Unlike procedural memory deficits, Cyclopamine price which the PDH considers to be core deficits, impairments of other functions that depend on the same brain structures might or might not be observed, depending on the extent and nature of the underlying brain abnormalities (e.g., since different but parallel and anatomically proximate frontal/basal-ganglia circuits may underlie procedural and working memory) (Ullman, 2006a and Ullman and Pierpont, 2005). In contrast, the medial temporal lobe structures that underlie learning

and consolidation in declarative memory are posited to remain largely normal, and thus declarative memory functioning should be essentially intact in SLI. Moreover, declarative memory is predicted to compensate, at least to some extent, for functions such as rule-governed aspects of grammar that are normally

largely subserved by procedural memory, but that declarative memory can at least partly underlie. Ullman and Pierpont (2005) accompanied their theoretical proposal with an in-depth review of the neural substrates of SLI, as well as of the status of language, this website memory, and other cognitive capacities in the disorder. Additionally, since the publication of their paper, a number of empirical studies examining these issues have been published. Overall, the data appear to largely support the pattern of predictions of the PDH. Here we briefly review those studies that are most relevant here. All studies that have examined learning in procedural memory

in SLI have observed deficits. These have been found both in the verbal domain in tasks that depend on procedural memory structures (Evans et al., 2009 and Plante et al., 2002), and in non-verbal domains. Non-verbal procedural memory deficits, which we focus on in the present paper, have been observed both in probabilistic category learning (Kemény and Lukács, 2010) and implicit sequence learning (Lum et al., 2010 and Tomblin et al., 2007). The sequence learning deficits have been examined with implicit visuo-spatial Serial Reaction Niclosamide Time (SRT) tasks, which have been independently shown to depend on procedural memory (Knopman and Nissen, 1991, Nissen and Bullemer, 1987, Siegert et al., 2006 and Thomas et al., 2004). In a study by Tomblin et al. (2007), adolescents with SLI had slower learning rates of the sequence as compared to TD children. Lum et al. (2010) reported that children with SLI showed no sequence learning, whereas TD children did. Specifically, after repeated exposure to a visuo-spatial sequence, the response times of the TD children decreased, but then significantly increased when the visual stimulus was presented randomly (rather than as the sequence). This indicates the TD group learned aspects of the sequence. In contrast, no significant increase between sequenced and random blocks was observed for the SLI group.