Memory and comprehension deficits in spatial descriptions of children with non-verbal and reading disabilities.

Irene C Mammarella, Chiara Meneghetti, Francesca Pazzaglia, Cesare Cornoldi
Author Information
  1. Irene C Mammarella: Department of Developmental and Social Psychology, University of Padova Padova, Italy.
  2. Chiara Meneghetti: Department of General Psychology, University of Padova Padova, Italy.
  3. Francesca Pazzaglia: Department of General Psychology, University of Padova Padova, Italy.
  4. Cesare Cornoldi: Department of General Psychology, University of Padova Padova, Italy.

Abstract

The present study investigated the difficulties encountered by children with non-verbal learning disability (NLD) and reading disability (RD) when processing spatial information derived from descriptions, based on the assumption that both groups should find it more difficult than matched controls, but for different reasons, i.e., due to a memory encoding difficulty in cases of RD and to spatial information comprehension problems in cases of NLD. Spatial descriptions from both survey and route perspectives were presented to 9-12-year-old children divided into three groups: NLD (N = 12); RD (N = 12), and typically developing controls (TD; N = 15); then participants completed a sentence verification task and a memory for locations task. The sentence verification task was presented in two conditions: in one the children could refer to the text while answering the questions (i.e., text present condition), and in the other the text was withdrawn (i.e., text absent condition). Results showed that the RD group benefited from the text present condition, but was impaired to the same extent as the NLD group in the text absent condition, suggesting that the NLD children's difficulty is due mainly to their poor comprehension of spatial descriptions, while the RD children's difficulty is due more to a memory encoding problem. These results are discussed in terms of their implications in the neuropsychological profiles of children with NLD or RD, and the processes involved in spatial descriptions.

Keywords

References

  1. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2008 Feb;127(2):340-54 [PMID: 17723221]
  2. Brain Lang. 1999 Nov;70(2):220-39 [PMID: 10550228]
  3. Br J Educ Psychol. 2006 Dec;76(Pt 4):697-708 [PMID: 17094881]
  4. Psychol Res. 2015 Jan;79(1):104-19 [PMID: 24510204]
  5. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2004 Feb;26(1):31-42 [PMID: 14972692]
  6. Brain Cogn. 2006 Oct;62(1):58-67 [PMID: 16750287]
  7. Brain Cogn. 2009 Nov;71(2):173-9 [PMID: 19520476]
  8. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1995 Sep;36(6):1053-64 [PMID: 7593398]
  9. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2005 Mar;118(3):211-28 [PMID: 15698821]
  10. Can J Exp Psychol. 2004 Dec;58(4):259-71 [PMID: 15648729]
  11. Child Neuropsychol. 2014;20(3):255-80 [PMID: 23705673]
  12. Child Neuropsychol. 2013;19(2):190-223 [PMID: 22385012]
  13. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2013;66(4):642-70 [PMID: 22943593]
  14. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2004 Jan;30(1):158-70 [PMID: 14736304]
  15. Brain Cogn. 2004 Oct;56(1):77-88 [PMID: 15380878]
  16. Child Neuropsychol. 2011;17(5):418-43 [PMID: 21462003]
  17. Dev Sci. 2006 Mar;9(2):221-35 [PMID: 16472322]
  18. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2011 May;66(3):311-20 [PMID: 21339301]
  19. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2000 Jan;15(1):83-93 [PMID: 14590570]
  20. Neuropsychologia. 1990;28(3):271-8 [PMID: 2325839]
  21. Dev Sci. 2014 Nov;17(6):920-34 [PMID: 24702907]
  22. J Learn Disabil. 1993 Nov;26(9):597-609 [PMID: 8283130]
  23. Mem Cognit. 1982 Mar;10(2):181-7 [PMID: 7087782]
  24. Adv Child Dev Behav. 1975;10:9-55 [PMID: 1101663]
  25. Cogn Neuropsychol. 2005;22(8):1055-68 [PMID: 21038289]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0spatialNLDRDdescriptionstextchildrendisabilityconditionpresentnon-verbalreadingieduememorydifficultycomprehensionN=tasklearninginformationcontrolsencodingcasespresented12sentenceverificationabsentgroupchildren'sstudyinvestigateddifficultiesencounteredprocessingderivedbasedassumptiongroupsfinddifficultmatcheddifferentreasonsproblemsSpatialsurveyrouteperspectives9-12-year-olddividedthreegroups:typicallydevelopingTD15participantscompletedlocationstwoconditions:onereferansweringquestionswithdrawnResultsshowedbenefitedimpairedextentsuggestingmainlypoorproblemresultsdiscussedtermsimplicationsneuropsychologicalprofilesprocessesinvolvedMemorydeficitsdisabilitiesperspective

Similar Articles

Cited By