Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/110

Click to flip

110 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Criteria
rare genetic
microdeletion
supravalvuraorticstenosis
hypercalcaemia
Hyper acusisFacial features
Eating probs
Sleeping
developmental
Udwin & Yule 91
Outgoing personality
Empathic to distress
Karmiloff Smith 95
Good TOM
Good at
Language
Social
Face processing
Cognitive profile
low IQ
VIQ> PIQ
good vocab
Block design
Reilly 90
MLU>MA
WS)DS grammar
WS> DS empathy
Bellugi 88
Van, Crystal & Ben
lang procc
face procc
Other cog abilities
low spatial
low drawing (elephant!)
Block design (Mervis 99)
spatial memory
Jarold 2001
Language better than other abilities
Lang better than CA
Lang good but different
Neville 94
ERP
Coffee,sugar , radiator
WS- diff brain activity therefore diff lang process
Singer Harris 97
lang devel delayed?
Lang produ better than comprehen
pre-verbal problems:
-Joint attention
-social ref
-pointing
laing 2002
low instrumental and declarative
low pointing comprehension
Laing 2002
WS same as TD in ability to social ref
soc ref follows lang dev in TD but not in WS
Word learning
TD good at exhaustive sorting and fast mapping (use odd word to map to only object don't know) before vocab spurt
WS opposite
WS vocab b4 point
more depend on phenological mem
Karmiloff smith 97
Vocab MA> Syntax
CA> vocab> syntax
Pinker 99
language acquisition
memory abnormality for irregular words
Patterson 2001
Innate modules
WS vs DS toddlers
WS spatial lang > Number
Spatial & DS number > lang
Preferential looking
look at car -WS & DS bad
lang poor infancy gets better in development
double dissociation?
cannot count on phenotype outcome of intact modules
Wang & Bellugi 94
Pheno memory
WS> DS
WS and lang = pheno memory
pheno growth doesn't = semantic markers
Increase in pheno encoding
Deurelle 99
Face processing: intact module?
Normal performance on standardised tasks
feature processing
Modularity?
lang not spared to TD level
Lang not dissociated ( nonverbal low as well as verbal)
syntax not ok
Tessabehjui
Genetic Claims been challenged
Tessabehjui 99
Genetic Claims been challenged
Karmil 98
Uneven cog profile
Bellugi & Wang 94
Lang and face processing spared
Karmiloff smith 98
Ignores dynamics of development
Karmiloff Smith 2003
Cognitive modules are an outcome not a starting point
Karmiloff smith, thomas 2003
Genetic work ignores process of ontogenic development
Cappelletti 2001
Trauma= behavioral deficit
Coltheart 2002
Cognitive modules
agrammatisim
double diss
syntaz fluent
focal damage rest of system ok
Cognitive scores in normal range
Karmiloff Smith, Halit 2001
ok on behavioral but not cog task
Pinker 99
Brains atypical from outset, some cog modules "damaged"
Karmiloff Smith & Thomas 2003
Can't be pre-existing to be intact then
Behavior scores in normal range
Karmiloff Smith Thomas 2003
Genetic widespread across system
Tiny imparement in infancy develops over time
Karmiloff Smith & Thomas 2003
Plasticity
hemispherectomies
plasticity rule not exception
central to development
brain sculptured
Johnson & Morton 91
Species-typical environment
Johnson & Morton 91
Child normal brains grows up in atypical environment
embryo/ drugs

"neurocomputational constraints" vs environment or constrained environment vs neurobiology
Johnson & Morton 91
Child normal brains grows up in atypical environment
embryo/ drugs

"neurocomputational constraints" vs environment or constrained environment vs neurobiology

therefore look at constraints
Karmiloff Smit, Scerif & Thomas 2002
Genetic mutations
no specific domain
why doesn't plasticity compensate for genetic?
Grice 2001
Physicality, behaviour, abnormalities
Chemical, structural, chemical and functional
Morris, thomas & greenburg
MZ twins
and parent to child transmittions
Ewart 93
Genetic markers
- hemozygous elastin w partents w ws
Perez-Juralo 96
Micro deletion w elastin gene
Peoples Franke 2000
Large repeats lending themselves to misalignment
Frangiskakis 96
Lim Kinase 1 gene expressed
deleted in all patients
Proschel 95
Mouse models
LIMK1 expressed in CNS in embryos
Broder 99
High blood pressure
Jones 2000
Hypersociability
Gosch & Pankau 97
Lacking social judgement skills
Tager Flusberg
High anxiety about new situations
Mervis 99
Full IQ 51-70
Karmiloff Smith & Thomas 2003
"experiment of nature"
Tagerflusberg & Karmiloff smith in press a review
Studies in germany, italy, france and spain
Good verbal?
25yr WS may have verbal MA of 8 but mastered syntax... not so great!
Howlin 98
Probs w comprehend non literal lang
Temple 2002
WS= low freq words used
Clansen & Almazan 2001
probs w irregular words
Mervis 99
Lang more advanced than downs
Temple and clasen press
Normal modular system w selective deficits
Temple 2002
WS has low freq items in language
Ansari & Karmiloff Smith 2002
Small samples used
Replicated; failed to get result- irregualr word learning
Pinker 94
Aphasia & WS : both word inflection probs
Ws has parallels with depmentia
Bates & Roe 2001
Kids w unilateral brain damage on lang development
Probs w 1st lang prod
“getting language off the ground”
Esp if left hemisphere posterior damage
If damaged before 5-7yrs plastic reorginisation happens
Karmiloff Smith & Thomas 2003
Is it a) widespread damage & normal plasticity
b) focal damage and atypical plasticity
c)* widespread damage and atypical plasticity
d)focal damage with normal plasticity
Karmiloff smith & Thomas 2003
Behavioral recovery as ontogenic recovery
Rourke & Tsatsanis 96
Dissociation btw performance and
Structural lang than pragmatics
Rourke 87
White matter hypothesis
White matter has prolongued development
Is vunerable to disruption
R hemisphere w.matter used for developing and maintaining skills
L hemisph for developing not maintaining
white matter hyp
Damage to white matter
Impared right –visuospacial pragmatics
Specific impare to left hemisp-productive
and expressive language and auditory procc.
Explains uneven profile of cog abilities.
Causal model
Genes linked to behavior
But is through many to many one to one mappings
Between pheno and geno
Pennington 2001
Genetic mutations limited in 3 ways
1.Brain size no of neurons
2.Neuronal migration
3. Neurotransmitters
Huttenlocher 2002
Timing of gene expression
Long development and neurocomputational
Constraints = environment
Karmiloff smith & Thomas 2003
Complex structure of brain =
Less complex structure x computational constraints
Graded pattern of areas which function relative to
Variation of inputs to equation
Cascade of equations comes from genes altered by mutation
Development effects at every stage
Karmiloff smith 98
Newborn is precursor to later behavior
Equations mean that simple concepts increase in
Abstractness and complexity after equation of operation
Lower level representations converted to higher level representation
Genie
Neglect Lost capacity for languageAtropy of brain MRI
Jarrold Philips Baddeley Grand and KS 2001
Developmental framework Need spatial encoding to understand relational information i.e. darker than Doesn’t explain why lang in WS is delayed
Jones 2000
WS kids compensate with language to meet a social need Acquisition restricted by difficulty in extracting sense and context.
Kellog
Donald – picked up squeeks and
Kendal 93
Deficits & Processing
Laing Butterworth 2001
WS good at dyadic interaction with caregiver MA scores sometimes exceeded as persistently fixated on face WS can’t switch attention from adult –
Majataka 2000
Poverty in 2-3 yr old WS to use gestural information
Merris 99
Phonological memory strong in childhood and adulthoodWS
Mervis & Bertrand 97
Playing with toys, non verbal play and object labels – normal prop Of basic and subordinate category
Nazzi Patterson & Karmiloff Smith 2003
Fluent speech stream delayed
Nazzi, Karmiloff Smith 2002
2yrs WS less able to use verbal cues to constrain categories
Neuroconstructivist
-Karmiloff-Smith Modules Plastic
Patterson 2000
Compared Ws w normal Low advantage for comprehension vocab vs. production vocab
Stevens and Karmiloff Smith 97
w WS used atypical constraints to label novel words
Bellugi , Wang & Jerrigan 94
Spatial cognition
Number
Problem solving
Rossen 95
We can find in the wS pop that normal face processing is at floor performance on spatial tasks; Intact and impared mental abilities; linguistic functioning preserved while prob solv and visuo spatial impared
Clahsen & Almazan 98
Can't do irregular past tense
Statistical conclusion validity impared: small sample (4p's)
Clahzen & Almazan 98
But small sample
not lang-level matched
Thomas 2001 - couldn't repeat
Thomas 2001
21WS
42 TD
Controlled VMA- no deficit irreg
WS<TD irreg wrds only
But not fair if say irreg wrse(Clahzen & Almazan) than reg : development follows this way
usedlarge comparison grp-sample
- variability in WS ability w irreg and reg: can see prob w clahzen's wrk
Laing 2001
WS - reading for concrete and abstract wrds
Controls- concrete easier to read, WS otherway round
Grant 97
Vocab test - WS 4-5yrold ability at 8yrs - relied on phonology not semantics - therefore semantics unlike TD, it plays a less constraining role on phonology with WS
Karmiloff smith 97
French words : Grammar agreement
WS good grammar rules for non-sense words difficulty with grammar across sentence elements (nouns & pronouns): good at local info (one wrd and ending) bad in sentence context
some rules ok some not able to generalize
Volterra 2001
Italian Speaking WS kids: gender a prob
Mervis 93
pointing after language
high interest in faces over toys
config processing bad
featural processing good
Deurelle 99
Featural processing Out of step w visuo-spatial cognition
- looked at inversion fx for houses, faces and shapes
-no inversion fx ; can't be floor fx as same as MA controls
- no age trend pattern
Mills 2000
18 p's
ERP study
abnormality in early wave forms -not found in controls
Grice 2000
•Decrease in right lateralization
•ERP study
•18 p's
•waveform differences for faces
•no specialisation of faces
•no inversion fx
•still atypical
•Behav and cog evidence not same
•Same cognitive processes but overlap in overall development
Patterson 2000
Modular continuity hypothesis
Bellugi 88
Vocab higher than mental age and DS> CA
Preserved grammar
VMA not appropriate
VIQ not near 100 (normal)
Patterson, Brown, Johnson & K-S 2000
Vocab > number:
sensitivity to numerical display of objects
65 kids
horse pic
MA & CA controls WS had lower deficit in sensitivity
DS impared
WS good as infants tho kids and adults no so good
But could be due to face processing: horse picture used
Patterson, Brown, Johnson, Karmiloff Smith 1999
Vocab development
71 kids WS, DS, CA and MA
Meaning matching vs non-meaning matching
WS delayed
DS delayed
WS vocab better later
Results challenge intact modules
good Digit use in infancy, bad in adult
good verbal adult poor in infancy
Patterson, Brown, Johnson, Karmiloff Smith 1999
Diff trajectories not modular
Mervis & Bertrand 97
Productive lang > than pointing
name spurt b4 fast mapping WS,
same time in TD
Naming and exhaustive mapping also not together (naming 1st ^ may use semantic info to name)
Laing (in press)
pointing and JA reduced in WS toddlers vs MA and CA controls
de Haan, Johnson 2001
3m preferred morphed face of already seen to one already seen: don't learn exemplars but prototypical representation of configuration of processed faces
Brown 2000- pilot
WS no prototype fx - de Hann's study
Karmiloff Smith 2003
WS can't generalise to global processing "sticky fixation" to parts of the face - can't disengage