Spoken Word Recognition in School-Age Children With SLI: Semantic, Phonological, and Repetition Priming

Melinda Velez Richard G. Schwartz

The City University of New York Purpose: The purpose of this study was to contribute to the current understanding of how children with specific language impairment (SLI) organize their mental lexicons. The study examined semantic and phonological priming in children with and without SLI. Method: Thirteen children (7;011;3 [years;months]) with SLI and 13 age-matched children with typical language development participated in this study. Primetarget pairs (semantic, phonological, and repetition) were embedded within a running list of words so that the actual pairs were imperceptible. Reaction times to an animacy judgment (alive vs. not alive) were analyzed. The experiment featured 500-ms and 1,000-ms interstimulus intervals (ISIs) between primes and targets. Results: Children with SLI exhibited priming effects in the repetition condition at both ISIs; however, phonological and semantic effects were absent. Typically developing children exhibited effects in the repetition at both ISIs. Semantic and phonological effects were absent at 500 ms ISIs, but present at 1,000 ms ISIs. Conclusions: Although children with SLI have priming mechanisms similar to those of their age-matched peers, the absence of semantic and phonological priming suggests that these connections are not strong enough by themselves to yield priming effects. These findings are discussed in the context of semantic and phonological priming, representation, and generalized slowing. KEY WORDS: semantic priming, phonological priming, word recognition, children, specific language impairment

esearchers in the field of language development have long studied the unique characteristics of specific language impairment (SLI) with the intention of adequately describing the disorder, establishing subclassifications within the disorder, and differentiating the disorder from related cognitive disabilities. Children with SLI display weaknesses in one or more aspects of language production and comprehension across a continuum of linguistic and cognitive processes including phonology, semantics, syntax, and verbal working memory (Leonard, 1998). Deficits in lexical acquisition and development are among the most widely reported characteristics of the disorder. Children with SLI exhibit delays in word learning and production during early language development and deficits in automatic word retrieval and word recognition in later years (e.g., Gray, 2006; Kail, Hale, Leonard, & Nippold, 1984; Lahey & Edwards, 1996, 1999; Munson, Kurtz, & Windsor, 2005; Seiger-Gardner & Schwartz, 2008).

Semantic and Phonological Representation and Lexical Deficits in SLI

Evidence shows that typically developing children acquire new words rapidly through implicit learning in context (Carey & Bartlett, 1978). This
1616 Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

Vol. 53 16161628 December 2010 D American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

type of incidental word learning is typically referred to as fast mapping. In the fast-mapping model, children process a unique phonological string and use a variety of context cues to quickly establish a referent and form a mental representation of the word. They associate the novel word with familiar words stored in long-term semantic memory and map a semantic representation of the word onto the unique phonological representation. Words are organized in memory according to their phonological and semantic similarity, thus allowing for easier access and retrieval. With repeated exposure, children eventually refine and enhance their representations, allowing the child to form additional associations within the lexical network and thereby increasing their ability to retrieve and comprehend words stored in the mental lexicon (Gray, 2005, 2006). Multiple factors contribute to efficient word learning, including frequency of exposure, vocabulary size, the strength of associations between words within the lexical network, and the ability to access these networks (Gershkoff-Stowe, 2001, 2002; Houston-Price, Plunkett, & Harris, 2005). Gershkoff-Stowe and Hahn (2007) recently found evidence of fast mapping in children as young as 1618 months old. After a 12-week training period, children who increased their comprehension of a set of frequently practiced novel words were able to quickly learn a second set of words practiced less frequently. The authors attributed this rapid multiple-word learning to increased activation of the mental lexicon and associative networks. Children with SLI may have weak fast-mapping abilities that result in poorly developed semantic representations and weaker connections within the mental lexicon. In a series of studies, Rice and colleagues (Rice, Buhr, & Nemeth, 1990; Rice, Buhr, & Oetting, 1992; Rice, Oetting, Marquis, & Bode, 1994) found that children with SLI often fail to retain and comprehend novel nouns, verbs, and attributes even after repeated exposure. They have significant difficulty encoding the semantic features of unfamiliar words in structured and incidental learning paradigms (Alte & Plante, 2006; Alt, Plante, & Creusere, 2004). Leonard and Deevy (2004) suggested that children with SLI, in effect, filter too much semantic information during word learning and thus construct mental representations that lack distinctive features. In fact, evidence shows that children who exhibit naming and recognition errors also produce poorer drawings (visual representations) and inadequate definitions (verbal descriptions) for words (Marinellie & Johnson, 2002; McGregor, Newman, Reilly, & Capone, 2002; McGregor & Appel, 2002). If one or more semantic featuresincluding category membership, physical attributes, and /or functionsare missing from a mental representation, then a word is more difficult to access within the network because there are fewer semantic associations to activate. This is reflected in poorer naming and recognition.

Processing failure at the phonological level is another compelling explanation for why children with SLI display limited word-learning ability during early childhood and deficits in word-finding and recognition in later years. Delays in word learning and subsequent deficits in word comprehension, rapid automatic naming, and word identification may arise from limitations in phonological perception, analysis and representation (Alt & Plante, 2006; Chiat, 2001; Nash & Donaldson, 2005). Difficulty with nonword repetition has been attributed to reduced phonological access and working memory (Botting & Conti-Ramsden, 2001; Gathercole & Baddeley, 1990, 1993). Edwards and Lahey (1998) argued that this reduced accuracy was evidence of incomplete phonological representation in the mental lexicon. The limitations in phonological representation observed in children with SLI may result from atypical phonological behaviors that impede word learning (Schwartz, 1988). For example, children with SLI may avoid learning new words that do not share the phonological characteristics of words they have already acquired, a behavior typical of younger children during early language acquisition (Leonard et al., 1982). As children mature, it appears that there is a restructuring of the lexicon, in which children progress from a holistic approach to a phonological processing approach to an incremental, segmental approach that permits faster access to words based on initial phonemes (Garlock, Walley, & Metsala, 2001; Metsala & Walley, 1998). Younger children fully comprehend words after all of the phonological information is available. Therefore, word recognition is facilitated by the final phonological overlap of rhyming words, as in hatcat. As they get older, children process words incrementally based on phonological segments. Word recognition is facilitated by words that share the initial phoneme, as in cancat. Seiger-Gardner and Brooks (2008) found that although this restructuring apparently does occur in children with SLI, their ability to access words was much slower than that of their typically developing peers, and they produced significantly more errors in production. To summarize, children with SLI have limitations in novel word acquisition reflected in their lack of sensitivity to phonological and semantic features. They often fail to detect and use phonological and semantic cues; they may form incomplete phonological and semantic representations; and they form fewer associations between words within the mental lexicon. Thus, they demonstrate weaknesses in word learning, word retrieval, and word recognition.

Generalized Slowing in SLI

Given the temporal constraints and the concurrent processing involved in word recognition, it is also

Velez & Schwartz: Spoken Word Recognition in SLI

1617

important to consider possible limitations in general processing as well as linguistic representation. Miller, Kail, Leonard, and Tomblin (2001) found that 9-yearold children with SLI were significantly slower than their age-matched peers in tasks that were not mediated by language. These children exhibited demonstrably slower nonverbal cognitive performance in visual matching, visual searching, and mental figure rotation tasks. Even motor performance was significantly slower. They demonstrated slower rapid alternated movement (e.g., figure tapping) and simple reaction time (e.g., tapping a key in response to a nonverbal stimulus). These findings were replicated in subsequent studies with older school-age children, suggesting that slow reaction time persists through adolescence (Leonard et al., 2007). Most notably, processing speed correlated with performance on a standardized language battery. Indeed, slower reaction time on a wide variety of language tasks is well-documented in children with SLI, especially those with comprehension deficits (Edwards & Lahey, 1996; Lahey & Edwards, 1996; Stark & Montgomery, 1995). This may have significant implications for studies of auditory word recognition. The auditory recognition and comprehension of words is a temporally constrained process that requires the immediate integration of various levels of linguistic representation (acousticphonetic, phonological, and semantic) as well as retrieval of lexical units from long-term semantic memory. Slowed activation could limit a childs ability to access and integrate semantic and phonological cues that would facilitate recognition.

word recognition include the revised cohort theory (Gaskill & Marslen-Wilson, 1997) and the neighborhood activation model (Luce, Pisoni, & Goldinger, 1990). Proponents of the neighborhood activation model view phonologically related words in the lexicon as competitors that inhibit rather than facilitate priming (Luce et al., 1990). According to the model, the more phonemes that words share, the more phonological neighbors that will be activated, thus reducing the probability of selecting the target word. In contrast, proponents of the revised cohort theory (Gaskill & Marslen-Wilson, 1997; Marslen-Wilson, 1987) predict facilitation based on activation strength, word frequency, and availability of cues, thus suggesting that in spoken word recognition, the inhibition caused by competitors occurs only at the beginning of the word recognition process. Although these models differ in specific mechanisms, they both share a basic construct. They posit that lexical production and word recognition involve simultaneous activation of lexical cohorts with a rapid deactivation of candidates as new information is integrated. For example, the word cat may initially activate all words within the network that share similar phonological structure such as can or bat, categorical relationships such as kitten or dog, and familiar associations such as mouse. The activation of cohorts that are inconsistent with the input is attenuated, whereas the activation of cohorts that match incoming data is strengthened. Once all available information about the word is processed, only the target word remains active, and the cohorts are deactivated. In an effort to examine the complex interaction between phonological and semantic cues, researchers have employed systematic online methods that provide a temporal window into spreading activation. Priming is one method that has been used widely by researchers in adult language processing and aphasia (Balota & Lorch, 1986; Plaut & Booth, 2000; Prather, Zurif, Love & Brownell, 1997; Prather, Zurif, Stern, & Rosen, 1992). In a typical priming task, a cue word precedes a related target word in a sequential paired presentation (PRIME YTARGET). The stimuli may be pictures, written words, or spoken words. The process is as follows: The subject is presented with a prime word followed by a target word. The subject is asked to names the target or makes a decision about it, and the reaction time is measured. Reaction times tend to be faster for related words than for unrelated words, presumably because the words are linked in long-term memory and these associations are automatically activated during processing (Neely, 1977). Therefore, researchers believe that the priming phenomenon is a manifestation of spreading activation; a prime word activates its cohorts in the lexicon. This activation facilitates access to the target word and speeds reaction time in naming and reading tasks.

Spreading Activation and Priming

Most of what we know regarding auditory word recognition in children with SLI has been inferred from picture naming, word identification, nonword repetition, lexical decision, and definition tasks (Lahey & Edwards, 1996, 1999; Marinellie & Johnson, 2002; McGregor et al., 2002; Sahln, Reuterskild-Wagner, Nettelbladt, & Radeborg, 1999). These offline studies have provided invaluable insight into the nature of lexical impairments associated with SLI. Collectively, these methods are useful for detecting gross processing differences between groups, but they have limited ability to differentiate discrete linguistic functions because information is processed over a relatively brief time continuum. Is the failure to name or identify a word the result of (a) primary deficits in phonological processing, (b) specific weaknesses in semantic organization, or (c) both linguistic processes? The organization of and access to the mental lexicon are commonly viewed within the framework of spreading activation models (see Dell, 1986). Activation models of

1618

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol. 53 16161628 December 2010

Priming effects are generally observed when the length of time between the prime and the target is relatively brief, about 1002000 ms (Neely, 1991). Facilitation effectsfaster reaction times to a lexical decisionin word recognition have been documented for primetarget pairs that are semantically related, as in catdog, and primetarget pairs that are phonologically related rhyming words, as in logdog (Joordens & Becker, 1997; Radeau, Morais, & Segui, 1995). Variations of the priming paradigm have been employed successfully by adult language researchers (Balota, Black, & Cheney, 1992; Cronk, 2001; Hutchinson, Neely, & Johnson, 2001; Spinelli, Segui, & Radeau, 2001). However, relatively fewer studies have used priming to examine auditory word recognition and lexical access in children.

at spoken word recognition in children with SLI using the priming technique.

Purpose
In this study, we examined semantic and phonological activation in children with and without SLI during spoken word recognition. Specifically, we sought to address three questions. First, do children with SLI demonstrate a pattern of activation during spoken word recognition that is simlar to that demonstrated by children with typical language development (TLD)? Second, how do general processing limitations (e.g., slowing) affect spreading activation in children with SLI? Finally, do children with SLI demonstrate greater difficulty activating phonological cues than semantic cues, or vice versa? We made the following four predictions: 1. Children with SLI would exhibit slower reaction times to a judgment task (alive vs. not alive) relative to children with TLD across all conditions, consistent with the generalized slowing hypothesis. Children with TLD would demonstrate phonological or semantic priming effects for word pairs with short and long interstimulus intervals (ISIs). We expected to see facilitation of reaction times when targets were phonologically similar to the prime words (rhymes) and when targets were closely related, semantically, to the prime words (categorically and associatively). Children with SLI would demonstrate differences in the pattern of activation from their peers. An absence of effects could indicate weak representations or impaired access to representations as a result of poor lexical organization of semantic and phonological information in the mental lexicon. Children with SLI would also show differences in activation between short and long ISIs as a result of slowed processing.

Priming in Children With and Without SLI

Production studies using variations of the priming technique provide insight into the organization of the lexical network and the mechanisms involved in accessing those networks. In word retrieval, lexical access presumably begins with a semantic representation of the word and proceeds toward phonological selection. McGregor and Windsor (1996) found that preschool children with SLI did not improve naming accuracy when pictures were presented after a sentence containing a semantically and/or phonologically related prime word in the final position. Seiger-Gardner and Schwartz (2008) used a picture/spoken word interference (PWI) task to measure naming reaction times to primetarget pairs. In the crossmodal PWI task, spoken words (interference words) were presented with pictures (targets) at various time points (before, at the same time as, and after the picture appears). Children were instructed to name the pictures and ignore the words. These cross-modal paradigms would predict inhibition effects (slower naming) for semantically related words presented earlier but facilitation for phonologically related words presented later. Children with SLI exhibited longer lasting inhibition effects (greater interference) for semantically related items and earlier phonological facilitation effects than did their same-age peers. These studies suggest that priming may be a useful technique for differentiating between phonological and semantic deficits in children with SLI. A few studies suggested that priming effects can be observed in spoken word recognition as well. Radeau (1983) found that school-age children were faster at a lexical decision task when the target word was preceded by a semantically related word, thus suggesting that children as young as 6 years of age organize the lexicon in a similar way to adults, although reaction times were still significantly slower for children than for adults. To date, we have found no systematic studies looking specifically

2.

3.

4.

Method
Participants
Twenty six children13 with SLI (7;011;3 [years; months]) and 13 with TLD (7;411;10)were recruited from New York City and the greater New York area. Fliers were posted in local community centers, private schools, and the Childrens Evaluation and Rehabilitation Center at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx. All participants were administered the Clinical Evaluation of Language FundamentalsIII and IV (CELFIII; CELFIV; Semel, Wiig, & Secord, 2003), the Test of NonVerbal Intelligence2 (TONI2; Brown, Sherbenou,

Velez & Schwartz: Spoken Word Recognition in SLI

1619

& Johnson, 1990), and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary TestIII (PPVTIII; Dunn & Dunn, 1997). Children with a history of frank neurological impairment or symptoms of related disorders (e.g. autism, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder [ADHD]) were excluded. All participants scored within 1 SD of the mean on the TONI2. Children with a scaled score greater than 1.3 SDs below the mean on at least two of three subtests of the Expressive and/or Receptive battery of the CELFIII / IV or at least one composite score of <85 on either the CELFIII Receptive Composite or the PPVTIII were identified as SLI. To be identified as TLD, children had to score within 1 SD on all language measures. The SLI group and the TLD group were matched for chronological age. Participant characteristics and standardized test scores are reported in Table 1. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted with Group (SLI, TLD) as the fixed factor. Significant differences were observed between groups across all standardized language tests, including the PPVTIII, F(1, 24) = 30.648, p < .001, h = .561; the CELFReceptive Composite, F(1, 24) = 37.422, p < .001, h = .609; the CELFExpressive Composite, F(1, 24) = 57.646, p < .001, h = .706; and the CELFTotal Composite, F(1, 24) = 86.394, p < .001, h = .783. In addition, the results of the Word Classes subtest of the CELFIII (a measure of semantic organization) are reported, and an analysis of variance (ANOVA) also revealed significant differences between groups, F(1, 24) = 34.663, p < .001, h = .591.

with a familiarity rating of 3 or more on a 5-point rating scale (5 indicating the highest familiarity) were used as targets. Twenty semantically related prime words were selected on the basis of their associative strength using the University of South Florida Word Association, Rhyme, and Word Fragment Norms database (see Nelson, McEvoy, & Schreiber, 2004). This database calculates a cue-to-target probability rating based on the number of participants in the sample divided by the number of participants producing the target in a free-association task. We selected primes that were related categorically to the target and had a relatively high associative value based on the sample. Twenty rhyming words (final phonological overlap) were used as phonological primes. Radeau and colleagues (1995) found that inhibition effects in priming were more likely to be observed when primes and targets had an initial phonological overlap, as in cat and can. However, facilitation occurred at 20-ms and 500-ms ISIs when words overlapped in final position (as in rhymes). The 20 targets were the same in all conditions. Thus, a total of 60 prime target pairs were used. Additionally, 170 unrelated words were selected as foils (see Appendix A). Given the rapid presentation of stimuli inherent in the list-priming paradigm and the slower processing speed of children with SLI, we used short (500-ms) and long (1,000-ms) ISIs. Half of the primetarget pairs were presented with a 500-ms ISI, and the other half were presented with a 1,000-ms ISI. Thus, in each ISI condition, there were 10 targets presented in each of four priming conditionsphonological, semantic, repetition, and neutral. Phonologically related pairs were rhymes that were not semantically related. Semantically related pairs consisted of words that were categorically related and strongly associated to ensure a facilitation effect. In the repetition condition, the target word was repeated. The neutral condition featured unprimed targets. We chose to use different primetarget pairs in each ISI to avoid compounding repetition effects. We randomly assigned the items to each ISI grouping and then analyzed them to ensure that items did not differ significantly. Table 2 shows the average spoken word duration of targets and primes, the average familiarity ratings of targets, and the average cue-to-target strength for semantic primes across ISIs. A MANOVA was conducted with ISI (500, 1000) as the fixed factor. There were no significant differences between the two sets of targets on familiarity ratings, F(1, 18) = 0.347, p > .05, h = .019; prime-to-target strength, F(1, 18) = 0.360, p > .05, h = .020; or spoken word duration, F(1, 18) = 0.111, p > .05, h = .006. The primes, targets, and 170 additional foil words were spoken by a female speaker and recorded in a soundproof booth using a TASCAM 400 DAT recorder. The words were digitized (mono, 16-bit) and were normalized using

Materials
Twenty target words were selected from the Snodgrass and Vanderwart (1980) picture identification norms based on their familiarity ratings. Only words
Table 1. Results of standardized testing for SLI and TLD groups.
SLI M (SD) 98 (11.25) 84 (9.83) 72 (12.69) 73 (13.43) 79 (14.9) 7 (2.79) TLD M (SD) 110 (11.67) 109 (12.41) 108 (5.82) 108 (9.66) 107 (8.04) 12 (1.36)

Test/subtest TONI2 PPVTIII CELFIII Total Composite Expressive Composite Receptive Composite Word Classes

Note. SLI = specific language impairment; TLD = typical language development; TONI2 = Test of Non-Verbal Intelligence2; PPVTIII = Peabody Picture Vocabulary TestIII; CELFIII = Clinical Evaluation of Language FundamentalsIII.

1620

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol. 53 16161628 December 2010

Table 2. Spoken word duration, familiarity, and semantic cue-totarget strength.

500-ms ISI M (SD) 1,000-ms ISI M (SD)

Variable Spoken word duration (ms) Target/repetition Semantic prime Phonological prime Target familiarity (Snodgrass & Vanderwart, 1980) Semantic cue-to-target strength (Nelson, McEvoy, & Schreiber, 2004) Note. ISI = interstimulus interval.

627 (75) 687 (81) 595 (121) 4.3 (0.8) 0.455 (0.204)

641 (105) 648 (65) 619 (78) 4.1 (0.5) 0.394 (0.227)

Sound Forge 4.5. The experimental session was designed and controlled with E-Prime software (Schneider, Eschman, & Zuccolotto, 2002).

familiarize the participants with the procedure and the feedback. We used the baseline list to obtain reaction times for target words in the neutral condition (no prime). This list consisted of 37 foils and 10 embedded targets. The experimental list was divided into three blocks of 75 words (see the sample block in Appendix B). Embedded within each block were 10 primetarget pairs. We kept the proportion of primetarget pairs to filler words intentionally low to prevent participants from developing predictive strategies about the relationships between words. The ISI was a silent interval inserted after each word in the list. To prevent additional repetition effects, we ensured that no target appeared more than twice in an experimental session. The order of the sessions was alternated so that half the subjects participated in Session II the first week and Session I the following week. Only the investigators were aware of the block structure of the presentation, the embedded pairs, and the differing ISIs. The participants simply heard a running list of words that had no discernable order or relationship.

Procedure
We employed a list-priming procedure in which primetarget pairs are embedded within a running list of words so that the actual pairs are imperceptible to the participants (Prather et al., 1992). Children wore headphones and were seated in front of a computer monitor with a response box. The response box had two keys marked YES and NO. The children were told that they would hear a list of words read aloud by a woman. They were instructed to press the YES key if words were animals and the NO key if words were not animals. Participants were told to make this judgment as quickly as possible. A feedback display screen displayed the words CORRECT in blue, INCORRECT in red, or NO RESPONSE in green. The NO RESPONSE feedback was displayed when children failed to respond before the program moved to the next word. The experiment was divided into two testing sessions. Table 3 shows the order of presentation in each session. Each session consisted of a practice list, a baseline list, and the experimental list. In the practice, children heard a list of 35 unrelated foils. The purpose of the practice was to

Results
Rates at 500-ms ISIs and 1,000-ms ISIs
Accuracy scores excluding outliers are reported in Table 4. Incorrect responses to the animacy judgment task, false starts (reaction times faster than 100 ms), and responses recorded as NO RESPONSE were automatically discarded from the data. In addition, responses that were greater than 2 SDs above or below each individual subjects mean in each condition were considered outliers and were also discarded. In the TLD group, outliers accounted for 17% of the total discarded data at 500-ms ISIs and 14% at 1,000-ms ISIs. Most of the errors in the TLD group were false starts and incorrect responses. In the SLI group, outliers accounted for 30% of the total discarded trials at 500-ms ISIs and 65% at 1,000-ms ISIs. The SLI group had more correct responses and fewer false starts; thus, outliers accounted for most of the discarded data for this group. For the TLD group, the accuracy rates at 500 ms ISIs were 70% in the neutral condition, 81% in the phonological condition, 78% in the repetition condition, and 85% in the semantic condition. Two children in the TLD

Table 3. Testing procedure with blocked presentation sequence.

Session no. 1 Practice 37 foils Baseline 1,000 ms 10 targets 500 ms 10 targets Block 1 500 ms 10 prime target pairs 75 foils 1,000 ms 10 prime target pairs Block 2 1,000 ms 10 prime target pairs 75 foils 500 ms 10 prime target pairs Block 3 500 ms 10 primetarget pairs 75 foils 1,000 ms 10 primetarget pairs

37 foils

Velez & Schwartz: Spoken Word Recognition in SLI

1621

Table 4. Accuracy scores by group and condition at 500-ms and 1,000-ms ISIs.
500-ms ISI Total # correct responses Condition
a

1,000-ms ISI % Correct Total # correct responses TLD 104 105 108 104 SLI 117 110 122 115 % Correct TLD 80 81 83 80 SLI 90 81 94 88

TLD 91 105 101 110

SLI 106 105 99 113

TLD 70 81 78 85

SLI 82 81 76 87

Neutral Phonological Repetition Semantic

a

10 trials; n = 13; 130 total cases per condition.

group had very low accuracy in the neutral condition (<50%). When these participants accuracy scores were excluded, the accuracy rate was 78% in the neutral condition. At 1,000-ms ISIs, the accuracy rates were 80% in the neutral condition, 81% in the phonological condition, 83% in the repetition condition, and 80% in the semantic condition. For the SLI group, the accuracy rates at 500-ms ISIs were 82% in the neutral condition, 81% in the phonological condition, 77% in the repetition condition, and 87% in the semantic condition. At 1,000-ms ISIs, the accuracy rates were 90% in the neutral condition, 85% in the phonological condition, 94% in the repetition condition, and 88% in the semantic condition. A multilevel general linear model ANOVA with targets as the random variable revealed no significant effect of Group, F1(1, 24) = 3.459, p > .05, h = .126, F2(1, 18) = 1.281, p > .05, h = .066, or Prime Type, F1(3, 72) = 2.056, p > .05, h = .079, F2(3, 54) = 0.764, p > .05, h = .014, and there was no significant Group Prime Type interaction, F1(3, 72) = 1.868, p > .05, h = .072, F2(3, 54) = 0.969, p > .05, h = .051. There was a significant effect of ISI, F1(1, 24) = 13.515, p < .05, h = .36; F2(1, 18) = 1.691, p > .05, h = .085, but there were no significant ISI Group interaction, F1(1, 24) = 3.257, p > .05, h = .456; F2(1, 18) = 0.257, p > .05, h = .014. It appears that both groups were slightly more accurate at 1,000-ms ISIs, particularly the SLI group. The lack of group effects and interactions as well as the lack of item effects suggest that within-group differences observed in RT could not be attributed to differences in accuracy across groups and conditions.

analyses were conducted using targets as the random variable (F2). Only correct responses to the binary judgment task were used for statistical analyses. Mean reaction times and SDs for target words at ISIs of 500 and 1,000 ms are reported in Table 5. There was a significant main effect of Group, F1(1, 24) = 23.863, p < .05, h = .499, F2(1, 18) = 65.964, p < .05, h = .785, and a significant effect of Prime Type, F1(3, 72) = 23.828, p < .05, h = .499, F2(3, 54) = 15.537, p < .05, h = .463. Robust effect sizes were observed for both Group and Prime Type effects. However, there was no significant effect of ISI, F1(1, 24) = 0.433, p > .05, h = .018; F2(1, 18) = 2.337, p > .05, h = .115. There were also no significant interactions between Group and Prime Type, F1(3, 72) = 1.911, p > .05, h = .074, and F2(3, 54) = 2.743, p > .05, h = .132;

Table 5. Mean reaction times (RTs) by group and condition at 500-ms and 1,000-ms ISIs.
Condition Group 500-ms ISI Neutral Phonological Repetition Semantic TLD SLI TLD SLI TLD SLI TLD SLI 1,000-ms ISI TLD SLI TLD SLI TLD SLI TLD SLI 771 1,029 697 968 658 822 684 903 810 1,011 679 955 668 879 705 945 165 216 237 139 145 79 181 138 144 201 165 181 115 138 143 169 Mean RT (ms) SD

Neutral

Reaction Times Across Priming Conditions at 500- and 1,000-ms ISIs

Statistical analyses were conducted using a 2 (Group) 2 (ISI) 4 (Prime Type) general linear model ANOVA with repeated measures. Planned comparisons were conducted using two-tailed t tests of significance. Item

Phonological Repetition Semantic

1622

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol. 53 16161628 December 2010

ISI and Group, F1(1, 24) = 0.007, p > .05, h = .0002, and F2(1, 18) = 0.743, p > .05, h = .039; or ISI and Prime Type, F1(3, 72) = 0.429, p > .05, h = .017, and F2(3, 54) = 0.177, p > .05, h = .009. Repetition resulted in the fastest reaction times for both groups. From the outset, we had planned to conduct comparisons within each group to determine whether priming had occurred for repetition, phonological rhymes, and semantically related targets by comparing the reaction times for these conditions to the reaction times for targets that were preceded by unrelated words (neutral). Planned comparisons revealed significant differences in reaction times within groups for some of these categories. At 500-ms ISIs, the TLD group exhibited significantly faster reaction times in the repetition condition, t1(1, 12) = 2.66, p < .05, h = .370, and t2(1, 9) = 2.562, p < 0.05, h = 0.422 relative to the neutral condition. However, reaction times were not significantly different for the semantic condition compared to the neutral condition, t1(1, 12) = 2.161, p > .05, h = .280, and t2(1, 9) = 1.742, p > .05, h = .252, or for the phonological condition, t1(1, 12) = 1.311, p > .05, h = .125, and t2(1, 9) = 12.237, p > .05, h = .357, relative to the neutral condition. As with their typically developing peers, children with SLI exhibited significant differences between the repetition and neutral condition, t1(1, 12) = 3.811, p < .05, h = .548, and t2(1, 9) = 4.767, p < .05, h = .716, but no differences in reaction time were observed between the semantic and neutral condition, t1(1, 12) = 1.596, p > .05, h = .175, and t2(1, 9) = 2.019, p > .05, h = .312, or between the phonological and neutral condition, t1(1, 12) = 0.748, p > .05, h = .045, and t2(1, 9) = 0.223, p > .05, h = .006. At 1,000-ms ISIs, the TLD group exhibited significantly faster reaction times for the repetition condition, t1(1, 12) = 4.341, p < .05, h = .611, and t2(1, 9) = 4.64, p < .05, h = .705; the phonological condition, t1(1, 12) = 2.707, p < .05, h = .379, and t2(1, 9) = 2.265, p < .05, h = .363; and the semantic condition, t1(1, 12) = 3.61, p < .05, h = .520, and t2(1, 9) = 3.59, p < .05, h = .589, when each was compared with the neutral condition. In contrast, the SLI group exhibited facilitation only in the repetition condition, t1(1, 12) = 2.674, p > .05, h = .373, and t2(1, 9) = 3.89, p < .05, h = .627, when compared with the neutral condition. Again, no differences in reaction time were observed between the semantic and neutral condition, t1(1, 12) = 1.558, p > .05, h = .168, and t2(1, 9) = 1.767, p > .05, h = .258, or between the phonological and neutral condition, t1(1, 12) = 1.027, p > .05, h = .081, and t2(1, 9) = 1.015, p > .05, h = .103.

their mental lexicon. Previous studies have documented weaknesses in phonological and semantic representation as well as reduced general processing speed. These weaknesses have been linked to delays in lexical acquisition during early development as well as later developing weaknesses in word retrieval and word recognition. If we assume a spreading activation model in which children activate multiple cohorts, integrate phonological and semantic cues, reject incompatible associates, and select target words, then poorly formed representations and slowed processing could impede access to the lexicon. We sought to examine semantic and phonological aspects of auditory word recognition in children with SLI using a list-priming procedure. Our research questions focused on the semantic and phonological priming in children, differential effects of semantic and phonological cues on activation and access to the mental lexicon, and the impact of generalized slowing.

Semantic Representation and Activation

As expected, TLD children exhibited facilitation effects for semantically related pairs at 1,000-ms ISIs. Word recognition was significantly faster when words were preceded by semantically related words. This is consistent with theories of spreading activation (see Dell, 1986; Gaskill & Marslen-Wilson, 1997; Marslen-Wilson 1987). In a typical priming task, children hear a prime word immediately followed by a related target word. Presumably, when a prime word is heard, words that share semantic features are activated as well. This would facilitate processing of the target word because there may be residual activation of lexical cohorts to the prime word (Neely, 1977, 1991). The presence of a semantic priming effect indicates that typically developing children activate semantic associates, and these cohorts remain active to facilitate recognition and comprehension. It is believed that rich semantic representations result in stronger activation levels and more associations within the mental lexicon (Capone & McGregor, 2005). The facilitation effect on auditory recognition lends support to the notion that typically developing children appear to access semantic information more quickly and efficiently than children with SLI because they have more refined and enhanced semantic representations and, thus, more associations within the lexical network (Gray, 2005, 2006; McGregor & Appel, 2002). In contrast, children with SLI did not display semantic priming effects at either ISI. Reaction times for semantically related words were not significantly faster than the neutral condition. If children with SLI form weak representations, then activation levels may be weaker and more transient. Thus, when a child with SLI hears a prime word, the activation of associates may be too brief or the activation level may be too weak to facilitate comprehension of a related target

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to contribute to the current understanding of how children with SLI organize

Velez & Schwartz: Spoken Word Recognition in SLI

1623

word. Likewise, if there are fewer associative connections in the mental lexicon, there will be fewer cues and, consequently, less overall activation available to facilitate recognition. Edwards and Lahey (1999) contended that children with SLI have poorly differentiated and poorly organized semantic representations that impede lexical access during rapid naming. They found that semanticassociate errors were the most prevalent types of errors in children with SLI. Kail and colleagues (1984) also found that children with SLI recalled fewer words than did their age-matched peers when recall was cued by category labels. This similarly suggests a failure to establish the strong associative networks that facilitate storage and retrieval in long-term memory. In the present study, we also used categorical associates as cues; thus, the failure to prime supports the findings of offline studies asserting that deficit automatic word finding and auditory word recognition may be the by-products of limitations in the formation of semantic representations.

only two 7-year-olds in each group. The rest of the participants were 811 years of age. If there was an effect of phonological restructuring, then we would expect to see faster mean reaction times for 7-year-olds relative to the neutral condition and the reverse in the 11-year-olds. We did not find this after reviewing the individual mean reaction times for participants in the TLD and SLI groups. In fact, one of the 7-year-olds exhibited slower reaction times in the phonological condition. All of the 11-year-olds demonstrated faster mean reaction times in the phonological condition at both ISIs. It seems more likely that the differences between the picture word interference task and the list-priming paradigm (e.g., cross-modal vs. spoken word only, varying stimulus onset asynchrony vs. ISIs, etc.) would account for the seemingly discrepant results. Still, given the relatively small number of participants in the present study, we cannot completely rule out an effect of phonological restructuring.

Phonological Activation and Representation

As children mature, there appears to be a restructuring of the lexicon in which children progress from a holistic approach to phonological processing to an incremental, segmental approach that permits faster access to words on the basis of initial phonemes (Brooks & MacWhinney, 2000; Garlock, Walley, & Metsala, 2001; Metsala & Walley, 1998). Seiger-Gardner and Brooks (2008) found that although this restructuring does appear to occur in children with SLI, their ability to access words was much slower than that of their typically developing peers, and the children with SLI produced significantly more errors in production. The failure of children with SLI to demonstrate phonological priming effects for rhyming words at either ISI seems compatible with the findings of Seiger-Gardner and Brooks (2008), which also found that spoken rhyming words presented earlier did not facilitate picture naming in a cross-modal task. However, whereas rhyming words facilitated recognition for the TLD group in our study, rhyming words did not facilitate naming for the TLD group in their study. One possible explanation for the conflicting results could be the restructuring of the lexicon that is believed to occur in the school-age years (Brooks & MacWhinney, 2000; Garlocket al., 2001; Metsala & Walley, 1998). The age ranges of participants in the present study raise questions about age-related differences. Brooks and MacWhinney (2000) found that 5- to 7-year-olds showed facilitation for rhymes but inhibition for words with an initial phoneme overlap. The reverse was found for children ages 911 years. In the present study, there were
1624

Generalized Slowing and Activation

Children with SLI demonstrated much slower reaction times across ISIs and priming conditions. This is compatible with the generalized slowing hypothesis as well as previous studies demonstrating slower word recognition and naming in this population (Miller et al., 2001; Edwards & Lahey, 1996; Stark & Montgomery, 1995). Children with SLI appear to take much longer to process auditory spoken words and access representations in the lexicon. Although our findings lend support to accounts of deficits in semantic representations and phonological processing, we cannot ignore the combined effects of generalized slowing on spreading activation within the mental lexicon. Children with SLI exhibited priming effects only in the repetition condition. Thus, targets were more accessible when words were simply repeated and the word was fully activated. Yet, even in this condition, children with SLI were significantly slower than their TLD counterparts. We assumed a temporally dependent, interactive model of lexical activation in which multiple phonological cohorts are initially activated on the basis of lowlevel acoustic phonetic information and are eventually suppressed as the information is integrated with higher order semantic representations. The findings of this study suggest that for children with SLI, deficits in auditory word recognition may result from the combination of slowed activation and weak and/or fleeting phonological and semantic connections along the lexical network.

Semantic and Phonological Priming in Children With SLI

Neither the typically developing children nor the children with SLI exhibited semantic or phonological priming

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol. 53 16161628 December 2010

effects at 500-ms ISIs. However, both groups exhibited facilitation in the repetition condition, suggesting that priming does occur at shorter ISIs. In this condition, the prime and the target words were the same (dogdog). The phonological structure and the semantic features of the prime were fully activated in the lexical network. It appears that at the shorter ISI, both groups benefit from the dual strength of semantic and phonological activation during auditory word recognition. In the phonological condition (rhymes), the entire word would have to be processed in order for the priming effect to occur. Children in the TLD group did demonstrate facilitation effects for semantic and phonological conditions at 1,000-ms ISIs. This suggests that a 1,000-ms ISI is necessary to observe semantic and phonological priming at this age. There are several possible explanations for the lack of priming at short-millisecond ISIs. Childrens reaction times tend to be significantly slower than those of adults in priming tasks, although children do show evidence of facilitation effects (Radeau, 1983). Likewise, adults with acquired language disabilities exhibit facilitation at longer ISIs than do adults with typically developing language (Prather et al., 1992, 1997). Because we used only age-matched controls, we do not know whether the SLI childrens failure to exhibit priming at 500-ms ISIs was due to slower maturation (Radeau, 1983). A follow-up study that includes a younger group of children matched by PPVTIII raw scores might permit an examination of this possibility.

potential and f MRI. In this way, investigators can map the lexical organization of children with SLI with greater precision.

Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the National Institute of Deafness and Communication Disorders Grant R01-DC003885. We would like to thank The Childrens Evaluation and Rehabilitation Center, Rose F. Kennedy University Center For Excellence In Developmental Disabilities, Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University (Bronx, NY) for their cooperation in subject recruitment.

References
Alt, M., & Plante, E. (2006). Factors that influence lexical and semantic fast mapping of young children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 941954. Alt, M., Plante, E., & Creusere, M. (2004). Semantic features in fast-mapping: Performance of preschoolers with specific language impairment versus preschoolers with normal language. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 407420. Balota, D. A., Black, S. R., & Cheney, M. (1992). Automatic and attentional priming in young and older adults: Reevaluation of the two-process model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 485502. Balota, D. A., & Lorch, R. F. (1986). Depth of automatic spreading activation: Mediated priming effects in pronunciation but not in lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 336345. Botting, N., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (2001). Non-word repetition and language development in children with specific language impairment (SLI). International Journal of Language Communication Disorders, 36, 421432. Brooks, P. J., & MacWhinney, B. (2000). Phonological priming in childrens picture naming. Journal of Child Language, 27, 335366. Brown, L., Sherbenou, R. J., & Johnson, S. K. (1990). Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (2nd ed.) (TONI-2). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Capone, N. C., & McGregor, K. K. (2005). The effect of semantic representation on toddlers word retrieval. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 14681480. Carey, S., & Bartlett, E. (1978). Acquiring a single new word. Papers and Reports in Child Language Development, 15, 1729. Chiat, S. (2001). Mapping theories of developmental language impairment: Premises, predictions and evidence. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16(23), 113142. Cronk, B. C. (2001). Phonological, semantic, and repetition priming with homophones. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 365378. Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283321. Dunn, L., & Dunn, L. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary TestIII. Circle Pines, MN: AGS.

Implications for the Study of Lexical Deficits in SLI

The using of priming and related online methods can provide a unique window into organization and activation of the mental lexicon. Online techniques have been widely used in adult language research and are increasingly being used in the study of child language and SLI (Cronk, 2001; McGregor & Windsor, 1996; SeigerGardner & Brooks, 2008; Spinelli et al., 2001). Prather and colleagues (1997, 1992) found the list-priming technique particularly useful in observing the interaction between slowed processing and spreading activation in adults with aphasia. Given the evidence of generalized slowing in language-impaired children, we employed a similar technique using spoken words. This study provides preliminary evidence of weaknesses in representation, spreading activation, and lexical organization in real time. However, future studies may yield more detailed information by employing experimental designs that allow for a systematic examination of activation across a broader continuum of ISIs. The priming paradigm can be used in conjunction with other real-time methodologies, including event-related

Velez & Schwartz: Spoken Word Recognition in SLI

1625

Edwards, J., & Lahey, M. (1996). Auditory lexical decisions of children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 12631273. Edwards, J., & Lahey, M. (1998). Nonword repetitions of children with specific language impairment: Exploration of some explanations for their inaccuracies. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 279309. Garlock, V. M., Walley, A. C., & Metsala, J. L. (2001). Age of-acquisition, word frequency, and neighborhood density effects on spoken word recognition by children and adults. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 468492. Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1997). Integrating form and meaning: A distributed model of speech perception. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 613656. Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1990). The role of phonological memory in vocabulary acquisition: A study of young children learning new names. British Journal of Psychology, 81, 439454. Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1993). Working memory and language. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Gershkoff-Stowe, L., & Hahn, E. R. (2007). Fast mapping skills in the developing lexicon. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 682696. Gershkoff-Stowe, L. (2001). The course of childrens naming errors in early word learning. Journal of Cognition and Development, 2, 131155. Gershkoff-Stowe, L. (2002). Object naming, vocabulary growth, and the development of word retrieval abilities. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 665687. Gray, S. (2005). Word-learning by preschoolers with specific language impairment: Effect of phonological or semantic cues. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 14521467. Gray, S. (2006). The relationship between phonological memory, receptive vocabulary, and fast mapping in young children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 955969. Houston-Price, C., Plunkett, K., & Harris, P. (2005). Word learning wizardry at 1;6. Journal of Child Language, 32, 175189. Hutchinson, K. A., Neely, J. H., & Johnson, J. D. (2001). With great expectations, can two wrongs prime a right? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 14511463. Joordens, S., & Becker, S. (1997). The long and short of semantic priming effects in lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 10831105. Kail, R., Hale, C., Leonard, L., & Nippold, M. (1984). Lexical storage and retrieval in language impaired children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 5, 3749. Lahey, M., & Edwards, J. (1996). Why do children with specific language impairment name pictures more slowly than their peers? Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 10811098. Lahey, M., & Edwards, J. (1999). Naming errors of children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 195205.

Leonard, L. B. (1998). Children with specific language impairment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Leonard, L. B., & Deevy, P. (2004). Lexical deficits in specific language impairment. In L. Verhoeven & H. van Balkom (Eds.), Classification of developmental language disorders: Theoretical issues and clinical implications (pp. 209233). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Leonard, L. B., Schwartz, R. G., Chapman, K., Rowan, L., Prelock, P., Terrel, B., . . . Messick, C. (1982). Early lexical acquisition in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 25, 554590. Leonard, L. B., Weismer, S. E., Miller, C. A., Francis, D. J., Tomblin, J. B., & Kail, R. (2007). Speed of processing, working memory, and language impairment in children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 50, 408428. Luce, P. A., Pisoni, D. B., & Goldinger, S. D. (1990). Similarity neighborhoods of spoken words. In G. T. M. Altmann (Ed.), Cognitive models of speech processing: Pyscholinguistic and computational perspectives (pp. 122147). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Marinellie, S. A., & Johnson, C. J. (2002). Definitional skill in school-age children with specific language impairment. Journal of Communication Disorders, 35, 241259. Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1987). Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition. Cognition, 25(12), 71102. McGregor, K. K., & Appel, A. (2002). On the relation between mental representation and naming in a child with specific language impairment. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 16, 120. McGregor, K. K., & Windsor, J. (1996). Effects of priming on the naming accuracy of preschoolers with word-finding deficits. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 10481058. McGregor, K. K., Newman, R. M., Reilly, R., & Capone, N. C. (2002). Semantic representation and naming in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 9981014. Metsala, J. L., & Walley, A. C. (1998). Spoken vocabulary growth and the segmental restructuring of lexical representations: Precursors to phonemic awareness and early reading ability. In J. L. Metsala & L. C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 89120). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Miller, C. A., Kail, R., Leonard, L. B., & Tomblin, J. B. (2001). Speed of processing in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 416433. Munson, B., Kurtz, B. A., & Windsor, J. (2005). The influence of vocabulary size, phonotactic probability, and word likeness on nonword repetitions of children with and without specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 10331047. Nash, M., & Donaldson, M. L. (2005). Word learning in children with vocabulary deficits. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 439458. Neely, J. H. (1977). Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 106, 226254.

1626

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol. 53 16161628 December 2010

Neely, J. H. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. In D. Besner & G. W. Humphreys (Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 264336). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (2004). The University of South Florida Free Association, Rhyme, and Word Fragment Norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36, 402407. Plaut, D. C., & Booth, J. R. (2000). Individual and developmental differences in semantic priming: Empirical and computational support for a single-mechanism account of lexical processing. Psychological Review, 107, 786823. Prather, P., Zurif, E., Love, T., & Brownell, H. (1997). Speed of lexical activation in nonfluent Brocas aphasia and fluent Wernickes aphasia. Brain and Language, 59, 391411. Prather, P., Zurif, E., Stern, C., & Rosen, T. (1992). Slowed lexical access in nonfluent aphasia: A case study. Brain and Language, 43, 336348. Radeau, M. (1983). Semantic priming between spoken words in adults and children. The Canadian Journal of Psychology, 37, 547556. Radeau, M., Morais, J., & Segui, J. (1995). Phonological priming between monosyllabic spoken words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 12971311. Rice, M. L., Buhr, J. C., & Nemeth, M. (1990). Fast mapping word-learning abilities of language-delayed preschoolers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55, 3342. Rice, M. L., Buhr, J. C., & Oetting, J. B. (1992). Specific language-impaired childrens quick incidental learning of words: The effect of a pause. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 10401048. Rice, M. L., Oetting, J. B., Marquis, J., & Bode, J. (1994). Frequency of input effects on word comprehension of children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 106121. Sahln, B., Reuterskild-Wagner, C., Nettelbladt, U., & Radeborg, K. (1999). Non-word repetition in children with language impairmentpitfalls and possibilities. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 34, 337352. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime users guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.

Schwartz, R. G. (1988). Phonological factors in early lexical acquisition. In M. D. Smith & J. L. Locke (Eds.), Phonological factors in early lexical acquisition. The emergent lexicon: The childs development of a linguistic vocabulary (pp. 185222). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Seiger-Gardner, L., & Brooks, P. J. (2008). Effects of onsetand rhyme-related distractors on phonological processing in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51, 12631281. Seiger-Gardner, L., & Schwartz, R. G. (2008). Lexical access in children with and without specific language impairment: A cross-modal picture-word interference study. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 43, 528551. Semel, E., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. A. (2003). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (4th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Coroporation. Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. A. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 174215. Spinelli, E., Segui, J., & Radeau, M. (2001). Phonological priming in spoken word recognition with bisyllabic targets. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16, 367392. Stark, R. E., & Montgomery, J. W. (1995). Sentence processing in language-impaired children under conditions of filtering and time compression. Applied Psycholinguistics, 16, 137154. Received March 1, 2009 Revision received September 1, 2009 Accepted March 7, 2010 DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0042) Contact author: Melinda Velez, The City University of New York, The Graduate School and University Center, Department of Speech-Language-Hearing Sciences, 365 Fifth Avenue, Room 7400, New York, NY 10016-4309. E-mail: melindavelez@gmail.com.

Velez & Schwartz: Spoken Word Recognition in SLI

1627

Appendix A. Primes and target words.

500-ms ISI Targets/repetition prime bat book car chair sun key leg nail pen mouse Semantic prime ball page van table moon lock arm hammer marker rat 1,000-ms ISI Targets/repetition prime bread broom cake cup coat dog fish nose plane spoon Semantic prime toast mop pie glass jacket cat tuna ear jet fork Phonological prime head room rake pup boat log dish hose rain moon Phonological prime hat hook star hair gun tea egg pail hen house

Appendix B. Sample block presentation of word list with embedded primetarget pairs (from Session 1, Block 1).
Repetition prime: chair (1,000 ms) Target: chair (1,000 ms) Filler: bee (1,000 ms) Filler: lettuce (1,000 ms) Phonological prime: egg (1,000 ms) Target: leg (1,000 ms) Filler: deer (1,000 ms) Filler: chicken (1,000 ms) Filler: mountain (1,000 ms)

1628

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol. 53 16161628 December 2010

Spoken Word Recognition in School-Age Children With SLI: Semantic, Phonological, and Repetition Priming Melinda Velez, and Richard G. Schwartz J Speech Lang Hear Res 2010;53;1616-1628; originally published online Aug 26, 2010; DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0042) The references for this article include 13 HighWire-hosted articles which you can access for free at: http://jslhr.asha.org/cgi/content/full/53/6/1616#BIBL

This information is current as of January 27, 2011 This article, along with updated information and services, is located on the World Wide Web at: http://jslhr.asha.org/cgi/content/full/53/6/1616

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.