title: ERPs reveal atypical processing of subject versus object Wh-questions in children with specific language impairment.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Children with specific language impairment (SLI) show particular difficulty comprehending and producing object (Who did the bear follow?) relative to subject (Who followed the tiger?) wh-questions.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To determine if school-age children with SLI, relative to children with typical development (TD), show a more distinct unevenness, or asymmetry, in the comprehension of these questions. In addition, this study examined whether the sustained left-anterior negativity (LAN) in event-related potentials (ERP) could be used as a marker for atypical processing of these questions in children with SLI. The LAN effect signals the greater working memory processes for maintaining in memory the dislocated object in object wh-questions and reflects working memory capacity in adults. It was predicted that the amplitude of the LAN would be greater in children with SLI, reflecting the characteristic low working memory capacity in this population. The concomitance of these behavioural and electrophysiological effects would suggest that the subject-object asymmetry in SLI should be investigated in relation to poor working memory skills.
  
  
  METHODS
  Groups including 13 children with SLI, 17 same-age TD children and 18 normal adults completed an auditory sentence comprehension task requiring button responses while continuous electroencephalography (EEG) was collected. Accuracy for subject and object questions was calculated. The mean amplitude values of the ERP data for the wh-questions were examined to identify differential processing of subject and object questions.
  
  
  RESULTS
  TD children demonstrated asymmetrical comprehension of subject and object wh-questions, whereas children with SLI comprehended both question types poorly and adults did not show subject-object asymmetry. ERP waveforms spanning the wh-dependency revealed a large and widespread sustained anterior positivity for object relative to subject questions in the TD group, indicating differential processing of these questions. This effect was attenuated and non-significant in the SLI group. The adults' grand average waveforms showed the expected LAN effect, which was opposite in polarity relative to the children, although it only approached significance.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The finding of less differential processing of subject and object wh-questions in SLI relative to TD children suggests inefficient maintenance of sentential information in working memory for object questions in SLI. Whereas behavioural methods did not identify subject-object asymmetry in SLI, the more fine-grained method of ERPs elucidated this effect. Further analysis of working memory as the basis for the subject-object asymmetry in SLI is critical for identifying appropriate intervention targets for this population.
authors.affiliation: Brooklyn College of The City University of New York, Brooklyn, NY 11210, USA. Epstein@brooklyn.cuny.edu
authors.forename: Baila
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Epstein
authors.forename: Arild
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Hestvik
authors.forename: Valerie L
authors.initials: VL
authors.lastname: Shafer
authors.forename: Richard G
authors.initials: RG
authors.lastname: Schwartz
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D002648:Child; D002675:Child, Preschool; D032882:Comprehension / Q000502:physiology; D004569:Electroencephalography; D005072:Evoked Potentials, Auditory / Q000502:physiology*; D005260:Female; D007839:Functional Laterality / Q000502:physiology; D006801:Humans; D007223:Infant; D007805:Language Development Disorders / Q000503:physiopathology*; D008037:Linguistics; D008297:Male; D008570:Memory, Short-Term / Q000502:physiology*
keywords: event-related potentials (ERP); specific language impairment (SLI); wh-questions; working memory
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 1997 May;9(3):318-29
references.pmid: 23965010
references.citation: Neuropsychologia. 2006;44(11):2149-57
references.pmid: 16303150
references.citation: J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2004 Dec;47(6):1440-53
references.pmid: 15842021
references.citation: J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2009 Apr;52(2):269-88
references.pmid: 18723601
references.citation: J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2000 Apr;43(2):293-308
references.pmid: 10757685
references.citation: J Speech Hear Res. 1993 Dec;36(6):1193-207
references.pmid: 8114487
references.citation: Hum Brain Mapp. 2005 Feb;24(2):79-91
references.pmid: 15455462
references.citation: J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2004 Aug;47(4):802-15
references.pmid: 15324287
references.citation: J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2007 Apr;50(2):408-28
references.pmid: 17463238
references.citation: J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2003 Oct;46(5):1138-53
references.pmid: 14575348
references.citation: Clin Neurophysiol. 2001 Mar;112(3):536-44
references.pmid: 11222977
references.citation: Neuroreport. 2000 Nov 27;11(17):3715-8
references.pmid: 11117478
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 1995 Summer;7(3):376-95
references.pmid: 23961867
references.citation: Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1978 Oct;45(4):468-82
references.pmid: 81749
references.citation: J Neurosci Methods. 2004 Mar 15;134(1):9-21
references.pmid: 15102499
references.citation: J Speech Hear Res. 1994 Aug;37(4):816-23
references.pmid: 7967568
references.citation: Psychophysiology. 1985 Jan;22(1):11-23
references.pmid: 3975315
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 1993 Spring;5(2):196-214
references.pmid: 23972154
references.citation: Neural Comput. 1995 Nov;7(6):1129-59
references.pmid: 7584893
references.citation: Cognition. 1998 Aug;68(1):1-76
references.pmid: 9775516
references.citation: J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1998 Aug;41(4):913-26
references.pmid: 9712137
references.citation: Brain Lang. 2003 Dec;87(3):345-54
references.pmid: 14642537
references.citation: Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2001 Mar;10(1):58-66
references.pmid: 11315537
references.citation: Science. 1977 Aug 5;197(4303):589-92
references.pmid: 877575
references.citation: J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1999 Oct;42(5):1249-60
references.pmid: 10515519
references.citation: Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2007 Sep-Oct;42(5):557-82
references.pmid: 17729146
references.citation: J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1992 Jan;33(1):3-66
references.pmid: 1737831
references.citation: Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2004 Jun;1021:296-309
references.pmid: 15251900
references.citation: J Speech Hear Res. 1995 Feb;38(1):187-99
references.pmid: 7731209
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2005 Mar;9(3):104-10
references.pmid: 15737818
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1992 Jan;99(1):122-49
references.pmid: 1546114
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol A. 2004 Jan;57(1):129-63
references.pmid: 14681007