Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience Laboratory, Department of Humanities, Letters, Cultural Heritage and Educational Studies, Foggia University, Foggia, Italy.
Department of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Cogn Neuropsychol. 2024 May-Jun;41(3-4):93-112. doi: 10.1080/02643294.2024.2393447. Epub 2024 Sep 18.
We critically examine the procedural deficit hypothesis (PDH) that proposes that a deficit in procedural (as opposed to declarative) learning underlies dyslexia and other developmental disorders. We first note that the existence of dissociated learning disorders (and multiple forms for each disorder) appears incompatible with a general deficit account. Moreover, the PDH formulation appears generally underspecified in terms of predictions to be tested. A particular focus is on the conceptualization of automatization. However, there are alternative views of automaticity, and comparing these different views helps frame the body of findings on the PDH. The insufficient PDH specification led to tasks touching on different skills and selecting target groups based on general diagnostic categories. Accordingly, several recent reviews and meta-analyses reported mixed patterns of findings and reached contradictory conclusions on the PDH. We propose avenues for future research to effectively examine the role of PDH in learning and other developmental disorders.
我们批判性地考察了程序缺陷假说（PDH），该假说认为阅读障碍和其他发育障碍的基础是程序性（相对于陈述性）学习的缺陷。我们首先注意到，分离性学习障碍（每种障碍都有多种形式）的存在似乎与一般缺陷解释不一致。此外，PDH 的表述在可测试的预测方面似乎普遍不够具体。一个特别关注的焦点是自动化的概念化。然而，对于自动性有不同的观点，比较这些不同的观点有助于构建 PDH 研究结果的框架。PDH 的说明不充分导致任务涉及不同的技能，并根据一般诊断类别选择目标群体。因此，最近的几项综述和荟萃分析报告了混合的发现模式，并对 PDH 得出了相互矛盾的结论。我们提出了未来研究的途径，以有效地检验 PDH 在学习和其他发育障碍中的作用。
