{"title":"Impaired instance acquisition as a cause of the comorbidity of learning disorders in young adults.","authors":"Chiara Valeria Marinelli, Giuliana Nardacchione, Marialuisa Martelli, Vincenza Tommasi, Marco Turi, Paola Angelelli, Pierpaolo Limone, Pierluigi Zoccolotti","doi":"10.3389/fnbeh.2025.1560362","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The \"<i>instance theory of automatization</i>\" suggests that automaticity relies on acquiring specific instances that enhance performance, preventing the slower application of procedures. It has been proposed that a low ability in instance acquisition may be the key cause of the comorbidity among learning disorders. We investigated performance on a learning task to test the hypothesis that difficulties in acquiring and consolidating instances would be linked with comorbid learning disorders.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We examined the individual rate of learning of 143 young adults with typical development (32M, 111F, mean age: 20.3) and 59 with specific learning disorders (SLD; 12M and 47F, mean age: 20.9).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both groups significantly reduced their response times across learning trials (following a power trend) without generalization to untrained items, indicating that learning occurred through instance acquisition. Initially, participants with SLD performed worse than the controls. However, they reduced their times by about 96 sec with practice, even though their \"endpoint\" (asymptote) remained slower than controls. Group differences were related to these two scaling values, not the power curve coefficient. Subsequently, we reclassified the sample into three groups based on the type of deficit: one without procedural/instance deficits (\"Control\" group), one with selective deficits in \"procedural\" tasks (\"Poor procedural\" group), and one with deficits in instance-based tasks (\"Poor instance\" group). The poor instance group not only showed deficits across all tasks requiring instance retrieval (i.e., arithmetical facts and lexical representation retrieval) but was also slower (86 s) in the learning task compared to the other groups (58 and 70 s, respectively; at least <i>p</i> < 0.01). The \"Poor procedural\" group behaved similarly to the \"Control\" group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Results support with the notion that a low ability to acquire and consolidate instances may contribute to the comorbidity of learning disorders.</p>","PeriodicalId":12368,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience","volume":"19 ","pages":"1560362"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12186060/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2025.1560362","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: The "instance theory of automatization" suggests that automaticity relies on acquiring specific instances that enhance performance, preventing the slower application of procedures. It has been proposed that a low ability in instance acquisition may be the key cause of the comorbidity among learning disorders. We investigated performance on a learning task to test the hypothesis that difficulties in acquiring and consolidating instances would be linked with comorbid learning disorders.
Methods: We examined the individual rate of learning of 143 young adults with typical development (32M, 111F, mean age: 20.3) and 59 with specific learning disorders (SLD; 12M and 47F, mean age: 20.9).
Results: Both groups significantly reduced their response times across learning trials (following a power trend) without generalization to untrained items, indicating that learning occurred through instance acquisition. Initially, participants with SLD performed worse than the controls. However, they reduced their times by about 96 sec with practice, even though their "endpoint" (asymptote) remained slower than controls. Group differences were related to these two scaling values, not the power curve coefficient. Subsequently, we reclassified the sample into three groups based on the type of deficit: one without procedural/instance deficits ("Control" group), one with selective deficits in "procedural" tasks ("Poor procedural" group), and one with deficits in instance-based tasks ("Poor instance" group). The poor instance group not only showed deficits across all tasks requiring instance retrieval (i.e., arithmetical facts and lexical representation retrieval) but was also slower (86 s) in the learning task compared to the other groups (58 and 70 s, respectively; at least p < 0.01). The "Poor procedural" group behaved similarly to the "Control" group.
Conclusion: Results support with the notion that a low ability to acquire and consolidate instances may contribute to the comorbidity of learning disorders.
期刊介绍:
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience is a leading journal in its field, publishing rigorously peer-reviewed research that advances our understanding of the neural mechanisms underlying behavior. Field Chief Editor Nuno Sousa at the Instituto de Pesquisa em Ciências da Vida e da Saúde (ICVS) is supported by an outstanding Editorial Board of international experts. This multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide.
This journal publishes major insights into the neural mechanisms of animal and human behavior, and welcomes articles studying the interplay between behavior and its neurobiological basis at all levels: from molecular biology and genetics, to morphological, biochemical, neurochemical, electrophysiological, neuroendocrine, pharmacological, and neuroimaging studies.