comorbid RDMD after matching groups based on reading and mathematics tasks. We assessed four groups of children (RD [n = 21, Mage = 10.96 years], MD [n = 24, Mage = 11.04 years], comorbid RDMD [n = 26, Mage = 10.90 years], and chronological-age controls [n = 27, Mage = 10.96 years]) on measures of the phonological loop (word span and digit span forward tasks), central executive (complex word and digit span), and updating tasks (word and digit 2-back). The results of ANCOVA (covarying for gender and non-verbal IQ) showed first that the RD and RDMD groups performed significantly worse than the MD and control groups in both measures of the phonological loop. For the central executive and updating tasks, we found an effect based on stimulus type. For word-related tasks, the RD and comorbid RDMD groups performed worse than the MD and control groups, and for number-related tasks, the MD and comorbid RDMD groups performed worse than the RD and control groups. Taken together, our findings provide support for the correlated liability model of comorbidity, which indicates that working memory deficits experienced by the RDMD group are an additive combination of deficits observed in the RD and MD groups, suggesting that working memory tasks used to examine underlying deficits in reading and/or mathematics difficulties may dictate whether or not significant group differences are found.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".