Brain and Language 69, 222229 (1999)

Article ID brln.1999.2134, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

NOTES AND DISCUSSION

Children with Language Impairment Can Be Accurately
Identified Using Temporal Processing Measures:
A Response to Zhang and Tomblin,
Brain and Language, 65, 395403 (1998)
Paula Tallal
Center for Molecular and Behavioral Neuroscience Rutgers,
The State University of New Jersey, Newark, New Jersey

In the early to mid 1980s, Tallal, Stark, and colleagues published over 30
articles detailing the results of a large, multidisciplinary NIH-funded contract
that comprehensively assessed a wide range of sensory, perceptual, motor,
neurodevelopmental, and speech skills in a cohort of children with specific
language impairments (SLI), reading impairment, or articulation disorder, as
well as well-matched controls. A book, reporting and synthesizing the data
from this large project, was also published (Stark & Tallal, 1988). One of
the articles reporting data from this project, Tallal, Stark, and Mellits, 1985
(TSM), is the focus of a recent critique by Zhang and Tomblin (1998).
The TSM article in question reported the results of a discriminant function
analysis. Using a broad battery of 160 sensory, perceptual, motor, neurodevelopmental, speech, and demographic variables, the discriminant function analysis identified six variables that, taken in combination, correctly
classified 98% of 59 subjects as language impaired (LI) or normal (N). All
six variables identified assessed temporal processing.
Zhang and Tomblin (1998) used three computer simulations to challenge
these results. They question What true predictive power is required of 160
temporal processing variables in order for six variables from them to identify
childrens language status of the TSMs sample with a level of 98% accuracy? The premise of the Zhang and Tomblin critique is to show that comAddress correspondence and reprint requests to Paula Tallal, Ph.D., Center for Molecular
and Bahavioral Neurosciences, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Newark, New
Jersey 07102. E-mail: Tallal@axon.rutgers.edu.
222
0093-934X/99 $30.00
Copyright 1999 by Academic Press
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

NOTES AND DISCUSSION

223

puter simulations with any large variable set including 160 temporal processing variables can result in selecting six temporal processing variables
that will have high predictive accuracy between two populations. Therefore,
they warn against using the results from the TSM study to support a relationship between temporal processing deficits and language impairment.
We would agree with Zhang and Tomblin if in fact the TSM study had
used a set of 160 temporal processing variables from which six temporal
processing variables were selected. But, this was not what was done in the
TSM study and, as such, the conclusions reached by Z & Ts simulations
are not valid.
In TSM we explicitly stated that the goal of the study was to determine
(1) whether a comprehensive set of 160 sensory, perceptual, motor, neurodevelopmental, speech and demographic variables could correctly classify children as language-impaired (LI) or controls and, if so, (2) which variables,
taken in combination best classified the highest number of children correctly.
To accomplish this goal a comprehensive battery of nonverbal and speech
perception and motor tests was developed. The nonverbal battery assessed
sensory and perceptual abilities in the auditory, visual, and tactile modalities
as well as cross-modally. The battery included the assessment of detection,
association, discrimination, temporal resolution, sequencing, rate processing,
and serial memory abilities. A broad range of nonverbal and verbal motor
tests was also included in the battery. A comprehensive neurodevelopmental
soft sign battery measured general motor control and coordination, balance and station, tactile sensation and perception, and laterality. Demographic and case history variables were also documented. A detailed description of each variable, as well as testing procedures, is reported in Stark and
Tallal, 1988. Together these measures comprised the 160 variables that were
entered into a discriminant function analysis.
The results reported in TSM showed that from this wide range of 160
sensory, perceptual, motor, speech, neurological soft sign, and demographic variables, the analysis identified six variables. Interestingly, all six
turned out to assess temporal perceptual and production abilities (i.e., the
ability to perceive or produce two or more events, simultaneously or in very
rapid succession). These six variables, in combination, correctly classified
98% of the participating subjects as LI or controls.
The focus of this article was a detailed behavioral analysis of the six variables derived from this discriminant function analysis. Specifically, we explicitly stated in TSM that The use of linear discriminant function analysis
to classify pathological subjects into groups, is a two-stage process. This
study addresses the first step, that is the identification of the variables that
best discriminate between groups. The second and essential step is crossvalidation which was not within the scope of this study. We went on to
emphasize, however, that it is not the primary purpose of this study to
develop procedures for identifying LI children and discriminating them from

224

NOTES AND DISCUSSION

TABLE 1
Studies That Demonstrate That Individuals with Language Learning Impairment Have
Deficits in Processing Brief, Rapidly Successive Acoustic Cues in Nonverbal Stimuli
Lowe & Campbell, 1965
Stark, 1967
Aten & Davis, 1968
Griffith, 1972
Tallal & Piercy, 1973a
Tallal & Piercy, 1973b
Kracke, 1975
Lea, 1975
Tallal et al., 1976
Haggerty & Stamm, 1978
Tallal, 1980

McCrosky & Kidder, 1980

Tallal et al., 1981
Thal & Barone, 1983
Robin et al., 1989
Stefanatos et al., 1989
Lincoln et al., 1992
Tomblin et al., 1992
Neville et al., 1993
Hari & Kiesla, 1996
Benasich & Tallal, 1996

McAnnally & Stein, 1997

Wright et al., 1997
Protopappas et al., 1997
Llinas et al., 1998
Nagarajan et al., 1998
Witton et al., 1998
Ribary et al., 1998

normally developing children for clinical purposes. . . . Rather, the purpose

of this study was to further enhance our understanding of the neurological
mechanisms that may underlie normal and abnormal development of language.
The results add considerable weight to the findings of a series of previous
and subsequent studies from many different laboratories (see Tables 1 and
2) that have demonstrated that LI children are significantly impaired in their
ability to both perceive and produce rapidly successive acoustic cues nonverbally as well as within speech. Thus the results of the TSM study strongly
supported the theoretical interpretation of many previous and subsequent
studies by demonstrating that from a comprehensive set of 160 variables
(only a few of which assessed very rapid temporal perceptual or production
abilities) discriminant function analysis isolated six variables that correctly
classified 98% of children as LI or normal, and all six variables had in common the assessment of specific temporal capabilities, either in perception or
TABLE 2
Studies That Demonstrate That Individuals with
Language Learning Impairment Have Deficits in
Processing Brief, Rapidly Successive Acoustic Cues in
Verbal Stimuli
McReynolds, 1966
Rosenthal, 1972
Tallal & Piercy, 1974
Tallal & Piercy, 1975
Henderson, 1978
Thibodeau & Sussman, 1979
Frumkin & Rapin, 1980
Tallal et al., 1980a,b
Tallal & Stark, 1981
Godfrey et al., 1981

Alexander & Frost, 1982

Werker & Teas, 1987
Elliott & Hammer, 1988
Elliott et al., 1989
Reed, 1989
Sussman, 1993
Kraus et al., 1995
Kraus et al., 1996
Stark & Heinz, 1996
Leonard, 1998

NOTES AND DISCUSSION

225

in production. The point of the TSM article was not that six variables could
be selected, but that the six variables that were selected showed a highly
selective pattern.
The first variable, rapid speech production, measured the ability to articulate correctly three repetitions of a multisyllabic word (such as refrigerator)
in rapid succession. Variable two, a finger-identification subtest, assessed
the subjects ability to identify two touches presented simultaneously on two
different fingers. Other finger-identification subtests, requiring the identification of only a single touch on the fingers, or two touches presented more
slowly, did not enter the equation. The third variable entering the equation
was the discrimination of the computer-synthesized syllables /ba/ vs. /da/,
with 40-ms-duration formant transitions. Tallal and Piercy (1975) had previously reported that LI children have particular difficulty discriminating
speech stimuli such as these, which are characterized by rapidly changing
acoustic spectra. Importantly, tests assessing perception of speech stimuli
synthesized with less rapidly changing acoustic spectra, (e.g., /ba/ vs. /da/
with 80-ms-duration transitions, 250-ms-duration syllables /dab/ vs. /daeb/,
/sa/ vs. /sta/, and // vs. ae) did not enter the equation. The fourth variable
entering the equation assessed the subjects ability to integrate nonverbal stimuli presented cross-modally at rapid rates. Sequences of tones and light flashes
were presented cross-modally in random order and subjects were trained to
indicate what they perceived by pressing buttons on a response panel. Again,
it was only the trials in which stimuli were presented rapidly in succession that
entered the equation. Similar trials, in which the same stimuli were presented
more slowly (with longer interstimulus intervals), did not enter the equation.
Sequencing the letters e and k, when presented rapidly in succession, entered
the equation, whereas the trials in which the same letters were presented more
slowly (with longer intervals) did not enter. The sixth and final variable entering
the equation assessed the ability of subjects to locate two touches presented
simultaneously to the cheeks and/or hands on either side of the body. Again,
this is a test which assesses the perception of more than one stimulus presented
in a brief time period (in this case, simultaneously). Thus, each of the six variables entering the equation, which accurately discriminated LI from N children,
assessed the ability to produce or perceive information either simultaneously
or rapidly in succession, regardless of whether the information was verbal or
nonverbal.
We certainly agree with Zhang and Tomblin that if we had entered 160
temporal processing variables (as they incorrectly stated as the basis of
their simulations) into a discriminant function analysis, as their simulation
shows, we could have come up with six temporal processing variables that
correctly classified a high percentage of subjects as LI or N. However, this
is not what was done in the TSM study. Rather, the purpose of the TSM
study was to complete a comprehensive assessment of the many and various
sensory, perceptual, motor, neurodevelopmental, and speech functions that

226

NOTES AND DISCUSSION

had previously been reported to be impaired in LI children, certainly not just

temporal functions. The goal was to determine if there is a specific pattern
of sensory, perceptual, and/or motor deficits that would emerge from a
comprehensive study of neuropsychological functions, within a large, wellclassified population of children with LI, when compared to well-matched
controls.
Zhang and Tomblin do not appear to have understood either the goal of
the TSM study or the diversity of variables that were included in the TSM
discriminant function analyses. Rather, they ran their computer simulations
assuming that all 160 variables were temporal processing variables. In simulation experiment III for example, they state that their simulation experiment
was designed to address the question of how much true predictive power is
required of 160 temporal processing variables in order for them to produce
six temporal processing variables that are as predictive as the six variables
found by TSMs study. They further state that the answer for this question
will estimate the true predictive power that is required of 160 variables in
order for them to be as predictive as the 160 temporal processing variables
in TSMs study.
Thus, Zhang and Tomblin clearly set up a straw-man as the basis of
their simulations. Even so, it is interesting to note that, even when stacking
the deck with 900 temporal processing variables, Zhang and Tomblins computer simulations were not able to find six variables that could match the
98% accuracy in classifying 59 children correctly as LI or normal found in
the TSM study. Given that only a minority of the 160 variables actually
included in the TSM study assessed rapid temporal processing, what was
particularly notable was that it was rapid temporal processing variables alone
that entered the discriminant function equation. Indeed, that is the entire basis
for the TSM article.
We agree with Zhang and Tomblin that there are potential pitfalls of using
discriminant function analysis in nontheoretically driven studies. The critical
flaw in the Zhang and Tomblin critique of TSM, however, is the failure
to apply any theoretical framework to their computer simulation. Although
discriminant function analyses certainly can be run on strictly a random numbers basis, as was done by Zhang and Tomblin, this violates the basic research purposes for which these analyses were designed. More to the point
here is the simple fact that the simulations run by Zhang and Tomblin to
criticize the conclusions of TSM neither simulate nor replicate the actual
methodology employed in TSM. Therefore, their conclusions cannot be applied to the original TSM study and, as such, are meaningless.
REFERENCES
Alexander, D. W., & Frost, B. P. 1982. Decelerated synthesized speech as a means of shaping
speed of auditory processing of children with delayed language. Perceptual and Motor
skills, 55, 783792.

NOTES AND DISCUSSION

227

Aten, J., & Davis, J. 1968. Disturbance in the perception of auditory sequence in children
with minimal cerebral dysfunction. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 11, 236
245.
Benasich, A. A., & Tallal, P. 1996. Auditory temporal processing thresholds, habituation, and
recognition memory over the first year. Infant Behavior and Development, 19, 339357.
Elliott, L., & Hammer, M. 1988. Longitudinal changes in auditory discrimination in normal
children and children with language-learning problems. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Disorders, 53, 467474.
Elliott, L. L., Hammer, M. A., & Scholl, M. E. 1989. Fine-grained auditory discrimination
in normal children and children with language-learning problems. Journal of Speech and
Hearing Research, 32(March), 112119.
Frumkin, B., & Rapin, I. 1980. Perception of vowels and consonant-vowels of varying duration
in language impaired children. Neuropsychologia, 18, 443454.
Godfrey, J. J., Syrdal-Lasky, A. K., Millay, K. K., & Knox, J. 1981. Performance of dyslexic
children on speech perception tests. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 32(3),
401424.
Griffith, D. 1972. Developmental aphasia: An introduction. London: Invalid Children Aid
Association.
Haggerty, R., & Stamm, J. 1978. Dichotic auditory fusion levels in children with learning
disabilities. Neuropsychologia, 16, 349360.
Hari, R., & Kiesila, P. 1996. Deficit of temporal auditory processing in dyslexic adults. Neuroscience Letters, 205, 138140.
Henderson, B. 1978. Older language impaired childrens processing of rapidly changing acoustic signals. In Proceedings Convention of the American SpeechLanguageHearing Association, San Francisco: CA.
Kracke, I. 1975. Perception of rhythmic sequences by receptive aphasic and deaf children.
British Journal of Disorders of Communication, 10, 4351.
Kraus, N., McGee, T., Carrell, T. D., & Sharma, A. 1995. Neurophysiologic bases of speech
discrimination. In W. Wilkins (Eds.), Ear and hearing.
Kraus, N., McGee, T. J., Carrell, T. D., Zecker, S. G., Nicol, T. G., & Koch, D. B. 1996.
Auditory neurophysiologic responses and discrimination deficits in children with learning
problems. Science, 273, 971973.
Lea, J. 1975. An investigation into the association between rhythmic ability and language
ability in a group of children with severe speech and language disorders. Masters, University of London.
Leonard, L. B. 1998. Children with specific language impairment. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lincoln, A., Dickstein, P., Courchesne, E., R., E., & Tallal, P. 1992. Auditory processing
abilities in non-retarded adolescents and young adults with developmental receptive language disorder and autism. Brain and Language, 43, 613622.
Llinas, R., Ribary, U., & Tallal, P. 1998. Dyschronic language-based learning disability, In
Curt von Euler (Ed.), Basic mechanisms in cognition and language. Wenner-Gren International Series, Stockholm. Vol. 70.
Lowe, A., & Campbell, R. 1965. Temporal discrimination in aphasic and normal children.
Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 8, 313314.
McAnally, K. I., & Stein, J. F. 1997. Scalp potentials evoked by amplitude-modulated tones
in dyslexia. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 40(August), 939945.
McCrosky, R., & Kidder, H. 1980. Auditory fusion among learning disabled, reading disabled,
and normal children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 13, 6976.

228

NOTES AND DISCUSSION

McReynolds, L. V. 1996. Operant londitioning for investigating speech sound discrimination

in aphasic children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 9, 519528.
Nagarajan, S. S., Blake, D. T., Wright, B. A., Byl, N., & Merzenich, M. M. 1998. Practicerelated improvements in somatosensory interval discrimination are temporally specific
but generalize across skin location, hemisphere, and modality. Journal of Neuroscience,
18(14), 15591570.
Neville, H., Coffey, S., Holcomb, P., & Tallal, P. 1993. The neurobiology of sensory and
language processing in language-impaired children. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,
5, 235253.
Protopapas, A., Ahissar, M., & Merzenich, M. M. 1997. Auditory processing deficits in adults
with a history of reading difficulties. Society for Neuroscience, 23, 491.
Reed, M. A. 1989. Speech perception and the discrimination of brief auditory cues in reading
disabled children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 48, 270292.
Ribary, U., Joliot, M., Miller, S. L., Kronberg, E., Cappell, J., Tallal, P., & Llinas R. 1998.
Cognitive temporal binding and its relation to 40Hz activity in Humans: Alteration during
dyslexia, In Wood, Okada, & Aine (Eds.), Biomag 96 advances in biomagnetism research. Springer Verlag.
Robin, D., Tomblin, J. B., Kearney, A., & Hug, L. 1989. Auditory temporal pattern learning
in children with severe speech and language impairment. Brain and Language, 36, 604
613.
Rosenthal, W. 1972. Auditory and linguistic interaction in developmental aphasia: Evidence
from two studies of auditory processing. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 4, 1934.
Stark, J. 1967. A comparison of the performance of aphasic children on three sequencing tests.
Journal of Communication Disorders, 1, 3134.
Stark, R. E., & Tallal, P. 1988. Language, speech, and reading disorders in children: Neuropsychological studies, Boston: Little, Brown.
Stark, R. E., & Heinz, J. M. 1996. Perception of stop consonants in children with expressive
and receptive-expressive language impairments. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39(4), 676686.
Stefanatos, G. A., Green, G. G. R., & Ratcliff, G. G. 1989. Neurophysiological evidence of
auditory channel anomalies in developmental dysphasia. Archives of Neurology, 46, 871
875.
Sussman, J. 1993. Perception of formant transition cues to place of articulation in children
with language impairments. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 12861299.
Tallal, P., & Piercy, M. 1974. Developmental aphasia: Rate of auditory processing and selective impairment of consonant perception. Neuropsychologia, 12(1), 8393.
Tallal, P., & Piercy, M. 1975. Developmental aphasia: The perception of brief vowels and
extended stop consonants. Neuropsychologia, 13, 6974.
Tallal, P., & Piercy, M. 1973a. Defects of non-verbal auditory perception in children with
developmental aphasia. Nature, 241, 468469.
Tallal, P., & Piercy, M. 1973b. Developmental aphasia: Impaired rate of non-verbal processing
as a function of sensory modality. Neuropsychologia, 11, 389398.
Tallal, P., Stark, R. E., & Curtiss, B. 1976. Relation between speech perception and speech
production impairment in children with developmental dysphasia. Brain and Language,
3, 305317.
Tallal, P. 1980. Auditory temporal perception, phonics, and reading disabilities in children.
Brain and Language, 9(2), 182198.
Tallal, P., Stark, R., Kallman, C., & Mellits, D. 1980a. Perceptual constancy for phonemic

NOTES AND DISCUSSION

229

categories: A developmental study with normal and language impaired children. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 1, 4964.
Tallal, P., Stark, R., Kallman, C., & Mellits, D. 1980b. Developmental aphasia: The relation
between acoustic processing deficits and verbal processing. Neuropsychologia, 18, 273
284.
Tallal, P., & Stark, R. 1981. Speech acoustic cue discrimination abilities of normally developing and language impaired children. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 69,
568574.
Tallal, P., Stark, R., Kallman, C., & Mellits, D. 1981. A reexamination of some nonverbal
perceptual abilities of language-impaired and normal children as a function of age and
sensory modality. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 24, 351357.
Tallal, P., Stark, R., & Mellits, E. 1985. Identification of language-impaired children on the
basis of rapid perception and production skills. Brain and Language, 25, 314322.
Thal, D. J., & Barone, P. 1983. Auditory processing and language impairment in children:
Stimulus considerations for intervention. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders,
48,(February), 1824.
Thibodeau, L., & Sussman, H. 1979. Performance on a test of categorical perception of speech
in normal and communicatively disordered children. Journal of Phonetics, 7, 375391.
Tomblin, J. B., Freese, P., & Records, N. 1992. Diagnosing specific language impairment in
adults for the purpose of pedigree analysis. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research,
35, 832843.
Werker, J. F., & Tees, R. C. 1987. Speech perception in severely disabled and average reading
children. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 41(1), 4861.
Witton, C., Talcott, J. B., Hansen, P. C., Richardson, A. J., Griffiths, T. D., Rees, A., Stein,
J. F., & Green, G. G. R. 1998. Sensitivity to dynamic auditory and visual stimuli predicts
nonword reading ability in both dyslexic and normal readers. Current Biology, 8(14),
791797.
Wright, B. A., Lombardino, L. J., King, W. M., Puranik, C. S., Leonard, C. M., & Merzenich,
M. M. 1997. Deficits in auditory temporal and spectral resolution in language-impaired
children. Nature, 387(May), 176178.
Zhang, X., & Tomblin, B. 1998. Can children with language impairment be accurately identified using temporal processing measures? A simulation study. Brain and Language, 65,
395403.