NCT Number: NCT06156865
Late talkers (LT), representing 10-20% of children under 3, demonstrate hallmark syntax and vocabulary deficits similar to preschoolers with developmental language disorder. While effective and early interventions can mitigate the impact of late talking, not enough is known about its neural basis, yet is needed to inform the design of more individualized interventions. This proposed effort uses neuroimaging, along with behavioral methods, with the goal of better understanding the memory-language mechanisms that underlie learning and late talking, while also considering their association to treatment-related changes in LT.
Interested in participating?
Request Info18 month–30 month
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
Grandview Kids, Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
Late talking represents one of the most common reasons children under 3-years of age are referred for speech-language evaluations, impacting about 10%-20% of children in this age-group. Late talkers (LT) also share similarities with children diagnosed with developmental language disorder (DLD) at 4 - 5 years of age, endorsing the notion that shared neurobiological underpinnings might exist between these two clinical groups. However, little is known about the neural basis of late talking, yet is needed to better inform the design of efficacious therapies that address hallmark delays in syntax and vocabulary. For the DLD population, domain-general processes relating memory and language are being investigated in the parent grant, offering valuable testing ground for also advancing the current knowledge base regarding LT. The Procedural circuit Deficit Hypothesis (PDH) posits that relative strengths and weaknesses exist between procedural (impaired) and declarative (less impaired) memory systems. Structural abnormalities in connections between frontal brain regions and basal ganglia, with under activation and reduced connectivity also evident. However, cortical and subcortical regions in the temporal lobes, including hippocampus, might be impaired to a lesser degree.
This proposed research will use diffusion imaging to describe the neural basis (structural connectivity) of late talking and treatment-related change by way of the PDH. The investigators will gather data regarding LT before, after, and following a break in standard intervention for LT (e.g., parent coaching, direct therapy for children who are LT): LT treatment. The investigators will also include a "business as usual": LT no treatment as part of a highly feasible pragmatic design that leverages existing pipelines. The investigators will also include typically developing (TD) peers to inform development vs late talking. The central hypothesis is that treatment designed to improve syntax and vocabulary will change procedural and declarative networks in association with increases in language function and the degree of improvement may be associated with the underlying neurobiology of baseline syntax and vocabulary deficits.
Building on a robust history of recruitment and treatment of toddlers by the investigators' partnering sites, and the investigators' successful imaging partner, this project will enroll 30 LT (n=15 treatment; n=15 controls) and 15 TD peers. Aim 1 will establish the structural connectivity in LT and their TD peers between regions in the procedural learning and declarative networks. In Aim 2, the investigators will establish the neurobiological basis of treatment-related changes in LT only. The investigators examine potential changes in structural connectivity between regions of the procedural learning and declarative memory networks, and investigate whether treatment-related changes occur into the typical range (LT, TD). To meet the scientific goals, the investigators pair behavioral tools (syntax and vocabulary) with neuroimaging to describe co-occurring behavioral performance underlying learning and outcome, while also gathering parental and clinician qualitative data regarding treatment outcomes. This research will contribute novel insights into mechanisms underlying learning and impairment to offer a ground-breaking shift in the understanding of LT.
Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
this intervention is designed to support both speech and language development in children who are toddlers. Given the age group of children their parents are part of the intervention program. Importantly the frequency of the intervention can range from once to twice per week, with timing also designed to complement the particular agency
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 2 (Time 1/pre)
Connectivity data (density of streamlines connecting regions of the procedural learning and declarative networks) will be measured using tractography, a 3D modeling technique, to visually represent nerve tracts using data that are collected using diffusion MRI from each of the 45 participants at Weeks 1 to 2 as part of a non-sedated sleep scan.
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 8 or 9 (pre to post); Weeks 10 to 17 or 18 (post to followup)
Changes in connectivity data (density of streamlines connecting regions of the procedural learning and declarative networks) calculated using data collected over two time points (pre to post; post to followup) will be measured from each of the 45 participants. Connectivity data measured using tractography collected using diffusion MRI are gathered from these participants at pre, post, and followup to inform these changes over time as part of a non-sedated sleep scan.
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 2 (Time 1/pre - first set)
Raw score data calculated using the MacArthur Bates Communicative Development Inventories: Words and Sentences. This measure is completed by each of the 45 children's parents. High scores indicate better performance compared to lower scores. Minimum score is '0' and maximum is '680'. These data serve as main secondary outcomes.
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 2 - (Time 1/pre - second set)
Raw score data calculated using the Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under - Parent Version. This measure is completed by each of the 45 children's parents. High scores indicate better performance compared to lower scores. Minimum score is '0' and maximum is '238'. These data will inform main secondary outcomes.
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 2 - (Time 1/pre - third set)
Raw score data calculated using the Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under - Clinician Version. This measure is completed by each of the 45 children's clinicians. High scores indicate better performance compared to lower scores. Minimum score is '0' and maximum is '238'. These data will inform main secondary outcomes.
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 2 - (Time 1/pre - fourth set)
Raw score data calculated using the Intelligibility in Context Scale. This measure is completed by each of the 45 children's parents. High scores indicate better performance compared to lower scores. Minimum score is '0' and maximum is '35'. These data will inform additional secondary outcomes.
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 2 - (Time 1/pre - fifth set)
Raw score data obtained using the Communication Function Classification System. This measure is completed by each of the 45 children's parents. Lower scores indicate better performance compared to higher scores. The minimum score is "1" and the maximum is "5". These data will inform additional secondary outcomes.
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 2 - (Time 1/pre - sixth set)
Raw score data obtained using a Consonant Inventory collected during a play-based language sample. These data are collected from each of the 45 children during their assessment with the clinician. Higher scores indicate better performance compared to lower scores. The minimum score is "0" and the maximum score is "24". These data will inform additional secondary outcomes.
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 2 - (Time 1/pre - seventh set)
Raw score data obtained on language complexity (grammar and vocabulary) collected during a play-based language sample timed for 15-minutes. These data are collected from each of the 45 children during their assessment with the clinician. Higher scores indicate better performance compared to lower scores. The minimum score is "0" and the maximum score is variable. There is not a ceiling since this is based on a spontaneous language sample and some children can talk more than others during the 15-minute period. However the team has a metric of performance based on scores less than the 10th percentile and then those greater than the 10th percentile. Performance at or below the 10th percentile is worse than performance greater than the 10th percentile. These data will inform additional secondary outcomes.
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 8 or 9 (pre to post); Weeks 10 to 17 or 18 (post to followup)
Changes in connectivity data (density of streamlines connecting regions of the procedural learning and declarative networks) calculated using data collected over two time points (pre to post; post to followup) will be measured from only the 30 participants who are late talkers. Connectivity data measured using tractography collected using diffusion MRI are gathered from these participants at pre, post, and followup to inform these changes over time as part of a non-sedated sleep scan.
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 8 or 9 (pre to post); Weeks 10 to 17 or 18 (post to followup)
Raw change score data calculated using the MacArthur Bates Communicative Development Inventories: Words and Sentences that is completed at pre, post, followup. This measure is completed on three occasions by the 30 parents whose children are late talkers. High change scores indicate better performance compared to lower change scores. The minimum score is "0" and the maximum score is "680". These data serve as main secondary outcomes to inform immediate (pre-post) and maintenance of changes (post-followup).
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 8 or 9 (pre to post); Weeks 10 to 17 or 18 (post to followup)
Raw change score data calculated using the Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six that is completed at pre, post, followup. This measure is completed on three occasions by the 30 parents whose children are late talkers. High change scores indicate better performance compared to lower change scores. The minimum score is "0" and the maximum score is "238". These data serve as main secondary outcomes to inform immediate (pre-post) and maintenance of changes (post-followup).
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 8 or 9 (pre to post); Weeks 10 to 17 or 18 (post to followup)
Raw change score data calculated using the Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six that is completed at pre, post, followup. This measure is completed on three occasions by the clinicians of the 30 children who are late talkers. High change scores indicate better performance compared to lower change scores. The minimum score is "0" and the maximum score is "238". These data serve as main secondary outcomes to inform immediate (pre-post) and maintenance of changes (post-followup).
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 8 or 9 (pre to post); Weeks 10 to 17 or 18 (post to followup)
Raw change score data calculated using the Intelligibility in Context Scale that is completed at pre, post, followup. This measure is completed on three occasions by the 30 parents whose children are late talkers. High change scores indicate better performance compared to lower change scores. The minimum score is "0" and the maximum score is "35". These data serve as additional secondary outcomes to inform immediate (pre-post) and maintenance of changes (post-followup).
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 8 or 9 (pre to post); Weeks 10 to 17 or 18 (post to followup)
Raw change score data calculated using the Communication Function Classification System that is completed at pre, post, followup. This measure is completed on three occasions by the 30 parents whose children are late talkers. Higher change scores indicate better performance compared to lower change scores. The minimum score is "1" and the maximum score is "5". These data serve as additional secondary outcomes to inform immediate (pre-post) and maintenance of changes (post-followup).
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 8 or 9 (pre to post); Weeks 10 to 17 or 18 (post to followup)
Raw change score data obtained using a Consonant Inventory collected during a play-based language sample that is completed at pre, post, followup. These data are collected on three occasions from the 30 children who are late talkers. Higher change scores indicate better performance compared to lower change scores. The minimum score is "0" and the maximum score is "24". These data serve as additional secondary outcomes to inform immediate (pre-post) and maintenance of changes (post-followup).
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 8 or 9 (pre to post); Weeks 10 to 17 or 18 (post to followup)
Raw change score data obtained on language complexity (grammar and vocabulary). These data are calculated during a play-based language sample that is completed with a clinician at pre, post, followup. These data are collected on three occasions from the 30 children who are late talkers. Higher change scores indicate better performance compared to lower change scores. The minimum score is "0" and the maximum score is variable. There is not a ceiling since this is based on a spontaneous language sample and some children can talk more than others during the 15-minute period. However the team has a metric of performance based on scores less than the 10th percentile and then those greater than the 10th percentile. Performance at or below the 10th percentile is worse than performance greater than the 10th percentile. These data serve as additional secondary outcomes to inform immediate (pre-post) and maintenance of changes (post-followup).
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 8 or 9 (pre to post); Weeks 10 to 17 or 18 (post to followup)
Raw change score data calculated using the MacArthur Bates Communicative Development Inventories: Words and Sentences that is completed at pre, post, followup. This measure is completed on three occasions by the 30 parents of children who are late talkers as well as by the 15 parents of typically developing peers. High change scores indicate better performance compared to lower change scores. The minimum score is "0" and the maximum score is "680". These data serve as additional secondary outcomes to inform immediate (pre-post) and maintenance of changes (post-followup).
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 8 or 9 (pre to post); Weeks 10 to 17 or 18 (post to followup)
Raw change score data calculated using the Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six Parent Version that is completed at pre, post, followup. This measure is completed on three occasions by the 30 parents of children who are late talkers as well as by the 15 parents of typically developing peers. High change scores indicate better performance compared to lower change scores. The minimum score is "0" and the maximum score is "238". These data serve as additional secondary outcomes to inform immediate (pre-post) and maintenance of changes (post-followup).
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 8 or 9 (pre to post); Weeks 10 to 17 or 18 (post to followup)
Raw change score data calculated using the Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six Clinician Version that is completed at pre, post, followup. This measure is completed on three occasions by the clinicians of 30 children who are late talkers as well as by clinicians of 15 typically developing peers. High change scores indicate better performance compared to lower change scores. The minimum score is "0" and the maximum score is "238". These data serve as additional secondary outcomes to inform immediate (pre-post) and maintenance of changes (post-followup).
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 2 (Pre/Time 1)
Other outcomes using themes from qualitative questions to the clinicians of the 45 participants. Scores on a scale are not used in this qualitative effort.
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 2 (Pre/Time 1)
Other outcomes using themes from qualitative questions to the parents of each of the 45 participants. Scores on a scale are not used in this qualitative effort.
Time frame: Weeks 1 or 2 (pre/Time 1); Weeks 9 or 10 (post/Time 2), Weeks 17 or 18 (followup/Time 3)
Other outcomes using themes from qualitative questions to the parents of each of the 30 children who are late talkers. These qualitative data are collected at three time points: pre, post, followup. Scores on a scale are not used in this qualitative effort.
Time frame: Weeks 1 or 2 (pre/Time 1); Weeks 9 or 10 (post/Time 2), Weeks 17 or 18 (followup/Time 3)
Other outcomes using themes from qualitative questions to the clinicians of the 30 children who are late talkers. These qualitative data are collected at three time points: pre, post, followup. Scores on a scale are not used in this qualitative effort.
Contact information is provided by the study sponsor or research team.
Karla N Washington, PhD
CONTACT
Nicole Bazzocchi, MhSc
CONTACT
University of Toronto
Other
Neuroimaging Reveals Treatment-related Changes in DLD: A Randomized Controlled Trial (Supplement)
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT06995014
Communication Disorders, Developmental Language Disorder
West Lafayette, Indiana, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT06026124
Communication Disorders, Developmental Language Disorder
Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT05325333
Communication Disorders, Developmental Language Disorder
West Lafayette, Indiana, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT06001866
Communication Disorders, Developmental Language Disorder
West Lafayette, Indiana, United States
View Trial Details