Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27422443›Full record

ReviewTrends in cognitive sciences2016

Neurobiological Basis of Language Learning Difficulties.

Saloni Krishnan, Kate E Watkins, Dorothy V M Bishop

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in cognitive sciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 82 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
82citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

82 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Linguistic and Musical Syntax Processing in Autistic and Non-Autistic Individuals: An Event-Related Potential (ERP) Study.Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

22 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Saloni KrishnanDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, 9 South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3UD, UK. Electronic address: saloni.krishnan@psy.ox.ac.uk.
Kate E WatkinsDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, 9 South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3UD, UK.
Dorothy V M BishopDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, 9 South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3UD, UK.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 082498/Z/07/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this paper we highlight why there is a need to examine subcortical learning systems in children with language impairment and dyslexia, rather than focusing solely on cortical areas relevant for language. First, behavioural studies find that children with these neurodevelopmental disorders perform less well than peers on procedural learning tasks that depend on corticostriatal learning circuits. Second, fMRI studies in neurotypical adults implicate corticostriatal and hippocampal systems in language learning. Finally, structural and functional abnormalities are seen in the striatum in children with language disorders. Studying corticostriatal networks in developmental language disorders could offer us insights into their neurobiological basis and elucidate possible modes of compensation for intervention.

Indexed as

LanguageLanguage DevelopmentBrainDyslexiaHumansLanguage Development DisordersLearningdevelopmentdisorderdyslexiaprocedural learningspecific language impairmentstriatumsubcortical

Identifiers

PMID27422443
PMCPMC4993149

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.