Variability in the language input to children enhances learning in a treatment context.

PURPOSE Artificial language learning studies have demonstrated that learners exposed to many different nonword combinations representing a grammatical form demonstrate rapid learning of that form without explicit instruction. However, learners presented with few exemplars, even when they are repeated frequently, fail to learn the underlying grammar. This study translated this experimental finding in a therapeutic context. METHOD Eighteen preschool children with language impairment received conversational recast treatment for morpheme errors. Over a 6-week period, half heard 12 unique verbs twice each during recasts (low-variability condition), and half heard 24 unique verbs (high-variability condition). Children's use of trained and untrained morphemes on generalization probes as well as spontaneous use of trained morphemes was tracked throughout treatment. RESULTS The high-variability condition only produced significant change in children's use of trained morphemes, but not untrained morphemes. Data from individual children confirmed that more children in the high- than the low-variability condition showed a strong treatment effect. Children in the high-variability condition also produced significantly more unique utterances containing their trained morpheme than children in the low-variability condition. CONCLUSION The results support the use of highly variable input in a therapeutic context to facilitate grammatical morpheme learning.

[1]  Diane Frome Loeb,et al.  An evaluation of the facilitative effects of inverted yes-no questions on the acquisition of auxiliary verbs. , 2002, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[2]  L. Leonard,et al.  Tense and agreement morphemes in the speech of children with specific language impairment during intervention: phase 2. , 2006, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[3]  Megan M. Kittleson,et al.  Implicit language learning: Adults' ability to segment words in Norwegian. , 2010, Bilingualism.

[4]  Jenny R Saffran,et al.  Words in a sea of sounds: the output of infant statistical learning , 2001, Cognition.

[5]  James Law,et al.  The efficacy of treatment for children with developmental speech and language delay/disorder: a meta-analysis. , 2004, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[6]  J. Saffran Statistical Language Learning , 2003 .

[7]  Elissa L. Newport,et al.  Statistical Learning of Syntax: The Role of Transitional Probability , 2007 .

[8]  M. Fey,et al.  Research and Development in Child Language Intervention: A Five-Phase Model , 2008 .

[9]  L. Leonard,et al.  Tense and agreement in the speech of children with specific language impairment: patterns of generalization through intervention. , 2004, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[10]  Mary Alt,et al.  Using principles of learning to inform language therapy design for children with specific language impairment. , 2012, International journal of language & communication disorders.

[11]  K. Proctor-Williams Dosage and Distribution in Morphosyntax Intervention: Current Evidence and Future Needs , 2009 .

[12]  S. Warren,et al.  Differential treatment intensity research: a missing link to creating optimally effective communication interventions. , 2007, Mental retardation and developmental disabilities research reviews.

[13]  R N Aslin,et al.  Statistical Learning by 8-Month-Old Infants , 1996, Science.

[14]  E. Plante,et al.  Criteria for SLI: the Stark and Tallal legacy and beyond. , 1998, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[15]  L. Gerken,et al.  Infants can use distributional cues to form syntactic categories , 2005, Journal of Child Language.

[16]  R. Gómez,et al.  The Developmental Trajectory of Nonadjacent Dependency Learning. , 2005, Infancy : the official journal of the International Society on Infant Studies.

[17]  B. Younger,et al.  Lexical and articulatory interactions in children's language production. , 2010, Developmental science.

[18]  J. Saffran The Use of Predictive Dependencies in Language Learning , 2001 .

[19]  E. Plante,et al.  The diagnostic accuracy and construct validity of the structured photographic expressive language test--preschool: second edition. , 2009, Language, speech, and hearing services in schools.

[20]  Janet A. Welsh,et al.  Effects of imitative and conversational recasting treatment on the acquisition of grammar in children with specific language impairment and younger language-normal children. , 1996, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[21]  L. Leonard,et al.  Within-treatment factors as predictors of outcomes following conversational recasting. , 2010, American journal of speech-language pathology.

[22]  R. Gómez Variability and Detection of Invariant Structure , 2002, Psychological science.

[23]  Peter T. Richtsmeier,et al.  Statistical frequency in perception affects children’s lexical production , 2009, Cognition.

[24]  R. Gómez,et al.  Transfer and Complexity in Artificial Grammar Learning , 1997, Cognitive Psychology.

[25]  Jessica F. Hay,et al.  Statistical learning in a natural language by 8-month-old infants. , 2009, Child development.

[26]  Rebecca L Gómez,et al.  The effects of variation on learning word order rules by adults with and without language-based learning disabilities. , 2006, Journal of communication disorders.

[27]  K. Nelson,et al.  Treatment efficiency as a function of target selection in the remediation of child language disorders. , 1992, Clinical linguistics & phonetics.

[28]  E. Plante,et al.  What influences children's conceptualizations of language input? , 2013, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[29]  Dennis Molfese,et al.  Initial mean length of utterance predicts the relative efficacy of two grammatical treatments in preschoolers with specific language impairment. , 2011, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[30]  S M Camarata,et al.  Comparison of conversational-recasting and imitative procedures for training grammatical structures in children with specific language impairment. , 1994, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[31]  R. Gómez,et al.  Exemplar variability facilitates rapid learning of an otherwise unlearnable grammar by individuals with language-based learning disability. , 2013, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[32]  LouAnn Gerken,et al.  Beyond phonotactic frequency: presentation frequency effects word productions in specific language impairment. , 2011, Journal of communication disorders.

[33]  A. Kaufman,et al.  Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition , 2014 .

[34]  E. Newport,et al.  Learning at a distance I. Statistical learning of non-adjacent dependencies , 2004, Cognitive Psychology.

[35]  M. Fey,et al.  Two models of grammar facilitation in children with language impairments: phase 2. , 1997, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[36]  Richard N. Aslin,et al.  Thirty Years of Research on Infant Speech Perception: The Legacy of Peter W. Jusczyk , 2005 .

[37]  E. Plante,et al.  Subcategory learning in normal and language learning-disabled adults: how much information do they need? , 2006, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[38]  S H Long,et al.  Two approaches to the facilitation of grammar in children with language impairment: an experimental evaluation. , 1993, Journal of speech and hearing research.