Deficits in speech perception predict language learning impairment

Abstract

Specific language impairment (SLI) is one of the most common childhood disorders, affecting 7% of children. These children experience difficulties in understanding and producing spoken language despite normal intelligence, normal hearing, and normal opportunities to learn language. The causes of SLI are still hotly debated, ranging from nonlinguistic deficits in auditory perception to high-level deficits in grammar. Here, we show that children with SLI have poorer-than-normal consonant identification when measured in ecologically valid conditions of stationary or fluctuating masking noise. The deficits persisted even in comparison with a younger group of normally developing children who were matched for language skills. This finding points to a fundamental deficit. Information transmission of all phonetic features (voicing, place, and manner) was impaired, although the deficits were strongest for voicing (e.g., difference between/b/and/p/). Children with SLI experienced perfectly normal "release from masking" (better identification in fluctuating than in stationary noise), which indicates a central deficit in feature extraction rather than deficits in low-level, temporal, and spectral auditory capacities. We further showed that speech identification in noise predicted language impairment to a great extent within the group of children with SLI and across all participants. Previous research might have underestimated this important link, possibly because speech perception has typically been investigated in optimal listening conditions using non-speech material. The present study suggests that children with SLI learn language deviantly because they inefficiently extract and manipulate speech features, in particular, voicing. This result offers new directions for the fast diagnosis and remediation of SLI.

Fig. 1.

Percentage of transmitted information for phonetic features in children with SLI and in A-match and L-match controls. Data were pooled across conditions (silence, fluctuating noise, and stationary noise). Error bars indicate SEM

Fig. 2.

Masking release (A) and the reception of phonetic features (B) for children with SLI and for controls. Masking release is the difference between performance in fluctuating noise and stationary noise. Error bars indicate SEM

Fig. 3.

Scatter plots showing speech-perception-in-noise performance (% correct) under conditions of noise (stationary noise and 32-Hz AM noise) in Exps. 1 and 2

Fig. 4.

Correlation between speech intelligibility in noise and performance on a word repetition test for children with SLI and for controls