Motor sequence learning and reading ability: Is poor reading associated with sequencing deficits?

doi:10.1016/S0022-0965(03)00030-4

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

Volume 84, Issue 4, April 2003, Pages 338-354

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0965(03)00030-4 Get rights and content

Abstract

Although it is widely assumed that children with learning disabilities have “sequencing problems,” these have not been well specified. A non-verbal serial reaction time (SRT) paradigm was used to evaluate motor sequence learning in 422 children between ages 7 and 11 in relation to reading, cognitive ability level, and attention problems. The children demonstrated the response profile typically associated with motor sequence learning, but the component of the profile indicative of implicit sequence learning was not reliably associated with any of the predictors. Cognitive ability predicted overall response time; cognitive ability, reading, and attention problems each predicted overall accuracy. Explicit learning was predicted by cognitive ability, but not by reading or attention problems. Thus, we found no evidence that poor reading is preferentially associated with a domain general deficit in sequential learning.

Section snippets

Participants

The study is based on the performance of 422 children between the ages of 7 years and 11 years, 11 months, including 195 children who were referred to a hospital clinic for diagnosis of heterogeneous learning problems and 227 children of comparable age and demographic background from a school system in the community.

Children were included in the study if the following criteria were met: Full Scale IQ 80 or above; score 5 or less on the Hyperactivity Scale for either or both the parent and

Reading, cognitive ability, and attention

Psychometric test performance of the group is presented in Table 2. The reading and cognitive ability scores were approximately normally distributed, but the attention scores were skewed, with a tail at the higher end.

A general linear models (GLM) procedure was carried out to determine how well age, sex, cognitive ability, and attention predicted reading. There was a marginal effect of age (p=.07), with the second-youngest group performing 4.2 points worse than the oldest group, the

Discussion

Based on data from a very large sample of neurologically intact children with a range of reading competence, we were unable to document an association between reading ability or general cognitive ability and the implicit learning of motor sequences. Children with higher cognitive ability scores were more likely, however, to gain explicit knowledge of the sequences. Children with more attention problems showed a response time pattern consistent with impaired sequence learning, but this pattern

Acknowledgements

Deborah P. Waber is in the Department of Psychiatry, Children’s Hospital, Boston; Michael D. Weiler is in the public school system in Cranston, R.I., Peter W. Forbes is in the Clinical Research Program, Children’s Hospital, Boston; David Bellinger is in the Department of Neurology, Children’s Hospital, Boston; David J. Marcus is at the Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, and Lisa G. Sorensen is at Children’s Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois.

This work was supported by

References (25)

S. Corkin
Serial-ordering deficits in inferior readers
Neuropsychologia
(1974)
M.J. Nissen et al.
Attentional requirements of learning: Evidence from performance measures
Cognitive Psychology
(1987)
L.B. Silver
Learning disabilities
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
(1989)
K.M. Thomas et al.
Serial reaction time learning in preschool- and school-age children
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
(2001)
D.J. Bakker
Temporal order perception and reading retardation
A. Cleeremans et al.
Learning the structure of event sequences
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
(1991)
A. Cohen et al.
Attention and structure in sequence learning
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition
(1990)
T. Curran
Implicit sequence learning from a cognitive neuroscience perspective: What, how, and where
T. Curran et al.
Structural influences on implicit and explicit sequence learning
E. De Guise et al.
Callosal contribution to procedural learning in children
Developmental Neuropsychology
(2001)

W.R. Holcomb et al.

WISC types of learning disabilities: A profile analysis with cross-validation

Journal of Learning Disabilities

(1987)

Hollingshead, A. B. (1965). Two-Factor Index of Social Position. Unpublished manuscript, Yale Station, New Haven,...

Cited by (55)

Current perspectives on the cerebellum and reading development
2018, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews
Citation Excerpt :
A second widely used task, the artificial grammar learning paradigm (Reber, 1967), measures unintentional language learning by testing participants’ ability to learn the compositional structure of verbal or visual pattern sequences (i.e., grammatically legal versus illegal strings) without ever being explicitly informed about the rules of the grammar. The collective results are mixed for both tasks (for review, see Schmalz et al., 2017), with several studies reporting significant differences between individuals with or without dyslexia (e.g., Pavlidou et al., 2010; Pothos and Kirk, 2004; Stoodley et al., 2006; Vicari et al., 2005, 2003), and others reporting equivalent learning effects (e.g., Kelly et al., 2002; Laasonen et al., 2014; Nigro et al., 2016; Roodenrys and Dunn, 2008; Rüsseler et al., 2006; Waber et al., 2003). Overall, there is at least suggestive evidence that individuals with dyslexia have general difficulty with procedural learning tasks, as predicted by the cerebellar deficit hypothesis.
The dominant neural models of typical and atypical reading focus on the cerebral cortex. However, Nicolson et al. (2001) proposed a model, the cerebellar deficit hypothesis, in which the cerebellum plays an important role in reading. To evaluate the evidence in support of this model, we qualitatively review the current literature and employ meta-analytic tools examining patterns of functional connectivity between the cerebellum and the cerebral reading network. We find evidence for a phonological circuit with connectivity between the cerebellum and a dorsal fronto-parietal pathway, and a semantic circuit with cerebellar connectivity to a ventral fronto-temporal pathway. Furthermore, both cerebral pathways have functional connections with the mid-fusiform gyrus, a region implicated in orthographic processing. Consideration of these circuits within the context of the current literature suggests the cerebellum is positioned to influence both phonological and word-based decoding procedures for recognizing unfamiliar printed words. Overall, multiple lines of research provide support for the cerebellar deficit hypothesis, while also highlighting the need for further research to test mechanistic hypotheses.
A sequence learning impairment in dyslexia? It depends on the task
2017, Research in Developmental Disabilities
Citation Excerpt :
Furthermore, a recent meta-analysis suggested that, when averaging across studies, individuals with dyslexia have procedural learning deficits on SRT tasks (Lum, Ullman & Conti-Ramsden, 2013). However, a growing number of studies have also reported intact SRT learning in dyslexia (Deroost et al., 2010; Kelly, Griffiths, & Frith, 2002; Russeler et al., 2006; Waber et al., 2003). These inconsistencies may be partly a consequence of participant characteristics.
Language acquisition is argued to be dependent upon an individuals’ sensitivity to serial-order regularities in the environment (sequential learning), and impairments in reading and spelling in dyslexia have recently been attributed to a deficit in sequential learning. The present study examined the learning and consolidation of sequential knowledge in 30 adults with dyslexia and 29 typical adults matched on age and nonverbal ability using two tasks previously reported to be sensitive to a sequence learning deficit. Both groups showed evidence of sequential learning and consolidation on a serial response time (SRT) task (i.e., faster and more accurate responses to sequenced spatial locations than randomly ordered spatial locations during training that persisted one week later). Whilst typical adults showed evidence of sequential learning on a Hebb repetition task (i.e., more accurate serial recall of repetitive sequences of nonwords versus randomly ordered sequences), adults with dyslexia showed initial advantages for repetitive versus randomly ordered sequences in the first half of training trials, but this effect disappeared in the second half of trials. This Hebb repetition effect was positively correlated with spelling in the dyslexic group; however, there was no correlation between sequential learning on the two tasks, placing doubt over whether sequential learning in different modalities represents a single capacity. These data suggest that sequential learning difficulties in adults with dyslexia are not ubiquitous, and when present may be a consequence of task demands rather than sequence learning per se.
The Role of the Cerebellum in Developmental Dyslexia
2016, The Linguistic Cerebellum
Developmental dyslexia is a neurobiological developmental disorder characterized by difficulty learning to read in the context of normal intelligence and sufficient educational opportunity. In addition to difficulties with literacy acquisition, dyslexia is also associated with impaired attention, working memory, eye movements, and motor skills as well as deficits in implicit and procedural learning. The impairments in eye movements, motor skills, and implicit/procedural learning, together with the notoriously difficult-to-remediate slow and laborious reading in dyslexia, led to the proposal that cerebellar dysfunction contributes to the etiology of dyslexia. Supporting this idea, functional neuroimaging in typically developing readers suggests that the cerebellum is part of the reading network; a variety of literacy deficits have been described in cerebellar patients. Here, the evidence for cerebellar dysfunction in dyslexia is reviewed, including clinical, behavioral, and structural and functional neuroimaging data; these findings are considered in the context of the increasing appreciation of the role of the cerebellum in language, cognition and complex skill acquisition.
Procedural learning and automatization process in children with developmental coordination disorder and/or developmental dyslexia
2015, Human Movement Science
Citation Excerpt :
After 2 weeks’ training, the participants’ performances had greatly improved, whichever group they belonged to, showing that children with DCD or DD can learn and improve their performance after proper training with a procedural learning task. This confirms the results of previous studies of DD (Gabay et al., 2012a, 2012b; Kelly et al., 2002; Rüsseler et al., 2006; Waber et al., 2003) and DCD (Lejeune et al., 2013; Wilson et al., 2003). However, as we mentioned above, even if individuals’ performances on a given task improve with practice, they do not necessarily reach the automatization stage (Lang & Bastian, 2002).
There is increasing evidence to suggest that developmental dyslexia (DD) and developmental coordination disorder (DCD) actually form part of a broader disorder. Their frequent association could be justified by a deficit of the procedural memory system, that subtends many of the cognitive, motor and linguistic abilities that are impaired in both DD and DCD. However, studies of procedural learning in these two disorders have yielded divergent results, and in any case no studies have so far addressed the issue of automatization (dual-task paradigm).
We administered a finger tapping task to participants aged 8–12 years (19 DCD, 18 DD, and 22 with both DD and DCD) to explore procedural learning and automatic movements in these three groups of children, comparing motor performances at the prelearning stage, after 2 weeks of training, and in a post-training dual-task condition.
First, results indicated that all the children were able to learn a sequence of movements and even automatize their movements. Second, they revealed between-groups differences in procedural/automatization learning abilities, setting the DCD group apart from the other two. Third, contrary to our expectations concerning comorbidity, they suggested that the DD + DCD association does not have an additional impact on behavioral performances.
Impaired implicit sequence learning in children with developmental dyslexia
2013, Research in Developmental Disabilities
Citation Excerpt :
Nevertheless, the lack of significant effects early in learning is interesting in light of the inconsistent results of previous studies. Indeed, all of the three studies that have reported intact implicit sequence learning in children with DD (Deroost et al., 2010; Menghini et al., 2010; Waber et al., 2003) have focused on a relatively narrow practice interval (ranging from 24 to 104 repetitions of the sequential pattern compared with the 250 repetitions in the present study) given within a single practice session. In light of the fact that a significant group difference in the present study emerged only in day 2, after more than 200 repetitions of the sequence, it is possible that group differences may have been revealed if the studies above had included a wider practice interval.
It has been proposed that an impairment of procedural memory underlies a range of linguistic, cognitive and motor impairments observed in developmental dyslexia (DD). However, studies designed to test this hypothesis using the implicit sequence learning paradigm have yielded inconsistent results. A fundamental aspect of procedural learning is that it takes place over an extended time-period that may be divided into distinct stages based on both behavioural characteristics and neural correlates of performance. Yet, no study of implicit sequence learning in children with DD has included learning stages beyond a single practice session. The present study was designed to fill this important gap by extending the investigation to include the effects of overnight consolidation as well as those of further practice on a subsequent day. The results suggest that the most pronounced procedural learning impairment in DD may emerge only after extended practice, in learning stages beyond a single practice session.
Investigating developmental dyslexia through implicit artificial grammar learning: Insights for intervention strategies
2023, Developmental Language Disorders in Childhood and Adolescence

View all citing articles on Scopus

View full text

Motor sequence learning and reading ability: Is poor reading associated with sequencing deficits?

Abstract

Section snippets

Participants

Reading, cognitive ability, and attention

Discussion

Acknowledgements

Neuropsychologia

Cognitive Psychology

Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

Temporal order perception and reading retardation

Learning the structure of event sequences

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Attention and structure in sequence learning

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition

Implicit sequence learning from a cognitive neuroscience perspective: What, how, and where

Structural influences on implicit and explicit sequence learning

Callosal contribution to procedural learning in children

Developmental Neuropsychology

WISC types of learning disabilities: A profile analysis with cross-validation

Journal of Learning Disabilities