1. No trade-off between Declarative and Procedural Memory in Children with Specific Language Impairment
Sengottuvel Kuppuraj*, Rao Prema^, and Dorothy V M Bishop*
* Dept. of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, UK
^ Language Science lab, Dept. of Speech-Language Sciences, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, University of Mysore, India

2. Specific Language Impairment (SLI)
Language difficulties (syntax > semantics)
No major associated problems (like neurological, sensory, generally low ability)

3. Procedural-Declarative model (Ullman, 2004)
He Plays
Grammar
Words
Procedural memory
Declarative memory
-explicit
-fast
-conscious
*remembering an event
-implicit
-gradual
-automatic
*motor skills learning

4. Procedural Deficit (Ullman & Pierpont, 2005)/Declarative Compensatory Hypothesis for SLI (Ullman & Pullman, 2015) ?
* Trade-off
* -ve correlation
Procedural memory ?
Declarative memory
Proportional change in potentials?

5. Procedural memory in SLI
Poor
Good agreement (e.g., Lum & Conti-ramsdon, 2013)
Using implicit sequence learning task

6. Declarative memory in SLI
Poor agreement (e.g., Lum & Conti-ramsdon, 2013)
Intact (e.g., Bishop and Hsu, 2014)
Affected (e.g., Duinmeijer, de Jong, & Scheper, 2012)
Enhanced (Lucaks’ et al, under review)
Used intentional encoding
Used incidental encoding

7. Present study 1. Procedural memory in SLI (few studies in Kannada)
Prediction: Affected
2. Declarative memory in SLI
Prediction: Intact or Enhanced
3. May depend on incidental (implicit)/intentional (explicit) encoding?
4. Trade-off between these memory systems?
Prediction: Yes

8. Participants 30 children with SLI (7-13 yrs)
30 children with typical language (TD) (7-13 years)
Spoke Kannada

9. Procedural memory-Serial reaction time (SRT) task1 2 3 4
Random sequence: …
Pattern sequence: ….

10. Declarative memory task 1 (Tested: Recognition, Encoding: Incidental)
Max : 60
Recognition after 10 min :
Max : 60
Recognition after 60 min :
Max : 60
Dependent variables: Accuracy and RT of correctly recognized responses

11. Declarative memory Task 2 (Tested: Recall, Encoding: Intentional)
6 pairs
Recall after 10 min:
Recall after 60 min:
Dependent variable: Accuracy and RT of correctly recognized responses

12. Findings-Procedural memory
Index of sequence
Learning (ISL)= 𝑑1+𝑑2 2
Group: 2 (TD x SLI) on ISL
F (1, 51) =11.38, p = .001, 𝜂 𝐺 2 = .18.
Conclusion: SLI poorer than TD on procedural memory

13. Findings: Declarative memory: Task 1 (Tested: Recognition, Encoding: Incidental)
Group: 2 (TD x SLI), Interval: 2 (10 min & 60 min), Object type: 2 (real & novel)
Group: F (1, 51) = 5.69, p = .02, 𝜂 𝐺 2 = .05 (TD >SLI)
Interval: F (1, 51) = 7.36, p = .009, 𝜂 𝐺 2 = . 03 (10 min > 60 min)
Object type: F (1, 51) = , p <.001, 𝜂 𝐺 2 = .36 (real > novel)
No Interactions
Conclusion: SLI worse overall, similar pattern to TD

14. Findings: Declarative memory: Task 2 (Tested: Recall, Encoding: Intentional)
Group: 2 (TD x SLI), Interval: 2 (10 min & 60 min)
Group: F (1, 56) = 6.32, p = .02, 𝜂 𝐺 2 = .09 (TD >SLI)
Interval: F (1, 56) = 32.27, p = .00, 𝜂 𝐺 2 = .07 (10min > 60 min)
No interactions
Conclusion: SLI worse overall, similar pattern to TD

15. Effect of declarative encoding (incidental vs. intentional)
Interested in group and within subject interactions
Findings: No interactions
Conclusion: Type of encoding and retrieval did not have effect of declarative memory performance in SLI

16. Trade-off Declarative memory Task1 Task 2 10 min 60 min
Co-variates: Age, non-verbal abilities
Declarative memory
Task1
Task 2
10 min
60 min
Procedural memory
.027
.148
.236
.272
Conclusion: No trade-off between procedural and declarative memory

17. Did we find what we predicted?
1. Did SLI group show poor procedural memory compared to their TD peers? Yes- line with the prediction 2. Did SLI group show intact declarative memory? No- contradictory to the prediction (Despite the nature of encoding and retrieval) 3. Did SLI group show procedural declarative trade- off? No- contradictory to the prediction

18. Remarks
Results not supporting declarative compensatory proposal (Ullman & Pullman, 2015)
However
What if, compensation was tested within a task (Kuppuraj and Bishop, work in progress)?
Is it because of the participants’ language structure ?

19. To know more
Find us at Oxford Study of Children’s Communication Impairments (OSCCI), Dept. of Experimental Psychology.
The paper is under re-review at Autism and Developmental Language Impairment

20. Acknowledgments
All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore, India, Research Fund-13 ( )
Wellcome trust
The organizers of the seminar
The Academy of Medical Sciences and the Newton Fund
Thanks for listening 