Sdarticle

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 102 (2009) 196–218
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Experimental Child

Psychology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jecp
The relationships among verbal short-term memory,

phonological awareness, and new word learning:
Evidence from typical development and Down syndrome
Christopher Jarrold *, Annabel S.C. Thorn, Emma Stephens
Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TU, UK
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: This study examined the correlates of new word learning in a sam-
Received 18 December 2007 ple of 64 typically developing children between 5 and 8 years of
Revised 8 July 2008 age and a group of 22 teenagers and young adults with Down syn-
Available online 15 August 2008
drome. Verbal short-term memory and phonological awareness
skills were assessed to determine whether learning new words
involved accurately representing phonological information in
Keywords:
memory. Results showed a relationship between verbal short-term
Verbal short-term memory
Phonological awareness
memory measures and typically developing individuals’ ability to
New word learning learn the phonological form of novel words but not their ability
Vocabulary acquisition to learn the physical referent of new words. Similarly, individuals
Down syndrome with Down syndrome showed impaired verbal short-term memory
and impaired form but not referent learning. Together, these find-
ings specify the circumstances in which an accurate phonological
representation within short-term memory is required for new
word learning.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Verbal short-term memory is typically assessed by asking participants to repeat a sequence of

words in correct order as soon as these words have been presented. Although such tasks are extremely
simple in form, they are the focus of considerable research interest because of the suggestion (e.g.,
Baddeley, Gathercole, & Papagno, 1998) that verbal short-term memory capacity constrains individu-
als’ new word learning skills. Baddeley and colleagues’ (1998) theoretical argument is that a dedicated
verbal short-term memory system has evolved in humans to support new word learning because in
* Corresponding author. Fax: +44 117 928 8588.

E-mail address: c.jarrold@bristol.ac.uk (C. Jarrold).
0022-0965/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2008.07.001
C. Jarrold et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 102 (2009) 196–218 197
order to create a long-term representation of a novel word, one must first maintain it in short-term
memory (see also Gathercole, 2006). Other computational models are consistent with the suggestion
that the formation of stable, long-term phonological representations depends on the quality of the
short-term phonological representations of words that are created when they are first encountered
(see Burgess & Hitch, 2005; Gupta, 2003; Gupta & MacWhinney, 1997).
Empirical evidence also indicates an association between verbal short-term memory performance
and new word learning (see Gathercole, 2006). Individuals with apparently strong verbal short-term
memory skills tend to have a more extensive receptive vocabulary, a finding that has been reported
both in children learning their native language (Bowey, 1996; Gathercole, Service, Hitch, Adams, &
Martin, 1999; Gathercole, Willis, Emslie, & Baddeley, 1992; Majerus, Poncelet, Greffe, & Van der
Linden, 2006; see also Baddeley et al., 1998) and in individuals learning second languages (e.g.,
Masoura & Gathercole, 1999; Papagno & Vallar, 1995; Service & Kohonen, 1995). More directly, studies
of experimental new word learning in children have shown a relationship between measures of
individuals’ verbal short-term memory performance and their ability to learn the new names of novel
objects or characters (e.g., Gathercole, Hitch, Service, & Martin, 1997; Jarrold, Baddeley, Hewes, Leeke,
& Phillips, 2004; Michas & Henry, 1994; Mosse & Jarrold, 2008; see also Gupta, 2003).
Although these findings suggest that verbal short-term memory capacity plays a causal role in
aspects of vocabulary acquisition as Baddeley, Gathercole, and colleagues would suggest, others have
argued that this association is in fact mediated by other factors. A number of authors have argued that
as individuals’ receptive vocabulary increases, their phonological awareness develops via a process of
‘‘lexical restructuring” (Bowey, 2001; Metsala, 1999; Metsala & Walley, 1998). Phonological aware-
ness is the understanding of, and the ability to process and manipulate, the component speech sounds
of one’s language. The claim is that phonological representations become more precisely specified and
distinct as a direct consequence of increased receptive vocabulary knowledge because representing
lexical entries in terms of a limited set of common phonemes is more efficient than representing
the phonological structure of each word separately (Metsala & Walley, 1998). Proponents of this view
argue that phonological awareness plays a role in determining performance on experimental tests of
both verbal short-term memory and new word learning because of the need to accurately encode and
maintain phonological information in such tasks (Bowey, 1996; de Jong, Seveke, & van Veen, 2000;
Messbauer & de Jong, 2003; Snowling, Chiat, & Hulme, 1991; Windfuhr & Snowling, 2001). Therefore,
it is possible that, as a direct consequence of vocabulary development, developing phonological
awareness mediates the apparent relationship between verbal short-term memory and new word
learning (Bowey, 1996). Importantly, however, the potential interrelations between these constructs
means that determining their causal priority in predicting new word learning is not straightforward
(Service, 2006).
Down syndrome is one condition that can shed important light on the potential correlates of novel
word learning. Caused by triplication of the 21st chromosome, trisomy 21 (LeJeune, Gautier, & Turpin,
1959), Down syndrome is associated with particular deficits both in verbal short-term memory per-
formance (e.g., Brock & Jarrold, 2005; Laws, 2002; Numminen, Service, Ahonen, & Ruoppila, 2001;
for a review, see Jarrold, Purser, & Brock, 2006) and in phonological awareness (Cossu, Rossini, &
Marshall, 1993; Gombert, 2002; Roch & Jarrold, 2008; Snowling, Hulme, & Mercer, 2002; Verucci,
Menghini, & Vicari, 2006), and so word learning difficulties would certainly be expected in this
condition (Abbeduto, Warren, & Connors, 2007; Chapman, Sindberg, Bridge, Gigstead, & Hesketh,
2006; Gathercole & Alloway, 2006; Kay-Raining Bird, Chapman, & Schwartz, 2004).
Preliminary support for the suggestion that a deficit in verbal short-term memory performance in
Down syndrome is causally related to problems in word learning comes from a study by Laws and
Gunn (2004) in which the verbal short-term memory performance of a group of individuals with
Down syndrome at one time point was found to predict their vocabulary level at a second time point
5 years later. However, in general, vocabulary skills in Down syndrome appear not to be as impaired as
might be predicted on the basis of short-term memory skills. Receptive vocabulary is consistently
observed as a relative strength among the various aspects of language function in Down syndrome
(Chapman, 1995; Chapman, Schwartz, & Kay-Raining Bird, 1991), and although it is often delayed
relative to age levels, it tends to be superior to individuals’ syntactic skills, for example (Laws & Bishop,
2003; Miller, 1988; Vicari, Caselli, Gagliardi, Tonucci, & Volterra, 2002).
198 C. Jarrold et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 102 (2009) 196–218
One explanation for this apparently puzzling finding is that performance on receptive vocabulary
tasks may well be relatively insensitive to the quality of any given phonological representation held in
verbal short-term memory. The fact that the experimenter reprovides the phonological label in such
tasks means that individuals need only to match this sound to the phonological representation they
themselves have maintained. This matching may be perfectly achievable even if the maintained
phonological representation is substantially degraded (Chapman et al., 2006; Kay-Raining Bird &
Chapman, 1998). In fact, one would expect verbal short memory to particularly relate to the
production of novel words given that one clearly cannot produce a more accurate utterance than
one can maintain in memory (Kay-Raining Bird et al., 2004; cf. Gathercole et al., 1997; Gupta, Martin,
Abbs, Schwartz, & Lipinski, 2006; Service, Maury, & Luotoniemi, 2007).
The production of new word forms has been examined in Down syndrome in the context of ‘‘fast
mapping” studies. Fast mapping is the ability to pair a novel word form with a novel object (e.g., Carey
& Bartlett, 1978; Mervis & Bertrand, 1995) and is typically tested in an incidental learning paradigm
where the experimenter refers to the novel object in a general linguistic context. At test, participants’
knowledge of the new word form is assessed either in a ‘‘comprehension” task, where they need to
select the appropriate object when the experimenter names it, or in a ‘‘production” task, where they
are asked to name the novel object. Although some studies have shown evidence of problems in fast
mapping in Down syndrome (Chapman, 2003; Kay-Raining Bird, Gaskell, Babineau, & MacDonald,
2000), this is not observed consistently (Chapman, Kay-Raining Bird, & Schwartz, 1990; Chapman
et al., 2006). However, all of these previous studies credited participants with a correct productive
response when they successfully produced at least two of the three phonemes in the novel conso-
nant–vowel–consonant (CVC) label. This no doubt reflects the fact that problems in speech production
are common in Down syndrome (e.g., Dodd & Thompson, 2001), and this in turn makes it difficult to
assess the integrity of individuals’ phonological representations in productive tasks, particularly those
employing nonword stimuli (Cairns & Jarrold, 2005; Laws, 1998). Nevertheless, the failure of these
studies to penalize individuals who produced imperfect responses means that they do not provide a
stringent assessment of the quality of the novel phonological representation on which these responses
are based. Therefore, these existing studies say less than they might about the potential associations
among verbal short-term memory, phonological awareness, and new word learning.
The current study aimed to provide a direct test of the quality of phonological representations
acquired during new word learning and of the situations in which an accurate phonological represen-
tation is a prerequisite for successful acquisition. This was done by assessing word learning in two
ways and by presenting these tasks to typically developing children and to individuals with Down
syndrome who are known to have relative problems in the representation and maintenance of phono-
logical information. First, in a referent learning task, participants were asked to select the object that
had previously been paired with a given phonological form in a manner analogous to a comprehension
test of a fast mapping study. Second, in a form learning task that paralleled the production aspect of
the fast mapping procedure, participants were required to identify the phonological label that had pre-
viously been associated with a given object. To circumvent any speech production problems, rather
than participants being required to produce this label themselves, they needed to select the appropri-
ate item from among three choices that were provided to them auditorily (cf. Storkel, 2001). By ensur-
ing that the target and foil sounds were phonologically similar to each other, we emphasized the need
for an accurate phonological representation, as would be the case in a stringent production task. A key
prediction of the study was that the factors that affect individuals’ ability to maintain such a phono-
logical representation, notably verbal short-term memory capacity but perhaps also phonological
awareness, would be related to success on form learning. In contrast, given the arguments outlined
above, we predicted that these factors would not heavily influence performance in the referent learn-
ing task because a partial phonological representation would be sufficient to mediate a match be-
tween the heard word form and the correct object.
One other manipulation was made to these word learning tasks to examine another potential influ-
ence on word learning performance, namely, the extent to which individuals employ existing recep-
tive vocabulary knowledge to support their new word learning (cf. Baddeley, 1993; Gathercole, 2006).
Individuals’ knowledge of the language does constrain their memory performance (Hulme et al., 1997;
Roodenrys, Hulme, Lethbridge, Hinton, & Nimmo, 2002; Thorn & Gathercole, 2001; Thorn, Gathercole,
& Frankish, 2005), and this is true even when nonword stimuli are employed in tests of verbal short-
term memory, with more ‘‘wordlike” nonwords being easier to recall than less wordlike ones (e.g.,
Gathercole, Frankish, Pickering, & Peaker, 1999; Roodenrys & Hinton, 2002; Thorn & Frankish,
2005). Beneficial effects of the ‘‘wordlikeness” of to-be-learned nonwords have also been observed
on new word learning in both children and adults (Storkel, 2001; Storkel, Armbrüster, & Hogan,
2006; Storkel & Rogers, 2000). The wordlikeness of nonwords can be defined in at least two ways:
at the lexical level and at the sublexical level. At the lexical level, nonwords can share phonemes with
‘‘near neighbors” within the participant’s existing lexicon. At the sublexical level, nonwords can con-
sist of phoneme combinations (typically measured as biphones) that are more or less common in the
native language. Although these measures of neighborhood size and biphone frequency tend to be
highly related to one another (Bailey & Hahn, 2001), they can be separated and evidence suggests that
both may be factors that affect the memorability of nonword stimuli (Thorn & Frankish, 2005; Thorn &
Jarrold, 2007). In the current study, we investigated these effects on word learning, and the related
issue of whether individuals with Down syndrome rely on these linguistic influences to an atypical
extent, by varying both the biphone frequency and neighborhood size of the nonword sets that we
employed.
In sum, the broad aim of the current study was to determine the different factors that affect the
different components of new word learning. Specifically, typically developing children and individuals
with Down syndrome were presented with two tests of word learning—form learning and referent
learning—with each containing conditions that systematically varied the wordlikeness of the non-
words to be learned. To assess the potential correlates of these two aspects of word learning among
typically developing individuals, and possible causes of word learning problems for individuals with
Down syndrome, measures of verbal short-term memory and phonological awareness were included.
Three verbal short-term memory tasks were employed. These was a standard serial recall task in
which participants were required to immediately repeat lists of words that were presented to them
auditorily. To further examine potential group differences in degree of linguistic support to verbal
short-term memory performance, this task had two conditions that varied the number of lexical
neighbors of the word sets.1 Two recognition tests that examined verbal short-term memory for either
item or order information were also employed (cf. Brock & Jarrold, 2004; Majerus, Poncelet, Elsen, & Van
der Linden, 2006; Majerus, Poncelet, Greffe, et al., 2006). Of the three measures of phonological aware-
ness that were presented to participants, two (rhyme judgment and alliteration detection) had been used
previously by Snowling and colleagues (2002) in their study of phonological awareness skills in Down
syndrome. The third measure was a test of initial phoneme deletion (cf. Muter, Hulme, & Snowling,
1997).
Individuals’ speech perception skills were also measured using a minimal pairs discrimination task to
account for any potential confounding effect of hearing loss on word learning performance. Clearly, if
individuals struggled to correctly perceive the phonological label being paired with a novel object, they
would be expected to show poor word learning regardless of their verbal short-term memory or phono-
logical awareness skills. This concern was particularly relevant in the context of the current study be-
cause hearing difficulties are commonly associated with Down syndrome (see Marcell & Cohen, 1992;
Roberts, Price, & Malkin, 2007). In the absence of formal audiometric measures of hearing loss from
our participants, we used scores on this discrimination task to screen participants for perceptual prob-
lems and to compare the two groups for their ability to correctly perceive phonological information.
In addition, measures of individuals’ existing receptive and expressive vocabularies were taken to
compare patterns of receptive (referent) and expressive (form) experimental word learning with indi-
viduals’ existing receptive and expressive word knowledge. Finally, a version of the Raven’s Coloured
Progressive Matrices (CPM) (Raven, Raven, & Court, 1998) was administered to provide a nonverbal
index of individuals’ general level of intellectual development.
A sample of 64 typically developing children, within the age range of 5 to 8 years, was assessed to
provide a normative picture of the development of new word learning skills and their association with
1
Biphone frequency was not manipulated in this task because of previous evidence that serial recall in children between 5 and 9
years of age is not affected by this factor when neighborhood size is held constant (Thorn & Jarrold, 2007).
the other measures employed here. A smaller sample of 22 individuals with Down syndrome was also
seen, and these individuals’ performance was compared with that of the larger sample of typically
developing children (cf. Gupta, MacWhinney, Feldman, & Sacco, 2003). The two groups were loosely
selected to be of a comparable level of existing vocabulary knowledge but were not explicitly matched
at the outset of the study, thereby avoiding issues of generalizability that are inherent in samples that
are specifically selected for their level of performance on any one measure (Jarrold & Brock, 2004). In-
deed, the relatively larger sample size of typically developing children allowed us to examine corre-
lations between measures in this group and, therefore, to ask broad-reaching questions about the
extent to which measures of verbal short-term memory and phonological awareness relate to individ-
uals’ ability to learn the form and referents of novel phonological items.
Method
Participants
Two groups of participants took part in the experiment. The typically developing group consisted of
64 children (28 males and 36 females), ranging in age from 5 years 1 month to 8 years 5 months, who
were recruited from two primary schools and who had English as a first language and no documented
history of speech or language difficulties in their school records. All participants were given two stan-
dardized vocabulary measures (see below for details), and only those individuals whose standard
scores fell within certain limits were included in the sample. All typically developing individuals
had standard scores of above 80 (1.33 standard deviations below the norm) and below 130 (2 standard
deviations above the norm) on these measures.
The Down syndrome group consisted of 22 individuals (11 males and 11 females), of which 21 had
confirmed trisomy 21 (the remaining individual had mosaic Down syndrome).2 These individuals ran-
ged in age from 14 years 5 months to 29 years 0 months and were recruited through local schools for
children with learning disabilities or had taken part in previous research studies. All participants were
recruited with fully informed parental consent.
Procedure
All participants received two experimental word learning tasks (form learning and referent learn-
ing), three measures of verbal short-term memory (serial recall, item recognition, and order recogni-
tion), three tests of phonological awareness (alliteration detection, deletion detection, and rhyme
detection), a measure of speech sound discrimination skill, measures of existing expressive and recep-
tive vocabularies, and the Raven’s CPM (Raven et al., 1998). Experimental tasks were programmed
using Revolution software and were presented on an 11-inch Macintosh iBook laptop computer. All
auditory stimuli were presented via external speakers attached to the laptop, and the computer vol-
ume and speaker volume settings were kept constant across all tasks and participants.
All participants in the typically developing group were assessed in a quiet room in their school, as
were approximately half of the individuals with Down syndrome. The remaining participants in the
Down syndrome group were assessed in a quiet room in their home. Whenever possible, all of the
tasks were presented in one session with a break in the middle; when this was not possible, testing
was spread over a maximum of three sessions.
Form learning
This task was introduced to participants as a game in which they needed to learn the names of a set
of cartoon aliens (cf. Gupta, 2003). Each trial in each condition of the task had two phases: a presen-
2
Mosaic Down syndrome is often associated with higher levels of intelligence and ability than is full trisomy 21 Down
syndrome (Fishler, Koch, & Donnell, 1976). However, this individual was included in the sample because the participant showed no
evidence of atypically high performance on any of the experimental measures and performed in a qualitatively similar way to the
other members of the group.
tation phase and a test phase. During the presentation phase, three cartoon aliens (7 8 cm in size)
were shown sequentially in the center of the computer screen. As each one was shown, it was named,
with the computer playing an audio file recording of the alien’s name. All names were CVC nonwords
and during the presentation phase were spoken by a single female voice. Following presentation of all
three aliens, during the test phase participants were again shown each alien sequentially. At the bot-
tom of the screen, three other cartoon characters (a duck, a frog, and a fish) were shown from left to
right, and in response to a key press by the experimenter each of these animals took turns (from left to
right) to provide an attempt at naming the alien shown on the screen. As each animal spoke, a speech
bubble appeared above it and an audio file was played. One animal provided the correct nonword for
the name of the alien in question, and the other two animals provided nonword foils that differed from
the target nonword by a single phoneme. For each nonword name, four nonword foils were
constructed: one sharing the vowel and final consonant but with a different initial consonant (a
_VC neighbor), one sharing the initial consonant and vowel but with a different final consonant (a
CV_ neighbor), and two sharing the initial and final consonants but with a different vowel sound
(C_C neighbors). On each trial, one foil was a C_C neighbor foil and the remaining foil was either a
_VC or CV_ neighbor of the correct nonword name. Across all 10 trials of the task, each of the four foils
appeared five times and on no more than 2 consecutive trials. The audio files played during the test
phase were recorded in a male voice. Following the presentation of all three options, participants were
asked to indicate (either verbally or by pointing) which animal had given the correct name of the
alien. Memory for the names of each of the three aliens was tested in this way before the task
continued.
Participants received no feedback on their responses, but following the test phase the next trial be-
gan with another presentation phase in which the names of the aliens were re-presented. Each con-
dition of the task consisted of 10 trials, with each trial having learning and test phases. Participants
continued until they had completed all 10 trials or had successfully identified the name of all three
aliens on 2 consecutive trials. Full credit was given for uncompleted trials after 2 consecutive correct
trials, giving a total possible score of 30. The order of presentation of the aliens during the presentation
and test phases was fixed but appeared to be random and was controlled across trials. Similarly, the
animal that gave the correct nonword in each section of each test phase was controlled but appeared
to be randomly determined to participants. Each condition of the task began with a training phase dur-
ing which two different aliens were shown and were paired with different nonword names prior to
participants being given the test proper.
The three conditions of the task were formed by a manipulation of the type of nonwords associated
with the aliens in each condition. The two measures of familiarity used—lexical neighborhood size
(the number of real words that differ from the nonword by a single phoneme) and biphone frequency
(the frequency of occurrence of the nonword’s CV and VC phoneme pairs in real words in English)—
were drawn from the CELEX lexical database (Baayen, Piepenbrock, & van Rijn, 1993). CELEX provides
frequency counts based on a corpus of approximately 20 million words drawn from written and spo-
ken texts; the counts given below are exact frequency counts for this database. Using these measures
of familiarity, three sets of nonwords were created (see Appendix A) corresponding to nonwords in the
following three conditions: low neighborhood size and high biphone frequency (LNS–HBF), high
neighborhood size and low biphone frequency (HNS–LBF), and low neighborhood size and low bi-
phone frequency (LNS–LBF). Each nonword set consisted of three nonwords, and in each case the same
three vowel sounds were used to create the nonwords in a set. Nonwords in the HNS–LBF and LNS–LBF
sets were of similar average biphone frequency (49.5, 138.5, 101.5 vs. 57.0, 71.5, 112.0, respectively)
but differed in total neighborhood size (23, 21, 24 vs. 12, 11, 10, respectively), providing a contrast of
the impact of lexical neighborhood size on form learning that was not confounded with biphone fre-
quency. Nonwords in the LNS–HBF and LNS–LBF sets were of comparable total neighborhood size (13,
13, 11 vs. 12, 11, 10, respectively) but differed in average biphone frequency (251.5, 246.5, 213.5 vs.
57.0, 71.5, 112.0, respectively), providing a test of the impact of biphone frequency on form learning
that was not confounded with lexical neighborhood size. Phonemes used in the construction of the
nonwords (and their foils) were restricted to those expected to be in the phonological repertoire of
children by 4 years of age (Dodd, Holm, Hua, & Crosbie, 2003). Different sets of aliens were used in
each condition, and each condition was presented as a separate block of 10 trials.
Referent learning
The referent learning task had a similar overall structure and involved the learning of nonword
names associated with different sets of monsters. Again, each trial consisted of presentation and test
phases. The presentation phase was identical to that of the form task, with three monsters shown
sequentially and being named. Names were again CVC nonwords that were presented in a female
voice during this phase. At test, all three monsters were shown simultaneously from left to right on
the computer screen. The computer then played the name of one monster, recorded in a male voice,
and participants needed to indicate by pointing which monster was associated with that name. The
names of the other two monsters were tested similarly.
Once again, participants received no feedback on their responses, but each successive trial began
with a presentation phase during which the monsters’ names were re-presented. Each condition of
the task consisted of 10 trials. Participants continued until they had completed all 10 trials or had suc-
cessfully matched all three monsters with their names on 2 consecutive trials. Full credit was again
given for any uncompleted trials once 2 consecutive trials had been passed, giving a total possible
score of 30. As in the form task, the order of presentation of the monsters during the presentation
phases was controlled but appeared to be random, as were the left to right order in which the mon-
sters were displayed and the order in which they were named during the test phase. Each condition of
the task began with a practice phase during which two different monsters were shown and paired
with different nonword names.
Three task conditions were created by the same manipulation of type of nonword: low neighbor-
hood size and high biphone frequency (LNS–HBF), low neighborhood size and low biphone frequency
(LNS–LBF), and high neighborhood size and low biphone frequency (HNS–LBF). Again, each nonword
set consisted of three nonwords (see Appendix A) that differed from those employed in the form learn-
ing task but were selected using the same criteria and employed the same three central vowel sounds.
Nonwords in the HNS–LBF and LNS–LBF sets differed in neighborhood size (27, 18, 25 vs. 13, 13, 5,
respectively) but were of comparable biphone frequency (107.0, 90.5, 58.0 vs. 84.0, 134.0, 65.5, respec-
tively). Nonwords in the LNS–HBF and LNS–LBF sets differed in biphone frequency (219.5, 260.5, 255.5
vs. 84.0, 134.0, 65.5, respectively) but were of comparable neighborhood size (13, 13, 5 vs. 13, 13, 5,
respectively).
Serial recall
In this task, participants were asked to repeat, in correct serial order, lists of words that were pre-
sented auditorily. The task was introduced as a computer game in which an animated cartoon char-
acter spoke lists of words, and the program was designed so that the character’s mouth opened
while the computer played the relevant audio files.
There were two conditions in the task formed by a manipulation of the lexical neighborhood size
(number of words that differ from the target word by a single phoneme) of the words employed as
stimuli in each condition (see Appendix A). One set of six words had a high neighborhood size (mean
number of close lexical neighbors = 26.5, SD = 3.1), whereas the other set of six words had a low neigh-
borhood size (mean number of close lexical neighbors = 13.2, SD = 3.5). Words in the two conditions
were of comparable biphone frequency (mean biphone frequency = 424.5, SD = 181.1, for the high
neighborhood size words; mean biphone frequency = 406.4, SD = 254.9, for the low neighborhood size
words). All words were selected to have been acquired by the majority of children before 5 years of
age based on Morrison, Chappell, and Ellis (1997) norms. The two conditions were blocked, and each
condition involved a different cartoon animal that spoke the relevant words and began with a famil-
iarization phase during which pictures corresponding to the six stimuli items were shown to ensure
that participants would correctly recognize the words when they heard them at test.
The task proper involved the relevant animal saying one or more words in response to a mouse
click from the experimenter. Audio files were presented at a rate of one per second. Once the animal
had finished speaking, a question mark appeared to the right of the animal to prompt participants to
repeat the list. Each condition began with 6 practice trials, with one word being presented on each
trial. This was followed by 4 trials of List Length 2, after which participants either continued on to
4 trials of List Length 3 if they had correctly recalled at least one of the four preceding lists or ended
that particular condition. Similarly, if participants were able to correctly recall one of the four lists at
List Length 3, they then moved on to 4 trials of List Length 4; otherwise, testing on that condition fin-
ished. Irrespective of performance on the trials of List Length 4, testing finished once these 4 trials had
been presented. Therefore, for each of the two conditions, participants were presented with a maxi-
mum of 12 trials. In each trial, no stimulus was presented twice in a single list, and within each set
of trials at each list length each stimulus was employed equally often overall and occurred equally of-
ten at each serial position.
Item recognition
This task again involved cartoon characters shown on a computer screen, but in this case one char-
acter said a target list of words and the other character then attempted to repeat that list. Words were
presented at a rate of one per second with a 1-s pause between the two lists. The first list was spoken
by a female voice, and the second list was spoken by a male voice. On 50% of trials, the second char-
acter repeated the list correctly; on the remaining 50% of trials, the second character incorrectly re-
placed a word on the list with a new item that shared the vowel sound of the replaced word but
had different initial and final consonants (see Appendix B). In the latter case, the position of the un-
changed items in the list remained the same (e.g., room, bat, peg and room, man, peg). Participants’ task
was to determine whether the two lists were the same or different.
The task proper consisted of 24 trials, 12 of which involved three-item lists and 12 of which in-
volved four-item lists. The three-item lists were presented in a block before the four-item lists, and
within each block the ordering of same and different trials was fixed but appeared to be random. In
addition, the position of the substituted item in different lists was controlled in a similar fashion. Per-
formance was scored in terms of the number of repeated lists correctly identified as same or different,
giving a maximum score of 24. The test proper was preceded by 3 practice trials with two-item lists. In
this task, different stimuli were used on every single trial. The 84 target items and 12 substitution
items employed were of as low age of acquisition as possible and either were selected from the norms
of Morrison and colleagues (1997) or Gilhooly and Logie (1980) or were taken from Brock and Jarrold
(2004).
Order recognition
This task had a structure similar to that of the item recognition test and again involved presenta-
tion of two word lists spoken by two cartoon characters on the screen. Words were again presented at
a rate of one per second with a 1-s pause between the two lists, and one female voice and one male
voice were used for the two characters. However, in this task the second character incorrectly recalled
the list on 50% of occasions by reordering one pair of adjacent items within it (e.g., back, pig, soap and
pig, back, soap). Participants’ task was again to determine whether the two lists were identical or not,
and it was explained that in this case the items needed to be said in exactly the same order to be
correct.
Here 12 three-item lists and 12 four-item lists were presented, allowing for a maximum score of
24. The ordering of same and different trials in the task was fixed but appeared to be random, and
the serial positions of adjacent items that switched in different trials were balanced across trials.
The 84 words employed in the task were the same as the target words used in the item serial recog-
nition task, and again different words were used on each trial. Three trials with two-item lists served
as an initial practice phase.
Phonological awareness tasks
The three phonological awareness tasks were adapted from the Phonological Abilities Test (Muter
et al., 1997) to allow the same form of presentation for each task. In each trial of each task, the com-
puter showed four pictures: a target object in the center of the top half of the screen and three poten-
tial response objects spaced left to right in the lower half of the screen.
In the alliteration task, participants identified words that started with the same sound. The exper-
imenter named the target item, emphasized the start sound of the word, and then pointed to and
named each of the three response options and asked participants which of those started with the same
sound as the target (e.g., ‘‘Here is a ball. Ball starts with b. Which one of these also starts with b? Is it
bed, frog, or doll?”). In the deletion task, participants were asked to detect the response option that was
formed by the removal of the first phoneme of the target (e.g., ‘‘Deer without the d is fox, ear, or
door?”). In the rhyme task, participants needed to select the response option that rhymed with the tar-
get (e.g., ‘‘Cat sounds the same as fish, gun, or hat?”).
A total of 10 trials were given in each task, and the number of items correctly identified was re-
corded. The position of the correct response option varied systematically across trials.
Discrimination task
A discrimination task assessed participants’ ability to make a minimal pair discrimination in the
presence of noise. A total of 12 minimal pairs were constructed from high-frequency, low-age-of-
acquisition words that differed by only one phoneme (e.g., box and fox). Pictures of these pairs were
shown sequentially on the computer screen, and an audio recording of one of the words was played
with pink noise added to it to make the judgment nontrivial.3 Participants were required to point to the
one object in the pair that had just been named. Each pair was presented twice, with each item in the
pair being probed once. Prior to testing, participants were shown the picture of each stimulus item
and then asked to name it to ensure that they knew the identity of the objects being displayed in the
test proper.
Existing vocabulary knowledge
Existing receptive and expressive vocabularies were assessed using the fourth edition of the Pea-
body Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) (Dunn & Dunn, 2007) and the second edition of the Expressive
Vocabulary Test (EVT) (Williams, 2007), respectively. These tasks have been standardized on the same
population and so allow a meaningful comparison of receptive and expressive vocabulary abilities.
However, because the tasks were designed for North American samples, changes to a few items were
made to render them suitable for use with a British population. Specifically, the pictures of the items
taxi and map were replaced by similar drawings of these items that would be more familiar to British
participants. Receptive and expressive mental age equivalent scores were obtained for each individual.
Raven’s CPM
Participants were given Raven’s CPM, which consists of 36 items. Each item requires individuals to
select, from a choice of six options, the image that correctly completes a central pattern. Participants
determine the correct match on either a perceptual basis (early items on the test) or a conceptual basis
(later items). Performance was measured in terms of the total number of items correctly identified.
Presentation order
All participants received these tasks in the following order: discrimination, PPVT, Raven’s CPM,
rhyme, EVT, deletion, serial recall, and alliteration. In addition, one of the serial recognition tasks (item
or order) was presented prior to the serial recall task, with the other one given after the alliteration
task. The ordering of the item and order recognition tasks was counterbalanced across conditions.
The order in which participants experienced the two conditions of the serial recall task was also coun-
terbalanced. The three conditions of the form learning task and the three conditions of the referent
learning task were interspersed between the other measures so that participants received breaks in
3
Pink noise is weighted to ensure that each frequency component has equivalent subjective loudness and, therefore, masks
evenly across the frequency spectrum of natural speech.
between the various conditions of these tasks. Participants received the three form learning conditions
followed by the three referent learning conditions or vice versa. In addition, the ordering of the con-
ditions within each word learning task was counterbalanced across participants using a Latin square
design.
Results
Preliminary analyses
An initial analysis examined the reliability of the various experimental measures among the sam-
ple of typically developing individuals. The split-half reliability for each of the conditions of the word
learning tasks was high: Form LNS–HBF, .93; Form HNS–LBF, .87; Form LNS–LBF, .91; Referent LNS–
HBF, .87; Referent HNS–LBF, .82; Referent LNS–LBF, .91. (These and subsequent values are Spear-
man–Brown corrected.) The reliability of the rhyme and deletion phonological awareness tasks was
good (.78) in each case. However, lower split-half reliabilities were observed for the alliteration task
(.49) and the discrimination task (.21). An item (alpha) reliability analysis of the alliteration task
showed that 2 of the 10 items were reducing the reliability of the measure. With these items removed,
the split-half reliability of the task rose to .63, and consequently all subsequent analyses used a score
from this task from the remaining 8 items only. Similarly, an item analysis of the discrimination task
showed that the reliability was reduced by the inclusion of 2 items, and the task was rescored without
these trials. The resultant split-half reliability was again improved to .63.
The split-half reliability of the two serial recall measures was moderate (.71 and .60 for large and small
neighborhood size conditions, respectively). A repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the
two recall scores (large and small neighborhood size) in this population showed no reliable effect of
neighborhood size on performance, F(1, 63) = 2.24, p = .14, MSE = 1.85, partial g2 = .03. Consequently,
recall scores were collapsed across the two conditions for all subsequent analyses, with a consequent
increase in the reliability of the composite measure to .80. The split-half reliability of the two recognition
measures was reasonable for item recognition (.73) and for order recognition (.76). An additional anal-
ysis that coded performance on these recognition tasks in terms of A-prime scores did not improve their
reliability; in fact, A-prime scores led to poorer reliability than did total trials correct.
A further analysis explored the distribution of scores on the sound discrimination test among typ-
ically developing individuals to identify any individuals who might have hearing difficulties that
would detrimentally affect their performance on the word learning tasks. Three typically developing
individuals were identified as statistical outliers with scores of 615 of 22 (z = –1.96). These individuals
were removed from the dataset along with one individual with Down syndrome who scored below
this cutoff point for the sound discrimination task with 13 of 22; all other individuals with Down syn-
drome had discrimination scores of P16. Therefore, the remaining samples consisted of 21 individuals
with Down syndrome and 61 typically developing children.
Comparison of samples
Table 1 gives descriptive statistics for age, Raven’s CPM scores, and the two standardized measures
of vocabulary knowledge for the group of individuals with Down syndrome and the typically develop-
ing individuals. An ANOVA indicated that the Raven’s CPM scores of the two groups did not differ reli-
ably, F(1, 80) = 0.34, p = .63, MSE = 21.58, partial g2 < .01. A two-factor ANOVA compared the EVT and
PPVT mental age scores for the two groups. This showed a nonsignificant main effect of group, F(1,
80) < 0.01, p = .97, MSE = 566.71, partial g2 < .01, which was qualified by a significant group by task
interaction, F(1, 80) = 28.92, p < .01, MSE = 55.49, partial g2 = .27. Further post hoc analysis showed
that among the typically developing individuals, there was no reliable effect of task, F(1, 60) = 1.07,
p = .31, MSE = 31.52, partial g2 = .02. However, among individuals with Down syndrome, the effect
of task was significant due to lower mental ages for the expressive vocabulary measure, F(1,
20) = 14.55, p < .01, MSE = 127.41, partial g2 = .42. Despite this contrast in effect of task, the two
groups themselves did not differ reliably on PPVT mental ages, F(1, 80) = 2.50, p = .12, MSE = 306.72,
partial g2 = .03, or EVT mental ages, F(1, 80) = 2.66, p = .11, MSE = 315.48, partial g2 = .03.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics for selected measures in the two groups
DS (n = 21) TD (n = 61)
M SD M SD
Chronological age (months) 249.81 46.75 75.41 10.66
Raven’s CPM score 19.33 4.04 19.90 4.83
EVT mental age (months) 74.67 18.45 82.00 17.53
PPVT mental age (months) 87.95 17.75 80.95 17.43
Recall score 12.00 3.05 18.25 3.67
Item serial recognition 15.24 2.12 18.30 3.20
Order serial recognition 15.43 2.20 18.15 3.47
Alliteration score 5.24 2.30 7.44 1.10
Deletion score 5.24 2.64 8.36 2.25
Rhyme score 4.67 2.37 8.61 1.97
Discrimination score 19.33 1.68 19.16 1.61
Note. DS, Down syndrome group; TD, typically developing individuals.
Also shown in Table 1 is the performance of the two groups on the measures of verbal short-term
memory, phonological awareness, and speech sound discrimination. An ANOVA showed that the
groups differed reliably on serial recall performance, F(1, 80) = 49.08, p < .01, MSE = 12.42, partial
g2 = .38, due to lower scores among individuals with Down syndrome. Similarly, a two-factor analysis
that compared the groups’ performance across the two serial recognition tasks (item and order)
showed a reliable effect of group, F(1, 80) = 20.01, p < .01, MSE = 13.02, partial g2 = .20, again due to
poorer performance among individuals with Down syndrome, and showed a nonsignificant interac-
tion between group and task, F(1, 80) = 0.15, p = .70, MSE = 6.04, partial g2 < .01.
Given that the initial reliability analysis had reduced the number of items used to calculate the
total in the alliteration task, the analysis of the three phonological awareness measures was con-
ducted on proportionalized scores. In addition, performance was analyzed in terms of the propor-
tion correct on each measure at the level of the position of the correct target within the three
possible response options on any trial (first, second, and third positions). This was done to examine
any potential memory effects on task performance because one might expect individuals to show
marked primacy (good performance on the first position) and reduced recency (poor performance
on the third position) if difficulties in holding the target in mind influenced the choice of response
option.
This analysis revealed a reliable effect of group, F(1, 80) = 65.82, p < .01, MSE = 16.09, partial
g2 = .45, due to lower scores among individuals with Down syndrome, but group did not interact reli-
ably with type of measure, F(2, 160) = 2.36, p = .10, MSE = 0.19, partial g2 = .03. The main effect of re-
sponse position was close to significant, F(2, 160) = 2.84, p = .06, MSE = 0.09, partial g2 = .03, but did
not interact reliably with group, F(2, 160) = 2.13, p = .12, MSE = 0.07, partial g2 = .03, or with group
and type of measure, F(4, 320) = 1.96, p = .01, MSE = 0.07, partial g2 = .02. A post hoc analysis of the
trend toward a position effect showed that performance tended to be superior when the correct target
was presented in the final position (M = .81, SD = .22) relative to the first position (M = .79, SD = .22) or
the second position (M = .78, SD = .27), ps = .13 and .10, respectively.
Finally in the context of the data presented in Table 1, an ANOVA on the scores from the discrim-
ination task showed that the two groups did not differ significantly on this measure, F(1, 80) = 0.17,
p = .68, MSE = 2.66, partial g2 < .01. In addition, one-sample t tests showed that levels of performance
on the sound discrimination task differed significantly from ceiling for both typically developing indi-
viduals, t(60) = 13.78, p < .01, and individuals with Down syndrome, t(20) = 7.28, p < .01.
The performance of the two groups on the six experimental word learning tasks is shown in Fig. 1.
These data were subjected to a three-factor ANOVA with the factors of group (independent measure),
task (form or referent [repeated measure]), and condition (LNS–HBF, LNS–LBF, or HNS–LBF [repeated
measure]). This revealed a reliable effect of group, F(1, 80) = 15.58, p < .01, MSE = 89.76, partial
g2 = .16, which was qualified by a reliable group by task interaction, F(1, 80) = 15.02, p < .01,
MSE = 46.35, partial g2 = .16. Further post hoc analysis showed that the two groups clearly differed
30
25
20
DS
Score
15 TD
10
0
LNS-HBF HNS-LBF LNS-LBF LNS-HBF HNS-LBF LNS-LBF
Form Referent
Task
Fig. 1. Mean performance by group on each of the three conditions of the form and referent word learning tasks. DS, Down
syndrome group; TD, typically developing individuals. Error bars are 95% confidence intervals.
in their performance on the form task, F(1, 80) = 25.26, p < .01, MSE = 26.84, partial g2 = .24, but not on
the referent task, F(1, 80) = 1.09, p = .30, MSE = 18.53, partial g2 = .01.
The main effect of condition from the overall analysis was not significant, F(1, 80) = 0.76, p = .47,
MSE = 20.41, partial g2 < .01, and the group by condition interaction was similarly nonreliable, F(1,
80) = 0.35, p = .71, MSE = 20.41, partial g2 < .01. However, the task by condition interaction was close
to significant, F(2, 160) = 2.80, p = .06, MSE = 24.47, partial g2 = .03, and was qualified by a near signif-
icant three-way interaction among factors, F(2, 160) = 2.59, p = .08, MSE = 24.47, partial g2 = .03. To
examine the three-way interaction, two separate ANOVAs were conducted—one for each task—with
the factors of group and condition. For the referent task, neither the main effect of condition, F(2,
1160) = 0.33, p = .72, MSE = 29.51, partial g2 < .01, nor the interaction between group and condition,
F(2, 160) = 0.73, p = .48, MSE = 29.51, partial g2 < .01, was significant. In contrast, for the form task,
both the main effect of condition, F(2, 160) = 4.84, p < .01, MSE = 15.37, partial g2 = .06, and the group
by condition interaction, F(2, 160) = 3.18, p = .04, MSE = 15.37, partial g2 = .04, were reliable. Further
analysis showed that among typically developing individuals, there was no significant effect of condi-
tion on form task performance, F(2, 120) = 0.18, p = .83, MSE = 14.26, partial g2 < .01. However, among
individuals with Down syndrome, the condition effect on form task performance was reliable, F(2,
40) = 4.38, p = .02, MSE = 18.72, partial g2 = .18, reflecting a tendency for superior performance on
the LNS–HBF condition relative to the other two conditions: HNS–LBF, p = .05; LNS–LBF, .06. In addi-
tion, although individuals with Down syndrome were impaired, relative to the comparison group, on
each condition of the form task, the degree of impairment was less marked on the LNS–HBF condition
than on the other two conditions: LNS–HBF, F(1, 80) = 8.10, p < .01, MSE = 42.25, partial g2 = .09; HNS–
LBF, F(1, 80) = 29.79, p < .01, MSE = 29.79, partial g2 = .27; LNS–LBF, F(1, 80) = 21.96, p < .01,
MSE = 33.97, partial g2 = .22.
A further analysis of form word learning task examined whether individuals with Down syndrome
performed relatively poorly simply because their memory difficulties affected their ability to deal with
the recognition aspect of this task given that at test in the form task participants were presented with
three nonword choices and needed to select the correct nonword once they heard it. As already dis-
cussed in the context of the phonological awareness measures, if memory difficulties affected this par-
ticular aspect of the form learning task, one might expect individuals with Down syndrome to differ
from controls in showing higher performance when the target was presented as the first choice, less
good performance when the target was presented second, and poorest performance when the target
0.8
Proportion correct TD PA
TD Form
0.6
DS PA
DS Form
0.4
0.2
1 2 3
Target position within response option set
Fig. 2. Mean performance by group on the phonological awareness (PA) and form learning (Form) tasks examined in terms of
the position in the response set of the correct target item on each trial. TD, typically developing individuals; DS, Down syndrome
group. Error bars are 95% confidence intervals.
was presented third. Consequently, an analysis that mirrored the investigation of response position in
the phonological awareness tasks (see above) was conducted, and the effect of response position on
form learning performance in the two groups is shown alongside the corresponding data from the
phonological awareness tasks in Fig. 2. Although there was a reliable effect of choice position on form
learning performance among all participants, F(2, 160) = 3.18, p = .04, MSE = 0.03, partial g2 = .04, this
effect did not interact significantly with group, F(2, 160) = 1.15, p = .32, MSE = 0.03, partial g2 = .01,
and the group by condition by position interaction was similarly nonsignificant, F(4, 320) = 0.28,
p = .89, MSE = 0.01, partial g2 < .01. The main effect of choice position seen in all participants reflected
superior proportional performance on the last position (M = .83, SD = .21) relative to the first position
(M = .79, SD = .22) and the middle position (M = .78, SD = .22), p < .05.
Correlates of performance among typically developing individuals
A separate set of analyses aimed to explore the predictors of form and referent learning among the
typically developing individuals with a view to then using this information to explore potential expla-
nations of the poor form learning seen among the group of participants with Down syndrome. To this
end, aggregate form and referent learning scores were created by averaging across the three condi-
tions of each task, and these scores for the typically developing individuals were subjected to a series
of hierarchical regressions in which similarly aggregated memory and phonological awareness scores
were entered as predictor variables. Composite memory scores were created by averaging across the
serial recall, order recognition, and item recognition measures, and composite phonological awareness
scores were similarly averaged across the alliteration, deletion, and rhyme detection scores. A preli-
minary analysis using Lilliefors test showed that the composite measure of form learning was reliably
nonnormal, D = .20, df = 61, p < .01, due to significant negative skewness (z = –6.34). Similarly, the
composite measure of phonological awareness was also significantly nonnormal, D = .17, df = 61,
p < .01, again due to significant negative skewness (z = –2.46). A reciprocal transformation of reflected
composite scores was carried out to reduce the skewness of these two measures to more acceptable
levels (form learning skewness = 0.53, SE = 0.31, z = 1.73, phonological awareness skewness = –0.29,
SE = 0.31, z = –0.94), and these transformed measures were used in all subsequent analyses reported
below. The composite measures of referent learning and memory did not deviate reliably from nor-
mality, D 6 .12, df = 61, p > .05. Table 2 shows the pattern of zero-order correlations observed between
these various measures.
Table 2
Pearson r values for correlations between age, Raven’s CPM, and appropriately transformed composite measures of phonological
awareness, memory, form learning, and referent learning
CA CPM PA Memory Form Referent

CA – .71 .49 .58 .43 .07
CPM .33 – .40 .57 .36 .23
PA .31 .50 – .58 .32 .12
Memory .17 .06 .25 – .46 .00
Form .10 .13 .33 .59 – .15
Referent –.21 .06 .14 .20 .33 –
Note. Values above the leading diagonal are for typically developing individuals (df = 59, r > .25 significant at the 5% level),
whereas values below the leading diagonal are for individuals with Down syndrome (df = 19, r > .40 significant at the 5% level).
CA, chronological age; CPM, Raven’s CPM score; PA, transformed phonological awareness score.
In each hierarchical regression, chronological age and Raven’s CPM score were entered on a first
step to remove variance attributable solely to general developmental level. Then measures of either
phonological awareness or memory were entered on the second step. On the third step, the other
of the two measures (either memory or phonological awareness) that had not been entered on step
2 was included. Therefore, this analysis produced regressions for each task that examined whether
either the memory or phonological awareness measure accounted for unique variance in word learn-
ing when the other composite measure, age, and general ability had been controlled.
Table 3 summarizes the results of these regressions and shows that the memory composite score
was a better predictor of form learning than was the phonological awareness composite score. When
entered on the second step of the regression, memory accounted for a significant proportion of the
variance in form learning; this was not the case when phonological awareness was entered on the sec-
ond step. In addition, when entered on the third step following phonological awareness, memory still
accounted for 4.89% of the variance in form learning, p = .06. A different pattern was observed for ref-
erent learning where neither the memory nor phonological awareness composite measure predicted
reliable variance in performance after accounting for age and nonverbal ability. However, it is worth
noting that in this case phonological awareness was the numerically stronger predictor of referent
learning, implying that the superiority of memory as a predictor of form learning is not simply a reflec-
tion of general differences in the sensitivity of the two composite scores.
Regression analysis of form learning among individuals with Down syndrome
On the basis of the above results, a regression-based analysis was conducted seeking to ‘‘predict” the
form learning performance of individuals with Down syndrome given their memory abilities. As a first
step, form learning was regressed against composite memory score in the typically developing sample
(see Fig. 3). This linear regression was significant, r = .46, df = 59, p < .01. On the basis of the equation
for this regression, expected form learning values for individuals with Down syndrome were calculated.
The differences between the expected and actual observed form learning scores for individuals with
Down syndrome (these observed scores are also shown in Fig. 2) were then divided by the standard error
in the typically developing regression to create standardized scores for the individuals with Down syn-
drome (cf. Jarrold & Brock, 2004). In other words, this analysis tests whether individuals with Down syn-
drome still show impaired form learning after accounting for their level of memory abilities.4
The average ‘‘memory-adjusted” z score for form learning of individuals with Down syndrome rel-
ative was 0.18 (SD = 1.23). A one-sample t test showed that this did not differ significantly from zero,
t(20) = –0.66, p = .52. However, inspection of Fig. 3 suggests that this mean value may have been par-
ticularly affected by one individual with Down syndrome who performed unusually well on the form
learning task.5 To some extent, the fact that this individual is an apparent outlier within the group re-
4
In essence, this analysis is conceptually similar to an analysis of covariance that examines the effect of group on form learning
while covarying out memory score. However, it avoids problems of interpretation inherent in analysis of covariance that arise
when the groups differ reliably on the covariate, as would be the case here (see Jarrold & Brock, 2004).
5
This was not the individual with mosaic Down syndrome.
Table 3
Hierarchical regressions predicting average form or referent learning among the sample of typically developing children
Dependent variable Step Independent variables Dr 2 p

Form 1 CA, CPM .20 < .01
learning 2 PA .01 .34
3 Memory .05 .06
2 Memory .06 .03
3 PA < .01 .90
Referent 1 CA, CPM .07 .12
3 Memory < .01 .67
2 Memory .02 .32
3 PA .02 .22
Note. CA, chronological age; CPM, Raven’s CPM score; PA, transformed phonological awareness score.
1
Transformed form learning composite
0.75
TD
0.5
DS
0.25
0
10 15 20 25
Memory composite
Fig. 3. Scatterplot of the association between form learning and memory. The line of best fit shown for the regression is that for
typically developing individuals. TD, typically developing individuals; DS, Down syndrome group.
flects the fact that the transformation employed on the form learning composite score was designed to
increase the spread of scores at the upper range of the measure (this individual had an untransformed
form learning score of 30.00 as compared with the next highest score in the Down syndrome group of
28.67). Nevertheless, a further analysis excluded this individual and compared the memory-adjusted
form learning z scores of individuals with Down syndrome with z scores derived relative to the whole
sample of typically developing individuals without any adjustment for other variables. In other words,
this analysis asked whether the degree of form learning impairment seen in individuals with Down syn-
drome is significantly ameliorated when one takes into account the degree of memory impairment asso-
ciated with the group. The average memory-adjusted form learning z score for individuals with Down
syndrome, excluding the anomalous individual discussed above, was 0.41 (SD = 0.64), which was sig-
nificantly different from zero, t(19) = 2.93, p < .01. The average form learning z score without any adjust-
ment was 1.03 (SD = 0.61), and a comparison of the two types of z scores across individuals showed a
significant difference between them, F(1, 19) = 137.68, p < .01, MSE = 0.03, partial g2 = .88, confirming
that adjusting for extent of memory deficit reliably reduced the size of the deficit in form learning seen
in these individuals.
A final analysis applied the hierarchical regression approach carried out with typically developing
children (cf. Table 3) to the sample of individuals with Down syndrome. The results of this analysis
(shown in Table 4) need to be viewed with a degree of caution because the sample size of individuals
with Down syndrome is arguably too small to place much weight on correlational data, hence the
importance of a typically developing based standardisation just described. Nevertheless, the results
Table 4
Hierarchical regressions predicting average form or referent learning among the sample of individuals with Down syndrome
Dependent variable Step Independent variables Dr2 p

Form 1 CA, CPM .02 .83
3 Memory .28 .01
2 Memory .36 < .01
3 PA .02 .52
Referent 1 CA, CPM .04 .68
3 Memory .08 .25
2 Memory .06 .32
3 PA .03 .47
Note. CA, chronological age; CPM, Raven’s CPM score; PA, transformed phonological awareness score.
shown in Table 4 clearly mirror those seen in typically developing individuals and again suggest that
form learning, but not referent learning, is closely related to individuals’ short-term memory abilities.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to examine the correlates of word learning ability in individuals with and
without Down syndrome and, in particular, to test the hypothesis that successfully learning the pho-
nological form of new words requires the maintenance of an accurate phonological representation of
these novel items (Baddeley et al., 1998; Gathercole, 2006; Gupta, 2003). Therefore, we predicted a
relationship between verbal short-term memory performance and performance on our form learning
task because an accurate and detailed phonological representation in memory would be needed to
successfully discriminate between the target item and the phonologically similar foils employed in
this test. In contrast, we did not expect such a strong relationship between verbal short-term memory
performance and referent learning because in the referent learning task the correct phonological form
was explicitly provided to participants. Given that the three names to be learned on any condition of
this task were reasonably distinct from one another, we predicted that even a partially degraded
memory representation of the target would be sufficient to allow participants to distinguish between
these items and, therefore, to match the provided word to the correct referent.
These predictions were borne out by the data. Among typically developing individuals, perfor-
mance on the three memory tasks was not related to a composite measure of referent learning but
was reliably related to a composite form learning score. A corresponding pattern of results was seen
among the individuals with Down syndrome assessed here. Although these individuals were clearly
unimpaired in their ability to identify the referent of newly learned items, they were markedly im-
paired on measures of both verbal short-term memory and form learning. The finding of impaired ver-
bal short-term memory performance in this group, relative to a comparison sample of a
(nonsignificantly) lower level of receptive vocabulary (see Table 1), is entirely consistent with previ-
ous work in this area (see Jarrold et al., 2006). The current study extends this earlier work by showing
a corresponding deficit in the ability to learn the phonological form of new words; indeed, the degree
of impairment in form learning among individuals with Down syndrome was reduced to a nonsignif-
icant level once individuals’ impaired verbal short-term memory abilities were taken into account. The
fact that both groups performed comparably, and below ceiling, on the speech discrimination task fur-
ther indicates that impaired form learning in Down syndrome is not simply a consequence of prob-
lems in perceiving the novel word forms during exposure to them.
One possible account of the association between verbal short-term memory and vocabulary acqui-
sition is that the relationship between these abilities is mediated by phonological awareness skills. By
this view, verbal short-term memory capacity is not the primary causal determinant of new word
learning; rather, phonological awareness constrains both verbal short-term memory and new word
learning performance because of the need to accurately encode and maintain phonological informa-
tion in both task types. Certainly, individuals with Down syndrome showed particularly poor perfor-
mance on the three measures of phonological awareness employed here, raising the possibility that
such a deficit may well mediate the relationship between impaired verbal short-term memory and
word learning in this group and between these two constructs more generally.
It is worth noting that a deficit in phonological awareness among individuals with Down syndrome
could not have arisen from reduced lexical restructuring in this sample relative to the comparison group
because the two populations had comparable levels of existing receptive vocabulary. Therefore, these
data are inconsistent with the view that phonological awareness, developing via a process of lexical
restructuring, accounts for the association between verbal short-term memory and form learning ob-
served here. It remains possible that deficits in phonological awareness in Down syndrome arise from
some other process not related to level of existing language knowledge; although it is worth emphasizing
that problems in speech identification also cannot be the source of this deficit given the group’s unim-
paired performance on the speech discrimination test. A modified version of this account that is not com-
mitted to lexical restructuring (see Bowey, 2006), therefore, might still be able to make a claim for
phonological awareness as the mediator of the association between verbal short-term memory perfor-
mance and new word learning in Down syndrome. However, in the absence of an explicit version of such
an account, a more plausible explanation of the current data is that verbal short-term memory capacity is
directly linked to individuals’ ability to accurately represent the phonological form of new words.
Certainly, such a reading is supported by the results of the regression analyses among the typically
developing sample summarized in Table 3 because, in contrast to the verbal short-term memory com-
posite, a composite measure of phonological awareness did not predict reliable variance in form learn-
ing after accounting for age and nonverbal ability. Indeed, the results of these analyses clearly show
that verbal short-term memory performance was more closely related to form learning than was pho-
nological awareness performance in the typically developing group. Indeed, an entirely similar pattern
was observed among individuals with Down syndrome.
One might argue that this evidence of an association between verbal short-term memory and form
learning performance is somewhat unsurprising given the testing procedure employed in our form
learning task. To recap, because of concerns over the likely accuracy and reliability of a measure of
form learning based on participants’ attempts to say the relevant nonword, the test phase of the form
learning task required individuals to select from one of three possible choices. Potentially, this might
impose a memory load on the task that is not present in the referent learning procedure.
Two related lines of evidence count against this possibility. First, although we fully accept that
holding an accurate representation of the target sound in mind does involve verbal short-term mem-
ory (and, indeed, this is at the heart of our argument of what the form learning task involves), there is
no real reason to think that this memory load increases as one progresses through additional foils in a
recognition procedure. Rather, individuals simply need to decide whether each presented option is a
match to the phonological representation they are holding in mind. Alternatively, one might predict
that the quality of the maintained representation in verbal short-term memory would fade with time,
and hence response position, if subject to time-based trace decay (cf. Baddeley, 1986). However, the
analysis of target position effects in the form learning task showed no evidence that performance de-
clines across successive target positions. More important, there was no evidence whatsoever that indi-
viduals with Down syndrome showed an atypically large target position effect on this task, contrary to
what would be predicted under the assumption that the use of a probed recognition procedure re-
duces the form learning task to a test of verbal short-term memory.
Second, the fact that these target position effects seen in the form learning paradigm were extre-
mely similar to those observed in the phonological awareness tasks (see Fig. 2) further demonstrates
that the form learning procedure is not simply a verbal short-term memory test by another name.
Although some authors have argued that phonological awareness tasks of the form employed here
do have a memory component to them (Gathercole, 2006; Wagner & Muse, 2006), other work has
shown that phonological awareness and verbal short-term memory are separable, if potentially re-
lated, constructs (cf. Avons, Wragg, Cupples, & Lovegrove, 1998; Bowey, 1996, 2001). Indeed, the cur-
rent data support this view because the two constructs do not predict noticeable amounts of shared
variance in either form or referent learning (see Table 3). If one accepts that phonological awareness
tasks of the kind employed here are not reducible to measures of verbal short-term memory, the pat-
tern of data shown in Fig. 2 implies that the same must be true of the form learning task. Taken to-
gether, these arguments support the view that form learning is associated with verbal short-term
memory performance because the former depends on the quality of phonological representations held
in mind and not simply because this was tested here using a three-choice recognition procedure. Nev-
ertheless, further work that directly addresses this issue would clearly be informative.
Before turning to more general conclusions, one aspect of the typically developing data deserves par-
ticular comment. This is the absence of any reliable effect of the type of nonword presented on ease of
acquisition in either the form or referent learning task. As Fig. 1 shows, in this group, nonwords of a high
biphone frequency were learned just as well as those of a low biphone frequency even when neighbor-
hood sizes were comparable. Similarly, nonword sets that differed in neighborhood size but not biphone
frequency were learned as well as each other. Bowey (2006) suggested that the ability to represent non-
wordlike nonwords is likely to be particularly affected by individuals’ ‘‘phonological sensitivity.” In con-
trast, Gathercole (1995) argued that nonwordlike nonwords are necessarily less open to lexical and
sublexical support from existing language knowledge. Regardless of the expected direction of effect,
there is no clear evidence in the current typically developing sample that linguistic factors, which them-
selves may be related to phonological awareness, influence new word learning.
Having stated this, this null result should be treated with a degree of caution. The nonword sets
employed in the learning tasks were selected so that their neighborhood sizes and biphone frequency
counts were clearly distinguishable where necessary. The fact that each set was matched to another
set on one of these measures necessarily constrained stimulus selection. Consequently, the overall
manipulation of wordlikeness was not as strong as it might otherwise have been. This, coupled with
the fact that the design of the tasks meant that only three nonwords were required in each set, limits
the power of these manipulations somewhat. In addition, the fact that the current study used different
types of foils in the form learning procedure, and mixed C_C, _VC, and CV_ neighbor foils, may have
obscured effects that would be apparent with less varied foil items. In the light of these points, it is
worth noting that Storkel (2001) found wordlikeness benefits in nonword learning in a study that em-
ployed form and referent learning tasks similar to those in the current work but with an arguably
stronger manipulation of wordlikeness in terms of nonwords’ biphone frequencies. In her study, Stor-
kel assessed nonword learning among 3- to 6-year-old typically developing children, and the absence
of similar effects of wordlikeness in the current data may also be related to the somewhat older age of
the typically developing children assessed here.
In contrast to these null effects of wordlikeness on nonword learning among typically developing
individuals, the individuals with Down syndrome did show suggestive evidence of an effect of non-
word type on form learning, implying that although the power of this manipulation may have been
limited, it was sufficient to produce an effect in some circumstances. More specifically, although indi-
viduals with Down syndrome were clearly impaired on all three conditions of the form learning task,
they were less disadvantaged when high-biphone-frequency nonwords were presented (see Fig. 1). In
addition, performance in this condition of the form task was superior to that observed in the low-bi-
phone-frequency condition containing nonwords of a comparable neighborhood size (p = .06 for this
difference). In other words, there is a suggestion of a positive biphone frequency effect in the form
learning data of the individuals with Down syndrome.
This raises the possibility that individuals with Down syndrome may compensate for problems in
form learning that are related to their poor verbal short-term memory performance by relying on their
broader linguistic knowledge to an atypical extent. The absence of a neighborhood size benefit in these
data implies that this effect does not arise at the lexical level, and this is perhaps unsurprising given
that the groups did not differ significantly on level of receptive vocabulary. However, the groups
clearly did differ in age, and the sublexical benefit to word learning shown here by individuals with
Down syndrome may well reflect their greater experience with the spoken language. In other words,
although the individuals with Down syndrome had acquired approximately the same level of lexical
knowledge as the comparison sample, the fact that they had taken considerably longer to do so may
have give them relatively greater knowledge of the phonotactic properties of the language. Indeed, in
our previous work with typically developing individuals, a sublexical benefit to word learning was
seen in older children rather than in younger children (Jarrold & Thorn, 2007). Alternatively, it may
be that the current sample of typically developing individuals have phonotactic knowledge at least
as good as that of the individuals with Down syndrome but apply this knowledge less to form learning
because they are able to rely more on memory-related processes.
Therefore, further work is needed to determine the extent to which sublexical language knowledge
mediates word learning in Down syndrome. This could involve looking in detail at the types of errors that
individuals make in truly productive form learning tasks or systematically manipulating the phonotactic
properties of the foils used in the kind of recognition-based form learning task employed here (cf. Kay-
Raining Bird & Chapman, 1998). However, regardless of the underlying cause of the biphone frequency
effect on form learning among individuals with Down syndrome, this effect implies that some new words
will be easier than others for individuals with Down syndrome to learn accurately. In particular, words
that have been incorporated into the native language from other languages are likely to be especially dif-
ficult to learn, whereas words that contain commonly occurring phoneme combinations should be easier
to acquire. Given the scale of the task that is native vocabulary acquisition, it seems unlikely that one
would be able to devise a full intervention strategy for language learning based on the phonotactic fre-
quency of to-be-learned words. Nevertheless, future work may be able to examine the benefits of pre-
senting individuals with Down syndrome with small sets of high-biphone-frequency stimuli in word
learning exercises aimed at encouraging vocabulary development.
Another implication of the current data for our understanding of Down syndrome comes from the
clear contrast between impaired form learning and unimpaired referent learning observed in this sam-
ple. Although consistent with our initial hypotheses, it is important to note that this interaction in the
data indicates a clear strength in referent learning among these individuals. This goes some way to-
ward explaining the apparent puzzle (noted above) between relatively strong receptive vocabulary
skills and clearly impaired verbal short-term memory performance seen in Down syndrome. This
apparent contradiction is readily explained by the current evidence that learning the referent to a
new word tends to place a lighter load on processes related to verbal short-term memory performance
than does learning the precise phonological form of a new word. Indeed, the contrast between im-
paired form and unimpaired referent learning in this group of individuals with Down syndrome is mir-
rored by a relative strength in existing receptive vocabulary and a relative weakness in expressive
vocabulary in this sample. Although the individuals with Down syndrome did not differ significantly
from the typically developing sample in either receptive or expressive vocabulary age, they did differ
from this group in showing a significant difference between these two measures; among individuals
with Down syndrome, expressive vocabulary was reliably poorer than receptive vocabulary. This dif-
ference is commonly observed in the literature (Abbeduto et al., 2007; Chapman, 1995; Laws & Bishop,
2003), and the current data suggest one explanation for this discrepancy, namely that expressive
vocabulary in Down syndrome is related to verbal short-term memory performance in a way that
receptive vocabulary is not (cf. Gupta et al., 2003).
To conclude, the current work has important implications for understanding the processes involved
in new word learning and, in particular, constrains the application of Baddeley and colleagues’ (e.g.,
Baddeley et al., 1998) model of the role of verbal short-term memory in vocabulary acquisition. It does
this in a number of ways. First, although the data highlight the need for further causal modeling of the
interactions between measures of phonological awareness and verbal short-term memory as predic-
tors of word learning (Bowey, 1996; Service, 2006; Wagner & Muse, 2006), they suggest that a lexical
restructuring account of the development of phonological awareness cannot explain the relation be-
tween verbal short-term memory performance and form learning observed here. In addition, the cur-
rent results indicate that although verbal short-term memory performance is clearly related to form
word learning, and by implication to expressive vocabulary, it is not an obvious predictor of referent
word learning (Gathercole et al., 1997; Gupta et al., 2006). This is not to say that verbal short-term
memory is only involved in form learning and never involved in referent learning. The pattern of asso-
ciations observed here is likely to reflect the fact that form learning was assessed using a paradigm in
which targets and foils were phonologically very similar to one another, whereas referent learning
was assessed using items whose names were more phonologically distinct. We would argue that this
mirrors the general situation in both form learning, where a precise phonological representation is re-
quired, and referent learning, where one can ‘‘get by” with a partial phonological representation. How-
ever, it would clearly be possible to design a referent learning test in which all of the names of the
presented objects were phonologically similar to one another. In that case, we would certainly predict
a relationship between success and level of verbal short-term memory in the general population and
impaired performance among individuals with Down syndrome. Therefore, it would be more accurate
to say that the current study shows that verbal short-term memory is crucial to new word learning
when a precise phonological representation is required to complete the task (Service et al., 2007).
Our claim is that this is more often the case for form learning than for referent learning, but clearly
this is an assertion that needs to be fully evaluated by further research in this area.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by a grant from the Economic and Social Research Council of the United
Kingdom to the first two authors (RES-000-22-1935). We are grateful to the staff and students of the
following schools for their participation in this research: Briarwood School, Bristol; Colebrook Infant
School, Swindon; Kingsweston School, Bristol; King William Street Primary School, Swindon; and Rav-
enswood School, Nailsea. We also thank the participants with Down syndrome, and their families, who
took part in home assessments.
Appendix A
Stimuli for form and referent learning tasks and for serial recall task
Form learning Referent learning Serial recall

LNS–HBF deeve LNS–HBF rarse LNS cup
rarn teeve dog
verm vern fish
LNS–LBF dardge LNS–LBF herdge leg
ferp meef nurse
heeg varb van
HNS–LBF berl HNS–LBF farze HNS boot
darze herk cat
weef keef cake
duck
nose
sun
Note. LNS, low neighborhood size; HNS, high neighborhood size; LBF, low biphone frequency; HBF, high biphone frequency.
Appendix B
Details of substitutions made in the item recognition task
Target item in initial list Substituted item in second list

bat man
face gate
jug mum
note phone
bike light
leaf meat
cage tail
box top
pin lip
dad rat
sock cot
fork wall
References
Abbeduto, L., Warren, S. F., & Connors, F. A. (2007). Language development in Down syndrome: From the prelinguistic period to
the acquisition of literacy. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13, 247–261.
Avons, S. E., Wragg, C. A., Cupples, L., & Lovegrove, W. J. (1998). Measures of phonological short-term memory and their
relationship to vocabulary development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 583–601.
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX lexical database (CD–ROM). Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baddeley, A. (1993). Short-term phonological memory and long-term learning: A single-case study. European Journal of Cognitive
Psychology, 5, 129–148.
Baddeley, A., Gathercole, S., & Papagno, C. (1998). The phonological loop as a language learning device. Psychological Review, 105,
158–173.
Bailey, T. M., & Hahn, U. (2001). Determinants of wordlikeness: Phonotactics or lexical neighborhoods. Journal of Memory and
Language, 44, 568–591.
Bowey, J. A. (1996). On the association between phonological memory and receptive vocabulary in 5-year-olds. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 63, 44–78.
Bowey, J. A. (2001). Nonword repetition and young children’s receptive vocabulary: A longitudinal study. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 22, 441–469.
Bowey, J. A. (2006). Clarifying the phonological processing account of nonword repetition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 548–552.
Brock, J., & Jarrold, C. (2004). Language influences on verbal short-term memory performance in Down syndrome: Item and
order recognition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 1334–1346.
Brock, J., & Jarrold, C. (2005). Serial order reconstruction in Down syndrome: Evidence for a selective deficit in verbal short-term
memory. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 304–316.
Burgess, N., & Hitch, G. (2005). Computational models of working memory: Putting long-term memory into context. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 9, 535–541.
Cairns, P., & Jarrold, C. (2005). Exploring the correlates of impaired nonword repetition in Down syndrome. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 23, 401–416.
Carey, S., & Bartlett, E. (1978). Acquiring a single new word. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 15, 17–29.
Chapman, R. S. (1995). Language development in children and adolescents with Down syndrome. In P. Fletcher & B.
MacWhinney (Eds.), Handbook of child language (pp. 641–663). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Chapman, R. S. (2003). Language and communication in individuals with Down syndrome. In L. Abbeduto (Ed.), International
review of research in mental retardation (pp. 1–34). San Diego: Academic Press.
Chapman, R. S., Kay-Raining Bird, E., & Schwartz, S. E. (1990). Fast mapping of words in event contexts by children with Down
syndrome. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55, 761–770.
Chapman, R. S., Schwartz, S. E., & Kay-Raining Bird, E. (1991). Language skills of children and adolescents with Down syndrome:
I. Comprehension. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 1106–1120.
Chapman, R. S., Sindberg, H., Bridge, C., Gigstead, K., & Hesketh, L. (2006). Effect of memory support and elicited production on
fast mapping of new words by adolescents with Down syndrome. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49,
3–15.
Cossu, G., Rossini, F., & Marshall, J. C. (1993). When reading is acquired but phonemic awareness is not: A study of literacy in
Down’s syndrome. Cognition, 46, 129–138.
de Jong, P. F., Seveke, M-J., & van Veen, M. (2000). Phonological sensitivity and the acquisition of new words in children. Journal
of Experimental Child Psychology, 76, 275–301.
Dodd, B., Holm, A., Hua, Z., & Crosbie, S. (2003). Phonological development: A normative study of British English-speaking
children. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 17, 617–643.
Dodd, B., & Thompson, L. (2001). Speech disorder in children with Down’s syndrome. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 45,
308–316.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2007). Peabody picture vocabulary test (4th ed.). Bloomington, MN: Pearson Assessments.
Fishler, K., Koch, R., & Donnell, G. N. (1976). Comparison of mental development in individuals with mosaic and trisomy 21
Down’s syndrome. Pediatrics, 58, 744–748.
Gathercole, S. E. (1995). Is nonword repetition a test of phonological memory or long-term knowledge? It all depends on the
nonwords. Memory and Cognition, 23, 83–94.
Gathercole, S. E. (2006). Nonword repetition and word learning: The nature of the relationship. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27,
513–543.
Gathercole, S. E., & Alloway, T. P. (2006). Short-term and working memory impairments in neurodevelopmental disorders:
Diagnosis and remedial support. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 4–15.
Gathercole, S. E., Frankish, C. R., Pickering, S. J., & Peaker, S. (1999). Phonotactic influences on short-term memory. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 25, 84–95.
Gathercole, S. E., Hitch, G. J., Service, E., & Martin, A. J. (1997). Phonological short-term memory and new word learning in
children. Developmental Psychology, 6, 966–979.
Gathercole, S. E., Service, E., Hitch, G. J., Adams, A-M., & Martin, A. J. (1999). Phonological short-term memory and vocabulary
development: Further evidence on the nature of the relationship. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 65–77.
Gathercole, S. E., Willis, C. S., Emslie, H., & Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Phonological memory and vocabulary development during the
early school years: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 5, 887–898.
Gilhooly, K. J., & Logie, R. H. (1980). Age-of-acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity, and ambiguity measures for 1, 944
words. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 12, 395–427.
Gombert, J-E. (2002). Children with Down syndrome use phonological knowledge in reading. Reading and Writing, 15, 455–469.
Gupta, P. (2003). Examining the relationships between word learning, nonword repetition, and immediate serial recall in adults.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 56, 1213–1236.
Gupta, P., & MacWhinney, B. (1997). Vocabulary acquisition and verbal short-term memory: Computational and neural bases.
Brain and Language, 59, 267–333.
Gupta, P., MacWhinney, B., Feldman, H. M., & Sacco, K. (2003). Phonological memory and vocabulary learning in children with
focal lesions. Brain and Language, 87, 241–252.
Gupta, P., Martin, N., Abbs, B., Schwartz, M., & Lipinski, J. (2006). New word learning in aphasic patients: Dissociating
phonological and semantic components. Brain and Language, 99, 1–2.
Hulme, C., Roodenrys, S., Schweickert, R., Brown, G. D. A., Martin, S., & Stuart, G. (1997). Word frequency effects on short-term
memory tasks: Evidence for a redintegration process in immediate recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 23, 1217–1232.
Jarrold, C., Baddeley, A. D., Hewes, A. K., Leeke, T., & Phillips, C. (2004). What links verbal short-term memory performance and
vocabulary level? Evidence of changing relationships among individuals with learning disability. Journal of Memory and
Language, 50, 134–148.
Jarrold, C., & Brock, J. (2004). To match or not to match: Methodological issues in autism-related research. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 34, 81–86.
Jarrold, C., Purser, H. R. M., & Brock, J. (2006). Short-term memory in Down syndrome. In T. P. Alloway & S. E. Gathercole (Eds.),
Working memory and neurodevelopmental disorders (pp. 239–266). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Jarrold, C., & Thorn, A. S. C. (2007). Developmental changes in lexical and sublexical influences on new word learning. Edinburgh, UK:
Poster presented at the joint meeting of the Experimental Psychology Society and the Psychonomic Society.
Kay-Raining Bird, E., & Chapman, R. S. (1998). Partial representations and phonological selectivity in the comprehension of 13-
to 16-month-olds. First Language, 18, 105–127.
Kay-Raining Bird, E., Chapman, R. S., & Schwartz, S. E. (2004). Fast mapping of words and story recall by individuals with Down
syndrome. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 1286–1300.
Kay-Raining Bird, E., Gaskell, A., Babineau, M. D., & MacDonald, S. (2000). Novel word acquisition in children with Down
syndrome: Does modality make a difference? Journal of Communication Disorders, 33, 241–266.
Laws, G. (1998). The use of nonword repetition as a test of phonological memory in children with Down syndrome. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39, 1119–1130.
Laws, G. (2002). Working memory in children and adolescents with Down syndrome: Evidence from a color memory
experiment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 353–364.
Laws, G., & Bishop, D. V. M. (2003). A comparison of language abilities in adolescents with Down syndrome and children with
specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 1324–1339.
Laws, G., & Gunn, D. (2004). Phonological memory as a predictor of language comprehension in Down syndrome: A five-year
follow-up study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 326–337.
LeJeune, J., Gautier, M., & Turpin, R. (1959). Etudes des chromosomes somatiques de neuf enfants mongoliens. Comptes Renus de
l’Academic les Sciences, 48, 1721.
Majerus, S., Poncelet, M., Elsen, B., & Van der Linden, M. (2006). Exploring the relationship between new word learning and short-
term memory for serial order recall, item recall, and item recognition. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18, 848–873.
Majerus, S., Poncelet, M., Greffe, C., & Van der Linden, M. (2006). Relations between vocabulary development and verbal short-
term memory: The relative importance of short-term memory for serial order and item information. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 93, 95–119.
Marcell, M. M., & Cohen, S. (1992). Hearing abilities of Down syndrome and other mentally handicapped adolescents. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 15, 533–551.
Masoura, E. V., & Gathercole, S. E. (1999). Phonological short-term memory and foreign language learning. International Journal
of Psychology, 34, 383–388.
Mervis, C. B., & Bertrand, J. (1995). Acquisition of the novel name–nameless category (n3c) principle by young children who
have Down syndrome. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 100, 231–243.
Messbauer, V. C. S., & de Jong, P. F. (2003). Word, nonword, and visual paired associate learning in Dutch dyslexic children.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 84, 77–96.
Metsala, J. L. (1999). Young children’s phonological awareness and non-word repetition as a function of vocabulary
development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 3–19.
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. 89–120). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Michas, I. C., & Henry, L. A. (1994). The link between phonological memory and vocabulary acquisition. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 12, 147–163.
Miller, J. F. (1988). The developmental asynchrony of language development in children with Down syndrome. In L. Nadel (Ed.),
The psychobiology of Down syndrome (pp. 167–198). Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press.
Morrison, C. M., Chappell, T. D., & Ellis, A. W. (1997). Age of acquisition norms for a large set of object names and their relation to
adult estimates and other variables. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 50, 528–559.
Mosse, E. K., & Jarrold, C. (2008). Hebb learning, verbal short-term memory, and the acquisition of phonological forms in
children. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 505–514.
Muter, V., Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. (1997). The phonological abilities test. London: Psychological Corporation.
Numminen, H., Service, E., Ahonen, T., & Ruoppila, I. (2001). Working memory and everyday cognition in adult persons with
Down’s syndrome. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 45, 157–168.
Papagno, C., & Vallar, G. (1995). Verbal short-term memory and vocabulary learning in polyglots. Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology A, 48, 98–107.
Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Coloured progressive matrices. Oxford, UK: Oxford Psychologists Press.
Roberts, J. E., Price, J., & Malkin, C. (2007). Language and communication development in Down syndrome. Mental Retardation
and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13, 26–35.
Roch, M., & Jarrold, C. (2008). A comparison between word and nonword reading in Down syndrome: The role of phonological
awareness. Journal of Communication Disorders, 41, 305–318.
Roodenrys, S., & Hinton, M. (2002). Sublexical or lexical effects on serial recall of nonwords? Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory And Cognition, 28, 29–33.
Roodenrys, S., Hulme, C., Lethbridge, A., Hinton, M., & Nimmo, L. M. (2002). Word-frequency and phonological neighborhood
effects on verbal short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 1019–1034.
Service, E. (2006). Phonological networks and new word learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 581–584.
Service, E., & Kohonen, V. (1995). Is the relation between phonological memory and foreign-language learning accounted for by
vocabulary acquisition? Applied Psycholinguistics, 16, 155–172.
Service, E., Maury, S., & Luotoniemi, E. (2007). Individual differences in phonological learning and verbal STM span. Memory and
Cognition, 35, 1122–1135.
Snowling, M., Chiat, S., & Hulme, C. (1991). Words, nonwords, and phonological processes: Some comments on Gathercole,
Willis, Emslie, and Baddeley. Applied Psycholinguistics, 12, 369–373.
Snowling, M. J., Hulme, C., & Mercer, R. C. (2002). A deficit in rime awareness in children with Down syndrome. Reading and
Writing, 15, 471–495.
Storkel, H. L. (2001). Learning new words: Phonotactic probability in language development. Journal of Speech, Language, and
Hearing Research, 44, 1321–1337.
Storkel, H. L., Armbrüster, J., & Hogan, T. P. (2006). Differentiating phonotactic probability and neighborhood density in adult
word learning. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 1175–1192.
Storkel, H. L., & Rogers, M. A. (2000). The effect of probabilistic phonotactics on lexical acquisition. Clinical Linguistics and
Phonetics, 14, 407–425.
Thorn, A. S. C., & Frankish, C. R. (2005). Long-term knowledge effects on serial recall of nonwords are not exclusively lexical.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 729–735.
Thorn, A. S. C., & Gathercole, S. E. (2001). Language differences in verbal short-term memory do not exclusively originate in the
process of subvocal rehearsal. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8, 357–364.
Thorn, A. S. C., Gathercole, S. E., & Frankish, C. R. (2005). Redintegration and the benefits of long-term knowledge in verbal short-
term memory: An evaluation of Schweickert’s (1993) multinomial processing tree model. Cognitive Psychology, 50, 133–158.
Thorn, A. S. C., & Jarrold, C. (2007). The development of lexical neighbourhood and phonotactic frequency effects in children’s short-
term memory performance. Edinburgh, UK: Paper presented at the joint meeting of the Experimental Psychology Society and
the Psychonomic Society.
Verucci, L., Menghini, D., & Vicari, S. (2006). Reading skills and phonological awareness acquisition in Down syndrome. Journal of
Intellectual Disability Research, 50, 477–491.
Vicari, S., Caselli, M. C., Gagliardi, C., Tonucci, F., & Volterra, V. (2002). Language acquisition in special populations: A comparison
between Down and Williams syndromes. Neuropsychologia, 40, 2461–2470.
Wagner, R. K., & Muse, A. (2006). Short-term memory deficits in developmental dyslexia. In T. P. Alloway & S. E. Gathercole
(Eds.), Working memory and neurodevelopmental disorders (pp. 41–57). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Williams, K. T. (2007). Expressive vocabulary test (2nd ed.). Bloomington, MN: Pearson Assessments.
Windfuhr, K. L., & Snowling, M. J. (2001). The relationship between paired associate learning and phonological skills in normally
developing readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 80, 160–173.

Sdarticle

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sdarticle

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 102 (2009) 196–218

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Experimental Child

The relationships among verbal short-term memory,

Verbal short-term memory is typically assessed by asking participants to repeat a sequence of

* Corresponding author. Fax: +44 117 928 8588.

Phonological awareness tasks

Existing vocabulary knowledge

Note. DS, Down syndrome group; TD, typically developing individuals.

Target position within response option set

Correlates of performance among typically developing individuals

CA CPM PA Memory Form Referent

Regression analysis of form learning among individuals with Down syndrome

Dependent variable Step Independent variables Dr 2 p

Dependent variable Step Independent variables Dr2 p

Form learning Referent learning Serial recall

Details of substitutions made in the item recognition task

Target item in initial list Substituted item in second list

You might also like