Working memory span and receptive vocabulary assessment in Urdu speaking children with speech sound disorder.

Tahira Yasmin, Huma Hafeez, Aatika Sadia, Mubarak Lubna, Sharmeen Aslam Tarar, Muhammad Hashim Raza, Muhammad Asim Raza Basra
Author Information
  1. Tahira Yasmin: Centre for Clinical and Nutritional Chemistry, School of Chemistry, University of the Punjab, New Campus, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.
  2. Huma Hafeez: Centre for Clinical and Nutritional Chemistry, School of Chemistry, University of the Punjab, New Campus, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.
  3. Aatika Sadia: Centre for Clinical and Nutritional Chemistry, School of Chemistry, University of the Punjab, New Campus, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.
  4. Mubarak Lubna: Department of Education, Govt. Graduate College for Women, Alipurchatha, Gujranwala, Pakistan; Department of Education, Virtual University, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.
  5. Sharmeen Aslam Tarar: Centre for Clinical Psychology, University of the Punjab, New Campus, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.
  6. Muhammad Hashim Raza: Child Language Doctoral Program (CLDP), University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA.
  7. Muhammad Asim Raza Basra: Centre for Clinical and Nutritional Chemistry, School of Chemistry, University of the Punjab, New Campus, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan. Electronic address: asimbasra.chem@pu.edu.pk.

Abstract

Emerging evidence suggests that impaired speech may be related to reduced working memory (WM). The current study aimed to validate and compare the influence of articulation, short-term memory (STM), WM, and receptive vocabulary abilities of Pakistani children with speech sound disorder (SSD; N = 50) versus typically developing (TD; N = 30) children aged 7-13 years. Assessments included the Test for Assessment of Articulation and Phonology in Urdu (TAAPU), Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-4, translated to Urdu (U-PPVT-4), and Digit Memory Test (DMT) used to determine speech articulation, receptive vocabulary, and memory abilities respectively. The percentage correct consonants (PCC) score was used to divide the SSD group further into SSD severity groups. The TD and SSD groups significantly differed in performance on all tasks (p < 0.05). Moreover, the SSD severity groups showed significant differences (p < 0.0001) in performance on different components of TAAPU (total errors and substitution errors) and DMT tasks. However, the SSD severity groups did not show significant differences in performance on the U-PPVT-4. Correlational analyses indicate statistically significant correlations of PCC with STM, WM, and receptive vocabulary. Regression analyses suggested that both WM and STM contribute to speech intelligibility in children with SSD. Our findings in Urdu-speaking children support previous results in English-speaking children suggesting the articulation skills, receptive vocabulary, STM, and WM were less developed in children with SSD than in TD children.

Keywords

References

  1. Pediatr Rev. 2005 Apr;26(4):131-42 [PMID: 15805236]
  2. Science. 1992 Jan 31;255(5044):556-9 [PMID: 1736359]
  3. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2017 Oct;101:117-122 [PMID: 28964281]
  4. Clin Linguist Phon. 2020 Dec 1;34(12):1130-1148 [PMID: 32036709]
  5. Dev Psychol. 2004 Mar;40(2):177-90 [PMID: 14979759]
  6. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2005 Feb;48(1):61-78 [PMID: 15938060]
  7. J Speech Hear Disord. 1990 Nov;55(4):779-98 [PMID: 2232757]
  8. Pro Fono. 2005 Apr-Dec;17(3):383-92 [PMID: 16389795]
  9. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2005 Aug;48(4):834-52 [PMID: 16378477]
  10. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2007 Jan;38(1):5-15 [PMID: 17218532]
  11. J Commun Disord. 2020 Nov - Dec;88:106054 [PMID: 33038695]
  12. Top Lang Disord. 2011;31(2):112-127 [PMID: 22844175]
  13. Child Neuropsychol. 2023 Apr;29(3):391-412 [PMID: 35723553]
  14. J Exp Child Psychol. 2006 Mar;93(3):265-81 [PMID: 16293261]
  15. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2004 Apr;47(2):377-91 [PMID: 15157138]
  16. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2017 Aug 15;26(3):691-708 [PMID: 28525581]
  17. Top Lang Disord. 2005 Jul;25(3):190-206 [PMID: 20209070]
  18. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2013 May;22(2):173-84 [PMID: 23184137]
  19. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2003 Oct;4(10):829-39 [PMID: 14523382]
  20. Clin Linguist Phon. 2010 Oct;24(10):795-824 [PMID: 20831378]
  21. J Commun Disord. 2000 Jan-Feb;33(1):11-30 [PMID: 10665511]
  22. Brain Lang. 2014 Jun;133:26-38 [PMID: 24769279]
  23. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1997 Aug;40(4):708-22 [PMID: 9263938]
  24. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1999 Dec;42(6):1461-81 [PMID: 10599627]
  25. J Speech Hear Disord. 1982 Aug;47(3):256-70 [PMID: 7186561]
  26. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2018 Aug;20(4):422-433 [PMID: 28306339]
  27. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011 Oct;54(5):1312-27 [PMID: 21386040]
  28. Eur J Hum Genet. 2019 Aug;27(8):1274-1285 [PMID: 30976110]
  29. Annu Rev Psychol. 2012;63:1-29 [PMID: 21961947]
  30. J Speech Hear Res. 1995 Apr;38(2):403-14 [PMID: 7596106]
  31. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2018 Nov 21;27(4):1546-1571 [PMID: 30177993]
  32. J Child Lang. 2019 Jul;46(4):632-652 [PMID: 30829193]
  33. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2020 Apr 7;51(2):457-468 [PMID: 32160111]
  34. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 Nov 07;8:900 [PMID: 25426049]
  35. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 2000 Dec;185:92-3 [PMID: 11141023]
  36. Child Dev. 2003 Mar-Apr;74(2):346-57 [PMID: 12705559]
  37. Res Dev Disabil. 2013 Jul;34(7):2161-72 [PMID: 23643769]
  38. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2008 Feb;36(2):151-63 [PMID: 17882543]
  39. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2005 Oct;36(4):294-307 [PMID: 16389702]
  40. Child Dev. 2006 Nov-Dec;77(6):1698-716 [PMID: 17107455]
  41. J Commun Disord. 2018 Jan - Feb;71:61-71 [PMID: 29306068]

Grants

  1. R21 DC017830/NIDCD NIH HHS

MeSH Term

Child
Humans
Speech Sound Disorder
Memory, Short-Term
Vocabulary
Language
Phonetics
Speech

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0childrenSSDmemoryspeechWMreceptivevocabularySTMUrdugroupsarticulationsounddisorderTDseverityperformancesignificantabilitiesTestTAAPUU-PPVT-4DMTusedcorrectconsonantsPCCtasksp < 0differenceserrorsanalysesWorkingspeakingEmergingevidencesuggestsimpairedmayrelatedreducedworkingcurrentstudyaimedvalidatecompareinfluenceshort-termPakistaniN= 50versustypicallydevelopingN = 30aged7-13 yearsAssessmentsincludedAssessmentArticulationPhonologyPeabodyPictureVocabularyTest-4translatedDigitMemorydeterminerespectivelypercentagescoredividegroupsignificantlydiffered05Moreovershowed0001differentcomponentstotalsubstitutionHowevershowCorrelationalindicatestatisticallycorrelationsRegressionsuggestedcontributeintelligibilityfindingsUrdu-speakingsupportpreviousresultsEnglish-speakingsuggestingskillslessdevelopedspanassessmentPercentageShort-termSpeech

Similar Articles

Cited By (2)