Seeking cognitive markers of specific language impairment and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Specific Language Impairment (SLI) and Attention-Deficit /Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) frequently co-occur. Surface similarities (e.g., not "listening") can complicate discriminating between them. However, underlying basic processing dysfunctions may differentiate these disorders. Promising candidates from the literature included impaired processing of brief acoustic information (rapid temporal processing, RTP) or generalized slowing in SLI, and impaired inhibition or extremely variable response speed in ADHD. However, the uniqueness of these dysfunctions to each disorder was unclear. Using key design elements not well-considered in past research, primary objectives were to (1) clarify the uniqueness of dysfunctional RTP and generalized slowing to SLI by excluding ADHD from a sample of children with SLI (Study One), confirming these dysfunctions in SLI (Study One), and examining these processes in children with ADHD (Study Two); and (2) clarifying the uniqueness of impaired inhibition and extreme response variability to ADHD by excluding SLI from a sample of children with ADHD (Study Two), confirming these dysfunctions in ADHD (Study Two), and examining these processes in SLI (Study One). In Study One, fourteen 7-11 year olds who had receptive-expressive SLI without concurrent ADHD and 14 children with typical development (TD) were administered measures of language and behaviour, and performed experimental tasks targeting the four candidate processes. In Study Two, fourteen 6-11 year olds who had ADHD without concurrent SLI and 14 children with TD participated in an identical protocol. As predicted, only children with SLI differed significantly from children with TD in RTP. However, some individual children with ADHD and TD had substantial RTP impairments. Unexpectedly, both children with SLI and children with ADHD were slow on some speeded tasks. As predicted, only children with ADHD showed extreme response variability. Unexpectedly, only children with SLI differed significantly from children with TD in inhibition, although many individual children with ADHD showed impaired inhibition. Findings suggested that further pursuit is warranted of extreme response variability as a cognitive marker of ADHD; the role of RTP impairments in SLI, ADHD, and TD requires further examination; process-specific slowing and poor inhibition may be present in both SLI and ADHD; and these disorders may not be fully dissociable.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".