Language Development in Children and Adolescents with Down Syndrome - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Language Development in Children and Adolescents with Down Syndrome

Description:

Language Development in Children and Adolescents with Down Syndrome – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:1323
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 44
Provided by: robinc88
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Language Development in Children and Adolescents with Down Syndrome


1
Language Development in Children and Adolescents
with Down Syndrome
  • Robin Chapman, Ph.D.
  • Waisman Center
  • University of Wisconsin-Madison

2
Acknowledgements
  • Research supported by NIH grant R01-HD23353 with
    additional support from the National Down
    Syndrome Society. We thank the participants and
    their parents.

3
Thanks to Colleagues
  • Dr. Donna Boudreau
  • Cynthia Bridge
  • Katherine Gigstead
  • Dr. Linda J. Hesketh
  • Dr. Maura Johnson
  • Dr. Mina Johnson-Glenberg
  • Dr. Elizabeth Kay-Raining Bird
  • Dr. Doris J. Kistler
  • Dr. Andrea McDuffie
  • Dr. Sally Miles
  • Dr. Jon Miller
  • Dr. Giuliana Miolo
  • Dr. Scott E. Schwartz
  • Dr. Hye-Kyeung Seung
  • Dr. Elin Thordardottir
  • Heidi Sindberg
  • Dr. Nadia Teitler
  • Dr. Laura Wagner

4

Questions
  • Is language acquisition modular or interactive?
  • Is there a specific behavioral phenotype in
  • children with Down syndrome?
  • What is the developmental trajectory of language
  • skills?
  • What factors predict language production?
  • What factors predict language comprehension?
  • What factors improve word learning?
  • What factors improve storytelling?

5
Modular vs. Interactionist Theory
(Chapman, 2000)
  • Modular view of language predicts a specific
    language deficit in both comprehension and
    production
  • Interactionist view predicts multiple
    dissociations, including comprehension and
    production, arising developmentally

6
Developmental Emergence of
Language in Down Syndrome Evidence for
Interactionist Position (Chapman, 2004) I.
SOCIAL INTERACTION
  • slower emergence of emotional affect
    recognition in DS (spollak_at_wisc.edu) and frequent
    hearing impairment

7
Developmental Emergence of Language II.
OBJECT INTERACTION

More prolonged attention to people than objects
in DS
8
Developmental Emergence of LanguageIII.
CANONICAL BABBLING
  • Slower Development of Canonical Babbling,
    Frequent Hearing Impairment, in DS

9
Developmental Emergence of Language IV.
JOINT ATTENTION
  • Slower Babbling Development Affective
    Comprehension in Down Syndrome

10
Developmental Emergence of Language V.
COMPREHENSION OF WORDS, COMMUNICATIVE INTENT

  • Slower Development of Communicative Requesting
    in Down Syndrome

11
Developmental Emergence of Language VI. USE OF
WORDS

  • Slower Development of Expressive Vocabulary in
    Down Syndrome, including Signs

12
Developmental Emergence of Language VII.
SIMPLE SENTENCES



  • Slower Development of Sentence Production in
    Down Syndrome

13
Developmental Emergence of Language VIII.
COMPLEX SENTENCES
Person
Sounds Heard


Words
Object

Action
  • Slower Development of Complex Syntax Production
    for Complex Events in Down Syndrome

14
The phenotype in infancy
  • Learning delays accelerate at ages 2-4
  • Slower transition from babbling to speech poorer
    intelligibility
  • Delays relative to cognition in nonverbal
    requesting, rate of expressive vocabulary
    development, rate of increase in sentence length
  • Comprehension comparable to cognition

15
The phenotype in childhood
  • Selective deficits in verbal short-term memory
  • Longer period of phonological errors and more
    variability poorer intelligibility
  • Expressive language delay relative to
    comprehension and cognition
  • Grammatical morphology deficit relative to
    sentence length in production

16
The phenotype in adolescence
  • Deficits in both working verbal memory and visual
    short-term memory
  • Intelligibility problems more variability in
    fundamental frequency, rate, stress placement
  • Expressive language deficit greatest in
    grammatical morphemes, least in vocabulary MLU
    shows longitudinal gain
  • Sentence comprehension begins to lag cognition,
    and shows longitudinal loss vocabulary
    comprehension a strength on PPVT

17
The phenotype in young adulthood
  • Continuing auditory short-term memory deficit
  • Continuing progress in intelligibility
  • Continuing progress in expressive syntax MLU
    increase, complex sentence acquisition
  • Continuing strengths in size of comprehension
    vocabulary
  • Loss of elaborated sentence comprehension

18
Predicted Comprehension for Ages
7.5, 12.5 and 17.5
19
Predicted Comprehension when
Auditory ST Memory Intercept is at
25ile, mean, or 75ile
20
Predicted Comprehension when
Visual S-T Memory Intercept is at
25ile, Mean, or 75ile
21
Predicted MLU when Syntax
Comprehension Intercept is at 25ile,
Mean or 75ile
22
Predicted MLU when Syntax
Comprehension slope is at 25ile, Mean
or 75ile
23
Predictors of individual difference
  • For Syntax Comprehension age, auditory
    short-term memory, visual short-term memory
  • For Syntax Production (MLU) syntax comprehension
  • For Grammatical morpheme comprehension and fast
    mapping of words hearing

24
Implications
  • Evidence is consistent with an interactionist
    account of language learning,
  • Multiple targets for early intervention
  • -object play and exploration schemes
  • -requesting
  • -babbling/speech motor skills
  • -intelligible communication (signing)
  • -affective comprehension
  • -Hearing!

25
Implications, contd
  • Shifting intervention targets with development
  • Need for continuing language intervention in
    adolescence, including complex syntax literacy
  • Need to target BOTH comprehension and production,
    at different levels
  • Importance of hearing status for intelligibility
    grammatical morpheme comprehension

26
Evidence for specificity of phenotype
in adolescence DS vs. CI
(Chapman, 2006)
  • Comprehension deficits in DS vs. CI of unknown
    origin
  • (nonverbal MA/CA match)
  • Production deficit in DS in adolescence in
    interview language sample
  • Phonological working memory plays an important
    role in comprehension and production performance
    by both groups
  • NRT (long-term knowledge) is more
    important for DS
  • digit span visual short-term memory
    more important
  • for CI
  • Hearing status affects DS grammatical morpheme
    comprehension and
    interview-MLU

27
Fast mapping of novel words
  • DS children adolescents MA match
    (Chapman, Kay-Raining Bird Schwartz, 1990
    Kay-Raining Bird, E., Chapman, R.S., Schwartz,
    S.E. (2004).
  • With multiple words, DSMA in comprehension but
    DSltMA in production
    (Chapman, 2003)
  • DS adolescents syntax comprehension TD match in
    using speaker intent to infer object referent
  • McDuffie, A., Sindberg, H., Hesketh, L.,
    Chapman, R. (in press).
  • Repeated mention of words speeds access in
    comprehension, for DS
  • (Chapman, Sindberg, Bridge, Gigstead,
    Hesketh, 2006)

28
Narratives in children
adolescents
  • Event content of remembered silent film
  • DS MA controls despite shorter MLU

  • (Boudreau Chapman, 2000)
  • Plot line theme elements of wordless
    picturebooks
  • DS gt MLU comparison group
  • DS syntax comprehension group
  • (Miles
    Chapman, 2002)
  • Presence (vs. absence) of picture support
  • increases DS MLU to syntax
    comprehension group level
  • (Seung Chapman, 2002 Miles,
    Chapman, Sindberg,2006)

29
Repeated Narratives
  • Repeated retellings of a wordless picture book
    lead to
  • increases in plot line/theme expression and
    MLU (Miles
  • Chapman 2005)
  • Examiner scaffolding with questions yields
    higher MLU improves
  • expression of location setting information
    (Miles, Sindberg, Bridge
  • Chapman, 2002) and number of different
    words used (Miles 2005)
  • Storytelling strategies (Miles, Chapman
    Sindberg, 2004)
  • -task approached as retelling of related
    events
  • -evaluations and character speech used by
    both DS syntax
  • comprehension controls
  • -use of inference increased across
    sessions
  • -more multiple utterances in DS group

30
Plot line/Theme Content of
Repeated Narratives, DS vs. Syntax
comprehension matched group (Miles
Chapman, 2005)
31
MLU of Repeated Narratives, DS vs.
Syntax comprehension matched group
(Miles Chapman, 2005)
32
Answers
  • Language acquisition is interactive, emergent,
  • non-modular
  • Children with Down syndrome show a Specific
  • Language Impairment
  • Trajectory MLU and complex syntax increase
  • with age No evidence of a critical
    period
  • Trajectory Syntax comprehension declines in
  • late adolescence and young adulthood

33
Answers, continued
  • Language comprehension
  • predicts language production
  • Auditory and visual short-term memory predict
  • language comprehension
  • hearing also predicts
  • grammatical morphology
    intelligibility

34
Implications for Language Intervention
  • Need for language intervention in adolescence,
    including literacy
  • Need to target both comprehension and production,
    at different levels
  • Repeated mention of novel word in play improves
    speed of its comprehension

35
Implications for Intervention ,
contd
  • Need to provide hearing support for
    intelligibility and grammatical morpheme
    comprehension
  • Helpfulness of picture support for narrative
    content MLU
  • Helpfulness of narrative practice for MLU

36
Methodological implications
  • Comprehension Assessment
  • -Vocabulary frequency vs. concept (PPVT vs
    TACL-voc)
  • -Past use of PPVT as MA match has mismatched
    TD groups
  • and overestimated adolescent DS MA
  • -Syntax differential effects of hearing on
    morphology
  • sentence structure
  • Language Samples
  • -Conversation vs. narration
  • -Visual support for narration

37
Some Thoughts about Future Research
  • Importance of modeling individual differences in
    studying DD populations
  • Imaging to illuminate short-term memory
    contributions
  • Genome variation to predict IDs in longitudinal
    language cognitive trajectories
  • Genetic dissection of learning will remap our
    dissection of phenotype

38
References
  • Abbeduto, L. Chapman, R.S. (2005). Language and
    communication skills in children with Down
    syndrome and Fragile x. In P. Fletcher J.
    Miller, Eds., Trends in language acquisition
    research, vol 4 Developmental theory and
    language disorders. Amsterdam, NL John
    Benjamins.
  • Boudreau, D. Chapman, R.S. (2000).The
    relationship between event representation and
    linguistic skill in narratives of children and
    adolescents with Down syndrome. Journal of
    Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43,
    1146-1159.
  • Chapman, R.S. (1999). Language and cognitive
    development in children and adolescents with Down
    syndrome. In J.F. Miller, L.A. Leavitt, and M.
    Leddy, Eds., Improving the communication of
    people with Down syndrome. (Pp. 41-60).
    Baltimore Brookes.
  • Chapman, R.S. (2000). Childrens language
    learning An interactionist perspective. Journal
    of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 33-54.

39
References, ctd.
  • Chapman, R.S. (2003). Language and communication
    in individuals with Down syndrome. (pp. 1-34) In
    L. Abbeduto (Ed.,), International Review of
    Research in Mental Retardation Language and
    Communication, vol. 27. Academic Press.
  • Chapman, R.S. (2006). Language learning in Down
    syndrome the speech and language profile
    compared to adolescents with cognitive impairment
    of unknown origin.Downs Syndrome Research
    Practice, 10, 61-66.
  • Chapman, R.S., Hesketh, L.J. (2000).
    Behavioral phenotype of individuals with Down
    syndrome. Mental Retardation and Developmental
    Disability Research Reviews, 6, 84-95.
  • Chapman, R.S. Hesketh, L.J. (2001). Language,
    cognition, and short-term memory in individuals
    with Down syndrome. Down Syndrome Research and
    Practice, 7, 1-7.

40
References, ctd.
  • Chapman, R.S., Hesketh, L.J., Kistler, D.
    (2002). Predicting longitudinal change in
    language production and comprehension in
    individuals with Down syndrome Hierarchical
    linear modeling. Journal of Speech, Language, and
    Hearing Research, 45, 902-915.
  • Chapman, R.S., Seung, H-K., Schwartz, S.E.
    Kay-Raining Bird, E. (2000). Predicting language
    development in children and adolescents with Down
    syndrome The role of comprehension. Journal of
    Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43,
    340-350.
  • Chapman, R.S., Sindberg, H., Bridge, C.,
    Gigstead, K. Hesketh, L.J. (2006). Effect of
    memory support and elicited production on fast
    mapping of new words by adolescents with Down
    syndrome. Journal of Speech, Language, Hearing
    Research, 49, 3-15.
  • Johnson-Glenberg, M.C. Chapman, R.S. (2004).
    Predictors of parent-child language during novel
    task play A comparison between children who are
    typically developing and individuals with Down
    syndrome. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities
    Research., 48, 225-38.

41
References, ctd.
  • Kay-Raining Bird, E., Chapman, R.S., Schwartz,
    S.E. (2004). Fast mapping of words and story
    recall by children with Down syndrome. Journal of
    Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47,
    1286-1300.
  • McDuffie, A., Sindberg, H., Hesketh, L.,
    Chapman, R. (in press). Use of speaker intent and
    grammatical cues in fast-mapping by adolescents
    with DS. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
    Research.
  • Miles, S. Chapman, R.S. (2005). The
    relationship between adult scaffolding and
    narrative expression by adolescents with Down
    syndrome. Poster presented at the Symposium on
    Research in Child Language Disorders, Madison,
    WI, June 10.
  • Miles, S. Chapman, R.S. (2002). Narrative
    content as described by individuals with Down
    syndrome and typically developing children.
    Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
    Research, 45, 175-189.

42
References, ctd.
  • Miles, S., Chapman, R.S. Sindberg, H. (2006).
    Sampling context affects MLU in the language of
    adolescents with Down syndrome.Journal of
    Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49,
    325-227.
  • Miolo, G., Chapman, R.S., Sindberg, H. (2005).
    Sentence comprehension in adolescents with Down
    syndrome and typically developing children Role
    of sentence voice, visual context, and
    auditory-verbal short-term memory. Journal of
    Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48,
    172-188.
  • Seung, H-K. Chapman, R.S. (2000). Digit span in
    individuals with Down syndrome and typically
    developing children Temporal aspects. Journal of
    Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43,
    609-620..
  • Seung, H.K., Chapman, R. S. (2003). The effect
    of story presentation rates on story retelling by
    individuals with Down syndrome. Applied
    Psycholinguistics, 24, 601-618.

43
Poetry
  • The Dreamer Who Counted the Dead
  • Images of a Complex World
  • The Art Poetry of Chaos
  • On Retirement 75 Poems
About PowerShow.com