Imagine learning to ride a bike and then using that skill to play a musical instrument. You might think that these two activities require different types of learning – one being more procedural and the other more declarative. Well, scientists have been studying the relationship between language, literacy, and procedural learning to see if there is a connection. In a recent meta-analysis, researchers analyzed data from 39 studies involving over 2000 participants. They found a small but significant relationship between language, literacy, and procedural learning. However, this relationship was not observed when looking at different groups of participants with typical development, dyslexia, and developmental language disorder separately. Surprisingly, no differences were found in the relationship between procedural learning and grammar and phonology between the different groups either. These findings challenge the previously hypothesized link between procedural learning impairments and neurodevelopmental disorders. The researchers suggest that the results may be due to limitations in the way procedural learning was measured. To learn more about their findings, check out the full article!

Abstract
The ability to extract patterns from sensory input across time and space is thought to underlie the development and acquisition of language and literacy skills, particularly the subdomains marked by the learning of probabilistic knowledge. Thus, impairments in procedural learning are hypothesized to underlie neurodevelopmental disorders, such as dyslexia and developmental language disorder. In the present meta-analysis, comprising 2396 participants from 39 independent studies, the continuous relationship between language, literacy, and procedural learning on the Serial Reaction Time task (SRTT) was assessed across children and adults with typical development (TD), dyslexia, and Developmental Language Disorder (DLD). Despite a significant, but very small, relationship between procedural learning and overall language and literacy measures, this pattern was not observed at the group-level when examining TD, dyslexic, and DLD groups separately. Based on the procedural/declarative model, a positive relationship was expected between procedural learning and language and literacy measures for the typically developing group; however, no such relationship was observed. This was also the case for the disordered groups (ps > .05). Also counter to expectations, the magnitude of the relationship between procedural learning and grammar and phonology did not differ between TD and DLD (ps > .05), nor between the TD and dyslexic group on reading, spelling, and phonology (ps > .05). While lending little support to the procedural/declarative model, we consider that these results may be the consequence of poor psychometric properties of the SRTT as a measure of procedural learning.

Read Full Article (External Site)