Back to all available

Examining longitudinal changes in visuospatial working memory in adolescents with Developmental Language Disorder

psychiatry-and-psychology

Abstract

Introduction: Adolescents with Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) exhibit difficulties in language abilities, affecting their capacity to produce and/or comprehend spoken language. In addition to a main language deficit, DLD is often associated with impairments in executive functioning (EF), including working memory (WM).

Method: A longitudinal study was conducted with 38 participants: 12 adolescents with DLD and 26 typical development (TD) peers. Visuospatial WM was assessed using the Backward Corsi Task (BCT) at three time points.

Results: Adolescents with DLD consistently scored lower than TD on the BCT across all three waves. A significant main effect of wave was also found, indicating that performance improved over time. However, improvements were only significant from Wave 1 to Wave 3, and not between adjacent waves. No significant Group-by-Wave interaction was observed, suggesting similar developmental trajectories across groups.

Conclusions: The findings suggest that while adolescents with DLD show improvements in visuospatial WM over time, their performance remains consistently below that of their TD peers. This indicates that visuospatial WM difficulties associated with DLD persist into adolescence. These results may be partly explained by the task’s engagement of the central executive component, as tasks with high executive demands could account for the observed group differences.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].