Cited by 194Language Development and DisordersNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismHearing Loss and Rehabilitation

Neural mechanisms of selective auditory attention are enhanced by computerized training: Electrophysiological evidence from language-impaired and typically developing children

Open access
Stevens, Courtney, Fanning, Jessica, Coch, Donna, Sanders, Lisa, Neville, Helen·2008·Brain Research

Abstract

Recent proposals suggest that some interventions designed to improve language skills might also target or train selective attention. The present study examined whether six weeks of high-intensity (100 min/day) training with a computerized intervention program designed to improve language skills would also influence neural mechanisms of selective auditory attention previously shown to be deficient in children with specific language impairment (SLI). Twenty children received computerized training, including 8 children diagnosed with SLI and 12 children with typically developing language. An additional 13 children with typically developing language received no specialized training (NoTx control group) but were tested and retested after a comparable time period to control for maturational and test-retest effects. Before and after training (or a comparable delay period for the NoTx control group), children completed standardized language assessments and an event-related brain potential (ERP) measure of selective auditory attention. Relative to the NoTx control group, children receiving training showed increases in standardized measures of receptive language. In addition, children receiving training showed larger increases in the effects of attention on neural processing following training relative to the NoTx control group. The enhanced effect of attention on neural processing represented a large effect size (Cohen's d=0.8), and was specific to changes in signal enhancement of attended stimuli. These findings indicate that the neural mechanisms of selective auditory attention, previously shown to be deficient in children with SLI, can be remediated through training and can accompany improvements on standardized measures of language.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brainres.2007.10.108

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Targeted intervention efforts delivered to individual children can improve aspects of Conscientiousness.

    “There is also evidence that targeted intervention efforts delivered to individual children can improve aspects of Conscientiousness.”

    From Personality Psychology and Economics (2011) · cites this paper as Stevens et al. [2008]

  • A six-week computerized intervention can improve selective auditory attention.

    “Similarly, Stevens and colleagues [2008] designed a six-week computerized intervention and showed that it can improve selective auditory attention (i.e., the ability to attend to a target auditory signal in the face of an irrelevant, distracting auditory signal).”

    From Personality Psychology and Economics (2011) · cites this paper as Stevens et al. [2008]

  • The Fast ForWord program had no significant effect on expressive language scores compared to control.

    “There was no significant effect on expressive language scores between the participants and the control group.”

    From Personality Psychology and Economics (2011) · cites this paper as Stevens, Fanning, Coch et al. [2008]

  • The Fast ForWord program increased attention by 0.81 standard deviations more than control (p<0.01).

    “The increase in the attention was 0.81 standard deviations higher for the participants than for the non-participants (p<0.01).”

    From Personality Psychology and Economics (2011) · cites this paper as Stevens, Fanning, Coch et al. [2008]

  • The Fast ForWord program increased receptive language scores by 0.91 standard deviations more than control (p<0.01).

    “The increase in the receptive language scores was 0.91 standard deviations higher in the participants than for the control group (p<0.01).”

    From Personality Psychology and Economics (2011) · cites this paper as Stevens, Fanning, Coch et al. [2008]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 66 · Cited by 194

Authors
Stevens, C., Fanning, J., Coch, D., Sanders, L., & Neville, H.
Affiliations
University of Oregon (US)
Venue
Brain Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-04
Volume
1205
Pages
55-69
ISSN
0006-8993 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2053275336
Cited by
194
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 21
FWCI
29.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Brain Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (DC00481, R01DC000128, R01DC000481)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD 08598, F32HD008598)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Keywords
auditory selective attention, specific language impairment, language intervention, event-related potentials, attentional enhancement, receptive language, children, neural mechanisms of attention
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Attention, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Auditory Perception, Child, Computer-Assisted Instruction, Electroencephalography, Electrophysiology, Evoked Potentials, Female, Humans, Language, Language Disorders, Language Tests, Male

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review