Early Neurophysiological Markers of Language Impairments

IRCCS Eugenio Medea100 enrolled

Overview

The present project aims at identifying very early electrophysiological risk markers for language impairments. The long-term goals of the study include the characterization of learning developmental trajectories in children at high risk for language impairments. In this project, all the infants of the Medea BabyLab cohort are followed-up until school age. Since these infants have complete information on early electrophysiological markers, the final goal of the project is the characterization of their learning developmental trajectories and the construction of a multi-factor prognostic model that includes the neurophysiological processes underlying basic-level skills as potential biomarkers for predicting later reading and spelling skills.

Study Type

OBSERVATIONAL

Enrollment

100

Conditions

Development, Infant Development, Language Developmental Language Disorder Learning Disabilities

Interventions

Eligibility

Sex: ALLMin age: 6 MonthsMax age: 8 YearsHealthy volunteers:

Medical Language ↔ Plain English

Inclusion Criteria: * Healthy infants aged \<24 months * Infants with and without familial risk for language impairments (infants are assigned to the group with familial risk if at least one first-degree relative had a certified (clinical) diagnosis of language impairment or learning disability * Both parents are native-Italian speakers Exclusion Criteria: * Gestational age \< 37 weeks and/or birth weight \< 2500 grams * APGAR scores at birth at 1' and 5' \< 7 * Bayley Cognitive Score \< 7 * Presence of certified diagnosis of intellectual deficiency, attention-deficit disorder, sensorial and neurological disorders, or autism within first-degree relative

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

Expressive vocabulary at age 3 years

Standardized score in the Language Development Survey (Rescorla, 1989; Rescorla et al., 2014). Minimum=5; Maximum=95 (higher scores mean a better outcome).

Time frame: Age 3 years

Phonological awareness at age 3 years

Raw score in a syllabic blending task (created ad hoc). Scores are percentages of accuracy (higher scores mean a better outcome).

Time frame: Age 3 years

Syntactic comprehension at age 3 years

Standardized scores in the syntactic comprehension subtests, taken from 'Test for language evaluation', Cianchetti e Fancello, 1997. Z-scores are calculated (higher scores mean a better outcome).

Time frame: Age 3 years

Lexical comprehension at age 3 years

Raw score in the lexical comprehension subtest, taken from 'Battery for language evaluation in children 4-12 years', Marini et al., 2015. Scores are percentages of accuracy (higher scores mean a better outcome).

Time frame: Age 3 years

Short-term verbal memory at age 4.5 years

Standardized scores in the pseudo-word repetition subtest, taken from 'Battery for language evaluation in children 4-12 years', Marini et al., 2015. Z-scores are calculated (higher scores mean a better outcome).

Time frame: Age 4.5 years

Phonological awareness at age 4.5 years

Standardized scores in the phonological awareness subtests taken from 'Evaluation of phonological awareness skills', Marotta et al., 2008. Mean=10, Standard Deviation=3 (higher scores mean a better outcome).

Time frame: Age 4.5 years

Phonological awareness at age 6 years

Composite score of the standardized scores in the phonological awareness subtests (phoneme identification, phonemic segmentation), Cornoldi et al., 2009. Z-scores are calculated (higher scores mean a better outcome).

Time frame: Age 6 years

Letter identification, knowledge, and writing at age 6 years

Raw scores in the letter identification, knowledge, and writing subtests, taken from "Preschool Screening", Savelli et al., 2013. Minimum=0, Maximum=20 (higher scores mean a better outcome).

Time frame: Age 6 years

Reading (accuracy, speed and comprehension) at age 8 years

Standardized scores in the reading subtest, taken from 'Reading and comprehension assessment', Bonifacci et al., 2014. Z-scores are calculated (higher scores mean a better outcome).

Time frame: Age 8 years

Spelling at age 8 years

Standardized scores in the spelling task (Marinelli et al., 2016). Z-scores are calculated (higher scores mean a better outcome).

Time frame: Age 8 years

Phonemic awareness at age 8 years

Raw scores in the spoonerisms subtest taken from 'Evaluation of phonological awareness skills', Marotta et al., 2008. Minimum=0, Maximum=30 (higher scores mean a better outcome).

Time frame: Age 8 years

Secondary Outcomes

Lexical access at age 4.5 years

Standardized score in Rapid Automatic Naming. Mean=10, Standard Deviation=3 (higher scores mean a better outcome).

Time frame: Age 4.5 years

Naming and articulatory accuracy at age 3 years

Raw scores in the test of naming and articulatory accuracy (created ad hoc). Scores are percentages of accuracy (higher scores mean a better outcome).

Time frame: Age 3 years

Nonverbal cognitive score at age 4.5 years

Standardized score in the block design subtest, taken from 'Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence, 3rd edition'. Mean=10, Standard Deviation=3 (higher scores mean a better outcome).

Time frame: Age 4.5 years

Lexical access at age 6 years

Standardized score in Rapid Automatic Naming, taken from Urgesi et al., 2011. Z-scores are calculated (higher scores mean a better outcome).

Time frame: Age 6 years

Visual-motor integration at age 6 years

Standardized score in the 'Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration', Preda, 2000. Minimum=5; Maximum=95 (higher scores mean a better outcome).

Time frame: Age 6 years

Early Neurophysiological Markers of Language Impairments

Overview

Conditions

Interventions

Eligibility

Locations (1)

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes

Central Contacts