RESEARCH ARTICLE
Neural Oscillations Reveal Differences in the
Process of Word Learning among School-Aged
Children from Lower Socioeconomic
Status Backgrounds
a n o p e n a c c e s s
j o u r n a l
Julie M. Schneider1
, Alyson D. Abel2, Jacob Momsen2,3, Tina C. Melamed4
,
and Mandy J. Maguire4
1University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA
2San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA
3University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
4University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA
Keywords: theta, beta, alpha, word learning, socioeconomic status, school-age
ABSTRACT
Building a robust vocabulary in grade school is essential for academic success. Children from
lower socioeconomic status (SES) households on average perform below their higher SES peers
on word learning tasks, negatively impacting their vocabulary; Tuttavia, significant variability
exists within this group. Many children from low SES homes perform as well as, or better than,
their higher SES peers on measures of word learning. The current study addresses what
processes underlie this variability, by comparing the neural oscillations of 44 better versus
worse word learners (ages 8–15 years) from lower SES households as they infer the meaning of
unknown words. Better word learners demonstrated increases in theta and beta power as a
word was learned, whereas worse word learners exhibited decreases in alpha power. These
group differences in neural oscillatory engagement during word learning indicate there may be
different strategies employed based on differences in children’s skills. Notably, children with
greater vocabulary knowledge are more likely to exhibit larger beta increases, a strategy that is
associated with better word learning. This sheds new light on the mechanisms that support
word learning in children from low SES households.
INTRODUCTION
A child’s ability to learn new words is foundational for subsequent language growth and ac-
ademic success (Burchinal et al., 2020; Pace et al., 2019). Recent evidence indicates children
from lower socioeconomic-status (SES) homes perform well below their peers on measures of
word learning, including vocabulary acquisition (Bion et al., 2013; Levine et al., 2020;
Maguire et al., 2018; Schwab & Lew-Williams, 2016; Spencer & Schuele, 2012; Weisleder
& Fernald, 2013). These group differences in word learning ability mediate SES-related gaps
in vocabulary knowledge (Shavlik et al., 2020). Understanding how the process of learning a
new word differs among children from lower SES households can provide important insights
into mechanisms which may serve as compensatory strategies that scaffold later vocabulary
Citation: Schneider, J. M., Abel, UN. D.,
Momsen, J., Melamed, T. C., & Maguire,
M. J. (2021). Neural oscillations reveal
differences in the process of word
learning among school-aged children
from lower socioeconomic status
backgrounds. Neurobiology of
Language, 2(3), 372–388. https://doi.org
/10.1162/nol_a_00040
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1162/nol_a_00040
Supporting Information:
https://doi.org/10.1162/nol_a_00040
Received: 20 Dicembre 2020
Accepted: 14 April 2021
Competing Interests: The authors have
declared that no competing interests
exist.
Corresponding Author:
Julie M. Schneider
juschnei@udel.edu
Handling Editor:
Marcela Peña Garay
Copyright: © 2021
Istituto di Tecnologia del Massachussetts
Pubblicato sotto Creative Commons
Attribuzione 4.0 Internazionale
(CC BY 4.0) licenza
The MIT Press
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
N
o
/
l
/
l
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
F
/
/
/
/
2
3
3
7
2
1
9
2
8
9
0
3
N
o
_
UN
_
0
0
0
4
0
P
D
/
.
l
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Neural differences in word learning among low SES children
Neural oscillations:
Brain waves produced by
synchronized groups of neurons
communicating with each other
across the scalp.
N400 event related potential (ERP):
A negative-going deflection in the
averaged EEG signal that occurs
around 400 ms after a stimulus and is
related to semantic processing.
Event related spectral perturbations
(ERSPs):
Changes in brainwaves in response
to a stimulus across frequency bands
that delineate slow, moderate, E
fast waves.
growth. The current study addresses this question by investigating changes in the neural oscil-
lations as a word is learned from linguistic context in school-aged children from lower SES
households.
Between third and ninth grade children learn around 3,000 new words per year (Wagovich
et al., 2012). During this period of rapid vocabulary growth, children are experiencing a shift
in vocabulary instruction (Gersten et al., 2010; Nagy & Townsend, 2012). Prior to this point,
children often learn new words via more contextualized experiences, such as fast mapping
and quick incidental learning (Rice, 1990; Rice et al., 1992), in which one learns the labels
for referents in the environment. Tuttavia, as children progress through school, word learning
relies more heavily on decontextualized language, referred to as word learning from linguistic
context, in which the child must use only the surrounding language to guide their learning
(Elleman et al., 2019). This type of learning is an incremental process that includes identifying
a new word, holding potential word meanings in memory, and eliminating incorrect meanings
as new information becomes available (Fukkink et al., 2001; Nagy et al., 1985). Difficulty with
one or more aspects of this process could negatively impact a child’s ability to learn the
meaning of the new word.
Recent work has revealed that children from lower SES households face difficulties with
this type of word learning, even when they know all the surrounding words in the sentence
(Maguire et al., 2018). These findings suggest that the reason children from lower SES house-
holds have difficulty learning new words is more likely related to the process of learning,
rather than knowledge about individual word meanings. To better understand what is dif-
ferent about the process of word learning from context between children from lower and
higher SES homes, Ralph et al. (2020) examined changes in the N400 event related potential
(ERP) component as a word was learned. The authors found that, similar to past reports
(Abel et al., 2018; Mestres-Missé et al., 2007), children from higher SES homes exhibited
a significant attenuation of the N400 as a word was learned. È interessante notare, children from
lower SES households showed no N400 attenuation, despite still learning the novel word.
Significant variability existed within the lower SES sample, indicating some children may be
significantly better word learners than others. While the authors speculated that the lack of
N400 attenuation may be associated with the depth and breadth of semantic networks, O
different, diffuse patterns of neural engagement, it remains unclear what compensatory neu-
ral process children from lower SES households engage when successfully learning a word
from linguistic context.
New insights about the process of word learning may be revealed by analyzing event re-
lated spectral perturbations (ERSPs) within the EEG signal. Differences observed in frequency
power changes, which result from ERSP analyses, may provide additional information about
the underlying neural mechanisms being engaged (Davidson & Indefrey, 2007; Schneider &
Maguire, 2018B). Changes in the theta, alpha, beta, and gamma frequency bands have been
implicated across numerous studies of language processing in adults, resulting in a growing
consensus that different linguistic tasks result in activation (or deactivation) within specific fre-
quency bands. Although a single frequency band may be associated with multiple cognitive
processes, a thorough review by Prystauka and Lewis (2019) synthesized current ERSP re-
search, revealing the following well-supported relationships during language processing tasks.
Increases in theta power are often associated with lexical retrieval and increased working
memory load during integration of new information with the preceding sentence and discourse
context (Bastiaansen & Hagoort, 2015; Bastiaansen et al., 2002; Hagoort et al., 2004;
Schneider et al., 2018; Schneider et al., 2016; Wang, Zhu, & Bastiaansen, 2012). Decreases
in both alpha and beta power simultaneously correspond to processing of new linguistic
Neurobiology of Language
373
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
N
o
/
l
/
l
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
F
/
/
/
/
2
3
3
7
2
1
9
2
8
9
0
3
N
o
_
UN
_
0
0
0
4
0
P
D
/
.
l
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Neural differences in word learning among low SES children
information and the demands this new information has upon working memory (Sauseng et al.,
2005; Schneider et al., 2018; Wang, Jensen et al., 2012). Alternatively, increases in beta re-
flect syntactic unification operations (Bastiaansen et al., 2010; Kielar et al., 2014; Kielar et al.,
2015; Lewis et al., 2015; Schneider & Maguire, 2018UN; Schneider et al., 2016), while in-
creases in gamma reflect semantic unification (Bastiaansen & Hagoort, 2015; Fedorenko
et al., 2016; Lewis & Bastiaansen, 2015). Based on the substantial evidence implicating the
role of theta, alpha, beta, and gamma oscillations in language processing, the current study
investigates changes in these frequencies as a word is learned within a low SES population.
In the current study we examine neural oscillations to clarify which neural processes chil-
dren from lower SES households engage when successfully learning a word from linguistic
context. To better understand which processes underlie variability in word learning within a
low SES population, we will compare the neural activation engaged by children who per-
formed well on the task with that of individuals from similar households who performed poorly
on the task. To better elucidate why vocabulary is so strongly associated with word learning
(Maguire et al., 2018; Shavlik et al., 2020), we will determine if differences in the ERSP
markers measured during the word learning task are associated with vocabulary knowledge.
These findings can inform us about the types of strategies lower SES children engage to suc-
cessfully learn a word, whether those strategies differ depending on word learning abilities,
and if such differences are associated with greater vocabulary knowledge.
METHODS
Participants
We investigated neural changes in the ERSPs of 44 children ages 8–15 years old raised in
lower SES households. We use maternal education as a proxy for SES in the current study,
where all mothers self-reported having a high school diploma/GED or lower. These children
came from a larger dataset (N = 275) of 8–15-year-olds from a variety of SES backgrounds. In
this larger sample, which included children from low and high SES households, the median
word learning performance was 66% correct (SD = 20.26%, Range [12%–98%]). Learner
status was determined via a median split: Worse learners performed below the median, while
better learners performed at or above the median. The low SES subset investigated in the
current analysis included 22 children who, as a group, performed significantly above the
group-median on the word learning task (Better Learners; T(21) = 6.28, P < 0.001), and
22 children who, as a group, performed significantly below the group-median on the word
learning task ( Worse Learners; t(21) = −8.39, p < 0.001). Groups did not significantly differ
in dual language experience, age, vocabulary knowledge, working memory or reading ability.
Full demographic information for each group can be found in Table 1.
Stimuli and Procedure
Parental consent and child assent were obtained prior to participation in the task in accor-
dance with the Institutional Review Board at the University of Texas at Dallas, the Good
Clinical Practice Guidelines, the Declaration of Helsinki, and the U.S. Code of Federal
Regulations.
After assent and consent were obtained, parents or guardians provided information about
their child including medical history, language history related to dual language experience,
handedness, and neurological history. Participants completed the Edinburgh Handedness
Inventory (Oldfield, 1971) to verify right-handedness before completing the behavioral
Neurobiology of Language
374
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
n
o
/
l
/
l
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
f
/
/
/
/
2
3
3
7
2
1
9
2
8
9
0
3
n
o
_
a
_
0
0
0
4
0
p
d
/
.
l
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Neural differences in word learning among low SES children
Table 1. Demographic information for children classified as better or worse learners
N
Gender (F:M)
Age [mean (range)]
Dual language experience
(# with bilingual exposure)
Maternal education
Less than HS Diploma
HS GED/Diploma
Better learners
22
Worse learners
22
p value
11:11
17:5
12.68 [8–15]
11.45 [8–15]
17
10
12
19
10
12
Average annual household
income [mean (range)]
$42,455 ($10,000–135,000)
$33,273 ($17,013–82,500)
Income-to-needs ratio [mean (SD)]
2.02 (1.62)
1.39 (0.73)
Reading ability GORT-ORI [mean (SD)]
93.77 (13.23)
88.43 (11.77)
Vocabulary knowledge PPVT-4;
98.9 (12.13)
92.55 (12.22)
[mean (SD)]
0.117
0.073
0.696
0.25
0.11
0.17
0.09
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
n
o
/
l
/
l
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
f
/
/
/
/
2
3
3
7
2
1
9
2
8
9
0
3
n
o
_
a
_
0
0
0
4
0
p
d
.
/
l
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Working memory digit span;
8.23 (2.35)
7.59 (1.59)
0.3
[mean (SD)]
Word learning accuracy
[mean (SD)]
[range]
75% (7%)
[66–92%]
51% (9%)
<0.001
[38–64%]
and EEG testing session. Children then completed a battery of behavioral assessments and the
word learning from context task, as described in greater detail below. Parents and children
received a $50 gift card for their participation in the study. Socioeconomic status SES is multifaceted, requiring multiple data points, associated with income status, maternal education, and other household structure measures (Entwislea & Astone, 1994). While re- search can use multiple separate indicators, a composite index, or just one single scale to quantify SES, the most often-used, single-scale indicator in recent child development research has been maternal education (Bornstein et al., 2003; Bradley & Corwyn, 2002; Campbell et al., 2003; Coleman, 2009; Davis-Kean, 2005; DeGarmo et al., 1999; Dollaghan et al., 1999; Ensminger & Fothergill, 2014; Harding et al., 2015; Hoffman, 2003; Richels et al., 2013). Reasons for this may be due to ease of data collection and reliability of information, participants’ reluctance to provide income information, and the instability of some compo- nents of SES—such as parental occupation and income, which can fluctuate—while parental education levels tend to be stable (Duncan & Magnuson, 2003). Across all of the studies listed Neurobiology of Language 375 Neural differences in word learning among low SES children above, maternal education consistently emerges as the most robust predictor of child out- comes. Therefore, the current study utilizes maternal education as a proxy for SES. Specifically, we investigated children who came from families where mothers had obtained a high school diploma or GED, or less, but had not pursued any post-secondary education. We believe this accurately captures a lower SES background, as research in the United States has shown that there is more than a 0.5-standard deviation difference in test scores between chil- dren whose parents have a college degree and children whose parents have a high school degree (Dollaghan et al., 1999; Duncan & Magnuson, 2012). In fact, Hoff (2003) compared households where parents had completed high school to parents who had completed college and identified SES-related differences in maternal speech and in child language development outcomes. Children of mothers who had completed high school, but had not completed college, were associated with poorer language outcomes, than children of mothers who had completed college. Language history All children were required to attend schools where instruction was provided in English only. Although groups in the current study did not significantly differ in their composition of bilin- gual and monolingual individuals (see Table 1), groups did consist primarily of children with bilingual Spanish-English language experiences. This is because the location in which the study was conducted, Dallas, Texas, is primarily Hispanic (Texas Demographic Center, n.d.). And while a high percentage of Dallas County’s population lives two times below the federal poverty line (U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.), Hispanic and Black families are disproportionately more likely to live in poverty than White and Asian families. Specifically, the median house- hold income for Hispanic families in Dallas is around $40,500, as compared to $68,800 for
White families (U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.). Therefore, to measure the bilingual language ex-
periences of children in the current study, we asked parents to report which languages their
child spoke and the age at which their child began speaking each language. All bilingual
speakers were English-Spanish bilinguals, and to determine which language children spoke
first, we subtracted the age Spanish was learned from the age English was learned.
Therefore, more negative numbers indicated English was learned first, positive numbers indi-
cated Spanish was learned first, and zero would indicate the child was a simultaneous
bilingual.
We next asked parents how well (on a scale of 1–5) their child could use each of the fol-
lowing six domains within each language: speaking, listening, writing, reading, grammar, pro-
nunciation. An average score was computed across all six domains per language to obtain a
general understanding of the child’s language experience. A five would indicate expertise,
whereas a one would indicate little to no experience. To compute which language children
were more experienced in, we subtracted their average Spanish experiences from their aver-
age English experiences. Counter to the above comparison, a more positive number would
indicate higher English competency, while a more negative score would indicate higher
Spanish competency. A score close to zero would indicate children were highly competent
in both languages. As can be seen in Table 2, better and worse learners did not significantly
differ in the age at which English was learned, nor did they significantly differ in their general
understanding of the English language based on parental self-report. Groups also did not sig-
nificantly differ in their reading ability or vocabulary knowledge on normed assessments given
in English (Table 1), suggesting they were relatively evenly matched in their knowledge of the
English language. However, to test whether an effect of bilingual language experience influ-
enced vocabulary, we included this in the multiple regression analysis.
Neurobiology of Language
376
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
n
o
/
l
/
l
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
f
/
/
/
/
2
3
3
7
2
1
9
2
8
9
0
3
n
o
_
a
_
0
0
0
4
0
p
d
.
/
l
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Neural differences in word learning among low SES children
Table 2.
Bilingual language experiences for children classified as better or worse learners
Dual language experience (# with bilingual exposure)
17
19
Average age English was learned compared to Spanish [mean (SD)]
Average English competency compared to Spanish [mean (SD)]
0.62 (3.77)
0.38 (1.86)
2.68 (2.99)
0.02 (1.44)
Better learners
Worse learners
p value
0.696
0.08
0.52
Note. More positive numbers for age language learned indicates children were older when they learned English, as compared to Spanish. More positive num-
bers for competency indicate children were more experienced with English than Spanish, although scores near zero indicate high competency in both
languages.
Behavioral assessments
Behavioral assessments included the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-4; Dunn &
Dunn, 2007) to assess static receptive vocabulary knowledge, the Gray Oral Reading Test
(GORT-5; Wiederholt & Bryant, 2012) to assess reading fluency and comprehension, and a
reverse digit span task as a measure of working memory ability.
Word learning from context task
The current experimental task has been used in previous studies with children (Abel et al.,
2018; Maguire et al., 2018; Ralph et al., 2020). Children read 100 sets of sentence triplets
presented one word at a time on a computer screen. Stimuli included only early-acquired,
high frequency words expected to be within the child’s vocabulary per the MacArthur–
Bates Communicative Development Inventory (CDI; Fenson et al., 1994). Sentences contained
between six and nine words and the last word of each sentence was a novel pseudoword, re-
ferred to as the target word. Target words were placeholders for concrete, early-acquired nouns
(Fenson et al., 1994). These words were phonologically possible, monosyllabic consonant-
vowel-consonant words (Storkel, 2013). Table 3 shows an example of a sentence triplet.
There were two conditions: one in which children could attach meaning to the target (50
trials) and a control condition (50 trials). In the condition in which children could attach meaning,
all three sentences scaffolded meaning acquisition for the target word, and cloze probability of
the target word increased across the presentation of the three sentences. The control condition
did not increase cloze probability across the sentence triplet, and there was no semantically
plausible word that could take the place of the target word in the sentence triplet. After each
sentence triplet, the examiner prompted participants to verbally report whether there was a word
that could replace the target word, and what that word could be (if they responded affirmatively).
Since this study sought to examine differences in successful word learning from context, we
focused only on sentence triplets in which children successfully mapped meaning to the target
word. Incorrect responses and trials related to the control condition were not included in
subsequent analyses (information related to processing of these other conditions can be found
in Abel et al., 2018).
Table 3.
Example sentence triplet
Sentence 1 (low cloze probability)
Her parents bought her a pav.
Sentence 2 (medium cloze probability)
The sick child spent the day in his pav.
Sentence 3 (high cloze probability)
Mom piled the pillows on the pav.
Note. The nonword “pav” stood for the noun “bed.”
Cloze probability:
The probability or likelihood that
a target word will complete a
particular sentence.
Neurobiology of Language
377
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
n
o
/
l
/
l
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
f
/
/
/
/
2
3
3
7
2
1
9
2
8
9
0
3
n
o
_
a
_
0
0
0
4
0
p
d
.
/
l
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Neural differences in word learning among low SES children
Upon completion of the behavioral assessments, EEG testing began. Participants sat in a
comfortable chair in a sound attenuated booth about three feet from a computer monitor.
Prior to the task, participants completed a training set for which they were given accuracy
feedback. Once the task began, participants did not receive any feedback. Children were ran-
domly assigned to one of eight presentation conditions in which sentence triplet order was
randomized.
EEG Pre-Processing
EEG was recorded with a 62-channel EEG system (CURRY, Compumedics Neuroscan) which
features an online sampling rate of 1000Hz. Electrode impedances were kept below 10 kΩ.
Recordings were online referenced to an electrode between Cz and CPz. All data was saved
using CURRY Neuroimaging Suite software and analyzed within MATLAB.
After recording, continuous data was high-pass filtered at 0.1 Hz, low-pass filtered at 50 Hz,
and re-referenced to the average across the entire scalp. An independent components analysis
(Delorme et al., 2001) was carried out. Components related to eye-movements or muscle
activity were identified and removed from the data on the basis of their time courses, frequency
spectra, and topographies using the multiple artifact rejection algorithm plug-in (Winkler et al.,
2014; Winkler et al., 2011). The data was then epoched from 500 ms before to 1,000 ms after
target word onset. Remaining artifactual epochs were removed after visual inspection and trials
in which the participant gave an incorrect response were removed as well. Only trials related
to correct responses were kept as the current study is interested in the neural mechanisms
engaged during successful learning; however, because we are comparing individuals who
did better and worse on the task, groups differed in the number of trials retained. On average,
better word learners had 38.32 (SD = 5.13) and worse learners had 25.64 (SD = 7.33) remaining
trials during presentation of the target word in sentence 1 (t(42) = 6.65, p < 0.001). During presen-
tation of the target word in sentence 3, better word learners had on average 38.36 (SD = 5.15)
remaining trials and worse word learners had 25.64 (SD = 7.33) remaining trials (t(42) = 6.75,
p < 0.001). While large differences in trial count (~30 trials or more) were not present, differ-
ences in trial count between groups can introduce a positive bias for the group with more trials,
as raw power values can only be positive and thus noise is more likely to increase than decrease
power (Cohen, 2014).
We took two approaches to check whether sufficient trials were retained in the ERSP data:
(1) If data are clean, no outliers exist, and a sufficient number of trials are retained, the mean
and median of dB power should produce similar results. (2) The reliability of trial-averaged
power can be estimated using random subsets of trials, and if no noise is present in the data,
the time course of frequency-band-specific power on one trial will correlate perfectly with the
time course of frequency-band-specific power averaged over all trials. This analysis can be
repeated over frequencies, so that the resulting map of correlation coefficients is a
frequency-by-trial count map (Cohen, 2014). Approach 1 yielded strong correlations between
the mean and median of dB power for both worse (R = 0.51) and better (R = 0.74) learners
(Supplementary Figure 1). Approach 2 was conducted at electrode CP1 and results indicate
that approximately 25 trials, corresponding to a correlation of around 0.7, was sufficient
across all frequencies per group (Supplementary Figure 2; supporting information can be
found online at https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/suppl/10.1162/nol_a_00040). After con-
firming that the number of trials retained was sufficient, epoched EEG data was baseline cor-
rected by subtracting neural activation from the 500 ms time window prior to the onset of the
target word.
Neurobiology of Language
378
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
n
o
/
l
/
l
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
f
/
/
/
/
2
3
3
7
2
1
9
2
8
9
0
3
n
o
_
a
_
0
0
0
4
0
p
d
.
/
l
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Neural differences in word learning among low SES children
ERSP Analysis
Whereas ERPs reflect phase-aligned information only, ERSP analysis results in a time-resolved
measure of spectral power that is then averaged over trials, reflecting oscillatory activity re-
gardless of whether it is phase-aligned. In the current study, time-frequency transformation
of the EEG data was performed using handwritten MATLAB scripts that build upon Fieldtrip
functions (Oostenveld et al., 2011; all scripts are publicly available at https://github.com
/juliagoolia28/manuscripts/tree/master/eeg_learner). Data was convolved using a Hanning taper
from 3 to 80 Hz in steps of 0.5 Hz.
To compare the change in neural activity due to learning across the two groups, we tested
the difference between ERSP measures at the onset of the first and third sentence target word
between better and worse word learners. Statistical comparisons were made using a non-
parametric cluster-based permutation at an alpha cluster threshold of 0.05 (Maris &
Oostenveld, 2007). This permutation controls for the multiple comparisons problem created
by the large number of location, time, and frequency points in the ERSP data. This approach is
particularly useful for analyses in which there are few prior hypotheses regarding the nature
and time course of the effects of interest. To investigate the interaction between group and
sentence, we first computed a difference matrix within each group by doing a point-by-point
subtraction of the data between the third and first target word onset, and then computed a
cluster-based permutation on the difference between those two matrices, within each frequency
band of interest (theta, 4–8 Hz; alpha, 9–12 Hz; beta, 13–30 Hz; and gamma, 30–80 Hz).
Cluster-level statistics were derived from the summed adjacent t values computed from the
randomized permutation procedure described above (N = 1,000). Cluster neighbors were de-
fined using a triangulation method. As such our analyses estimate the time across the entire 1 s
window (target word onset − 1,000 ms after), where spectral dynamics were different between
groups.
RESULTS
ERSP Results
The nonparametric cluster-based permutation analysis indicated an effect of condition ( p <
0.05) within the theta band (6–8 Hz; Fcluster = 78.66, p < 0.001). This corresponded to a cluster
at central-parietal electrodes (CZ, C2, CP1, CPZ, CP2, P1; Figure 1) from 0.556 to 0.652 s after
target word onset. Better learners demonstrated an increase in theta power from sentence 1 to
3 (M theta change = 0.29, SD = 0.52).
A cluster in the observed data was also found in the alpha band (9–12 Hz; Fcluster =
1186.81, p < 0.001; Figure 2) across widespread electrodes (AF4, F4, F6, F8, FC6, FT8, CZ,
C2, T8, CP1, CPZ, CP2, CP4, TP8, PZ, P2, P4, P6, P8, POZ, PO4, PO6, PO8, O2, CB2) from
0.524 to 0.972 s after target word onset. Worse learners demonstrated greater alpha decreases
from sentence 1 to 3 (M alpha change = −0.51, SD = 0.91).
There was also a cluster in the observed data in the lower beta band (13–19 Hz; Fcluster =
694.79, p < 0.001; Figure 3) at left parietal and occipital electrodes (TP7, CP5, P7, P5, P3, P1,
PO7, PO5, PO3, O1) from 0.108 to 0.3 s after target word onset. Better learners demonstrated
an increase in beta power from sentence 1 to 3 (M beta change = 0.02, SD = 0.19).
While a cluster was observed in the data in the gamma band (48–51 Hz; Fcluster = 84.51, p =
0.87) at frontal electrodes (FP1, FPz, AF3, AF4) between 0.94 and 0.97 s after target word
onset, it did not reach the threshold for significance.
Neurobiology of Language
379
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
n
o
/
l
/
l
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
f
/
/
/
/
2
3
3
7
2
1
9
2
8
9
0
3
n
o
_
a
_
0
0
0
4
0
p
d
/
.
l
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Neural differences in word learning among low SES children
Figure 1. Change in theta activation from sentences 1 to 3 in better and worse word learners. Red represents an increase in activation, while
blue denotes decreases in activation. Scalp maps are averaged over the time window of group differences estimated by the cluster-based
analysis (0.556 to 0.652 s), while spectrograms represent change in activation over time at electrode P1 (starred on the scalp map). The white
dashed rectangles highlight significant activation identified by the cluster analysis.
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
n
o
/
l
/
l
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
f
/
/
/
/
2
3
3
7
2
1
9
2
8
9
0
3
n
o
_
a
_
0
0
0
4
0
p
d
.
/
l
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Figure 2. Change in alpha activation from sentences 1 to 3 in better and worse word learners. Red represents an increase in power, while
blue denotes decreases in activation. Scalp maps are averaged over the time window of estimated group differences (0.524 to 0.972 s), while
spectrograms represent change in activation over time at electrode F6 (starred on the scalp map). The white dashed rectangles highlight sig-
nificant activation identified by the cluster analysis.
Neurobiology of Language
380
Neural differences in word learning among low SES children
Regression Results
Since previous studies indicate that vocabulary knowledge mediates SES-related gaps in word
learning (Maguire et al., 2018), and that word learning ability mediates SES-related gaps in
vocabulary (Shavlik et al., 2020), we sought to clarify which mechanisms underlying word
learning are associated with greater vocabulary knowledge. Although groups did not signifi-
cantly differ in static vocabulary knowledge, as measured by the PPVT-4, we utilized multiple
regression analyses to determine whether differences in the neural mechanisms engaged
during word learning were associated with individual variability in vocabulary knowledge,
regardless of the directionality of that relationship. For each individual (N = 44), we extracted
their mean amplitude of activation within each significant cluster (change in EEG response to
target word between the first and third sentence). We then computed a multiple regression
with vocabulary knowledge (PPVT-4) as the outcome variable. Age, gender, and dual lan-
guage experience were included as covariates. Individual mean amplitude of theta, alpha,
and beta, in their respective clusters, were added as predictor variables. Reading ability
(GORT-ORI) and working memory (Digit Span) were also included in the model as covariates.
In this model, age (B = −1.98, p = 0.02) and reading ability (B = 0.59, p < 0.001) accounted for
significant variance in vocabulary knowledge. Importantly though, increases in beta activation
between when a word is first encountered and when the child has attached meaning to that word
accounted for a significant proportion of variability in vocabulary knowledge (B = 13.82, p =
0.01). A greater change in beta activation from sentence 1 to 3 during word learning is associated
with stronger vocabulary knowledge, regardless of age, gender, dual language experience,
working memory, or reading ability. This was not the case for changes in theta (B = −4.54,
p = 0.18) or alpha power (B = 3.18, p = 0.28) from sentence 1 to 3 (see Table 4).
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
n
o
/
l
/
l
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
f
/
/
/
/
2
3
3
7
2
1
9
2
8
9
0
3
n
o
_
a
_
0
0
0
4
0
p
d
.
/
l
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Figure 3. Change in beta activation from sentences 1 to 3 in better and worse word learners. Red represents an increase in activation, while
blue denotes decreases in activation. Scalp maps are averaged over the time window of estimated group differences (0.108 to 0.3 s), while
spectrograms represent change in activation over time at electrode P7 (starred on the scalp map). The white dashed rectangles highlight
significant activation identified by the cluster analysis.
Neurobiology of Language
381
Neural differences in word learning among low SES children
Table 4. Neural correlates during word learning regressed on vocabulary
β
65.23
−1.98
0.70
−0.74
0.37
0.59
−4.54
3.18
13.82
SE
15.85
0.81
3.13
3.76
0.80
0.13
3.32
2.86
5.27
t value
4.12
−2.43
0.22
−0.20
0.46
4.70
−1.37
1.11
2.62
p value
0.00**
0.02*
0.83
0.85
0.65
0.00**
0.18
0.28
0.01*
(Intercept)
Age
Gender
Dual language experience
Working memory
Reading ability
Theta
Alpha
Beta
Note. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.001.
DISCUSSION
Establishing a better understanding of the nature of differences in early vocabulary development,
especially in a low SES population that is known to struggle disproportionately with learning new
words, is critical for creating subsequent interventions that promote word learning success in
children from all SES backgrounds (Shavlik et al., 2020). In the current study, we found that
children who are stronger word learners engage theta and beta when learning a new word, while
children who are not as strong word learners engage more alpha. Greater increases in beta were
further associated with greater vocabulary knowledge, suggesting this neural mechanism under-
lies a strategy that supports both successful word learning and vocabulary. Critically, consistent
with recent research, our findings suggest that poorer word learning and vocabulary outcomes
among children from lower SES households are not attributed to differences in vocabulary alone,
as groups did not significantly differ in vocabulary, but are rather associated with differences in
the skills and strategies used to build that vocabulary (Levine et al., 2020; Shavlik et al., 2020).
Some children from lower SES households are better word learners, while others are not, and
these differences are related to the process of how a word is learned.
Across the course of learning a word in the current task, children who were better word
learners engaged beta more than children who were worse word learners. These increases
in beta have been thought to reflect syntactic unification operations (Bastiaansen et al.,
2010; Kielar et al., 2014; Kielar et al., 2015; Lewis et al., 2015; Schneider & Maguire,
2018a; Schneider et al., 2016), suggesting that school-aged children who integrate syntactic
information with greater ease are better word learners. As previous reports have shown, en-
hanced beta activation during comprehension of naturally paced sentences improves with age
and is related to improved integration of sentence level information (Schneider et al., 2018).
Therefore, it is possible that the lack of beta activation in worse word learners represents a
maturational lag. This critical difference in beta engagement is then associated with variability
in measures of static vocabulary, as indicated by our regression analyses.
Two possible explanations may account for the relationship between vocabulary and in-
creases in beta during word learning. First, it possible that children who have greater existing
vocabulary knowledge are better equipped with the skills necessary to engage beta more
effectively. In support of this explanation, Maguire et al. (2018) found that the relationship
Neurobiology of Language
382
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
n
o
/
l
/
l
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
f
/
/
/
/
2
3
3
7
2
1
9
2
8
9
0
3
n
o
_
a
_
0
0
0
4
0
p
d
/
.
l
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Neural differences in word learning among low SES children
between SES and word learning was mediated by vocabulary. The other possible reason for
this association is that increases in beta underlie effective word learning which leads to larger
vocabulary knowledge over time. This interpretation is supported by work by Shavlik et al.
(2020), which found SES-related gaps in vocabulary were mediated by word learning ability.
Both interpretations promote theories which suggest “skill begets skill” (Heckman, 2006), and
point to different, but not mutually exclusive, pathways, by which the vocabulary gap may
grow between children from lower and higher SES households during the school years.
This study also uncovered differences in theta and alpha engagement between better and
worse word learners from low SES households. For children who performed better on the word
learning task, a theta increase occurred from sentence 1 to sentence 3, while children who
performed more poorly exhibited greater alpha power decreases from sentences 1 to 3.
Given that previous literature on sentence processing has related increases in theta to lexical
retrieval and increased working memory load during integration of new information with the
preceding sentence and discourse context (Bastiaansen et al., 2002; Bastiaansen & Hagoort,
2015; Hagoort et al., 2004; Schneider et al., 2018; Schneider et al., 2016; Wang, Zhu, &
Bastiaansen, 2012), our findings suggest that engagement of this cognitive process is beneficial
for word learning. Alternatively, decreases in alpha, which are often associated with increased
working memory demands to process new linguistic information (Sauseng et al., 2005;
Schneider et al., 2018; Wang, Jensen et al., 2012), aid word learning, but are not the best
strategy when learning a new word. Alpha power decreases may therefore represent a com-
pensatory strategy engaged to learn a new word when difficulty integrating lexical and syn-
tactic information in the sentence context exists. Bolstering the cognitive skills supported by a
greater theta and beta increase could lead to better word learning outcomes for children who
currently have difficulty learning new words from linguistic context.
Given the multifaceted nature of SES, the current study sought to disentangle why some
children, coming from similar households, raised in similar environments, learn words better
than other children. For this reason, we have only focused on differences in word learning
among children from lower SES households. While it remains unclear whether good word
learners from lower SES households engage the same neural processes as those from higher
SES households, it is clear that the process good word learners from lower SES households
engage to learn a word is successful. This is because, behaviorally, good word learners from
lower SES households learned just as many, if not more, words on average than their higher
SES peers. Differences in spontaneous brain oscillations in baseline EEG on the basis of SES is
also a reason we elected to compare children from similar environments. In typical brain de-
velopment, spontaneous brain oscillations result in decreases in low frequency rhythms, such
as theta, and increases in higher frequency rhythms, such as alpha and gamma (Anderson &
Perone, 2018; Harmony et al., 1988; Uhlhaas et al., 2010). However, research has shown that
children from lower SES households exhibit more theta power, and reduced alpha/gamma
power (Brito et al., 2016; Brito et al., 2020; Maguire & Schneider, 2019; Tomalski et al.,
2013). These EEG differences in children from lower SES homes are generally interpreted as
a developmental lag due to an inability to meet basic physiological needs and are associated
with differences in cognitive and language outcomes (Brito et al., 2020; Maguire & Schneider,
2019; Otero et al., 2003; Vanderwert et al., 2016). By comparing children from similar envi-
ronments (see Table 1 and Supplementary Table 1), the current study sought to limit the influ-
ence that differences in spontaneous brain oscillations in baseline EEG may have upon our
results. Taking this focused approach limits our ability to speculate as to whether the strategies
engaged during word learning here are exclusive to children from low SES homes or might
also extend to children from higher SES homes.
Neurobiology of Language
383
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
n
o
/
l
/
l
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
f
/
/
/
/
2
3
3
7
2
1
9
2
8
9
0
3
n
o
_
a
_
0
0
0
4
0
p
d
/
.
l
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Neural differences in word learning among low SES children
It is important to note that the current study does not identify the origins of differences in
word learning ability. Here, we focus upon differences between children from low SES homes,
as measured by maternal education; however, it would be beneficial for future research to
extend this work and determine whether more proximal measures of the child’s environment,
such as the home language environment, stress, and/or nutrition, account for variability in
word learning. It is also possible that individual differences in the learner, associated with
IQ or executive function, may account for variability in word learning, which the current study
did not measure. In future studies, we intend to include more extensive measures of vocabu-
lary, reading, IQ, and executive function to more clearly tease apart which mechanisms may
account for additional variability in word learning skill between groups.
Our sample was highly representative of ethnicity in Dallas, Texas (where the study was
conducted), and therefore consisted of primarily bilingual English-Spanish speakers. While
group differences in neural engagement persisted, independent of the influence of bilingual
exposure, it cannot be overlooked that monolingual speakers may engage a different cognitive
process when learning a new word. It is important to consider the quantity of children’s ex-
posure to each language: Bilingual children who hear a large amount of a particular language
learn more words and grammar in that language (Hoff et al., 2012) and show more efficient
processing of that language (Byers-Heinlein & Lew-Williams, 2013; Fernald et al., 2013).
Based on parental report the two groups did not differ in exposure to both languages, although
on average, worse learners were more likely to learn English later than better learners. Thus,
better learners may have included more simultaneous bilinguals and worse learners could
have included more successive bilinguals. Nonetheless, all children in the current study at-
tended schools where instructions and learning occur in English, and recent reports have in-
dicated that dual language learners are equally likely to learn words in both English and
Spanish (Pace et al., 2021; Luo et al., 2021). Thus, we believe our findings still have important
implications about the attributes that are most important for these children when learning in
the classroom. Ages 8–15 years also represent a relatively broad age range, when changes
occur both within children and within the school curriculum that can affect word learning.
While we aimed to address much of this age-related variation by matching across groups
and controlling for age in all statistical analyses, future research should investigate develop-
mental differences in word learning ability within a low SES sample. Lastly, the relationship
between neural oscillations and cognitive processes in the current study is based on current
interpretations in the field; however, more work needs to be done to substantiate these rela-
tionships in children.
One of the most central takeaways from this study is in the acknowledgement that there is
significant variability in word learning performance among children from low SES back-
grounds. Namely, that not all children raised in low SES environments are bound to have
poor word learning or vocabulary outcomes. Median word learning performance was deter-
mined in a larger sample, including children from higher SES backgrounds. Therefore, chil-
dren who were identified as better word learners in the current low SES sample, were
accurately identifying words similar to their higher SES peers. While we did not directly com-
pare word learning ability in children from both low and high SES households, our findings
suggest increases in beta as a word is learned is an effective strategy for promoting a child’s
vocabulary knowledge. These findings may not be restricted to low SES children only, but
rather, may generalize to children across SES strata. Therefore, it would be fruitful for inter-
ventions to target the process of word learning, and strategies related to the syntactic unifi-
cation of information during word learning, when seeking to ameliorate gaps in vocabulary
knowledge.
Neurobiology of Language
384
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
n
o
/
l
/
l
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
f
/
/
/
/
2
3
3
7
2
1
9
2
8
9
0
3
n
o
_
a
_
0
0
0
4
0
p
d
/
.
l
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Neural differences in word learning among low SES children
FUNDING INFORMATION
Julie M. Schneider, Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (https://dx.doi
.org/10.13039/100000088), Award ID: 1911462. Mandy J. Maguire, Directorate for Social,
Behavioral and Economic Sciences (https://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000088), Award ID:
1551770.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Julie M. Schneider: Conceptualization; Methodology; Formal analysis; Writing – original draft;
Visualization; Project administration; Funding acquisition. Alyson D. Abel: Methodology;
Writing – review & editing; Funding acquisition. Jacob Momsen: Data curation; Validation;
Writing – review & editing. Tina C. Melamed: Writing – review & editing. Mandy J.
Maguire: Methodology; Writing – review & editing; Funding acquisition; Supervision;
Resources.
REFERENCES
Abel, A. D., Schneider, J. M., & Maguire, M. J. (2018). N400 re-
sponse indexes word learning from linguistic context in children.
Language Learning and Development, 14(1). https://doi.org/10
.1080/15475441.2017.1362347
Anderson, A. J., & Perone, S. (2018). Developmental change in the
resting state electroencephalogram: Insights into cognition and
the brain. Brain and Cognition, 126, 40–52. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.bandc.2018.08.001, PubMed: 30144749
Bastiaansen, M., & Hagoort, P. (2015). Frequency-based segrega-
tion of syntactic and semantic unification during online sentence
J o u r n a l o f C o g n i t i v e
l e v e l
Neuroscience, 27(11), 2095–107. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn
_a_00829, PubMed: 26042498
l a n g u a g e c o m pr e h e n s i o n .
Bastiaansen, M., Magyari, L., & Hagoort, P. (2010). Syntactic uni-
fication operations are reflected in oscillatory dynamics during
on-line sentence comprehension. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 22(7), 1333–1347. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn
.2009.21283, PubMed: 19580386
Bastiaansen, M. C. M., van Berkum, J. J. A., & Hagoort, P. (2002).
Event-related theta power increases in the human EEG during on-
line sentence processing. Neuroscience Letters, 323(1), 13–16.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3940(01)02535-6, PubMed:
11911979
Bion, R. A. H., Borovsky, A., & Fernald, A. (2013). Fast mapping,
slow learning: Disambiguation of novel word-object mappings in
relation to vocabulary learning at 18, 24, and 30 months.
Cognition, 126(1), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition
.2012.08.008, PubMed: 23063233
Bornstein, R. F., Languirand, M. A., Geiselman, K. J., Creighton,
J. A., West, M. A., Gallagher, H. A., & Eisenhart, E. A. (2003).
Construct validity of the Relationship Profile Test: A self-report
measure of dependency-detachment. Journal of Personality
A s s e s s m e n t , 8 0 ( 1 ) , 6 4 – 7 4 . h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 2 0 7
/S15327752JPA8001_15, PubMed: 12584069
Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and
child development. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 371.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135233,
PubMed: 11752490
Brito, N. H., Fifer, W. P., Myers, M. M., Elliott, A. J., & Noble,
K. G. (2016). Associations among family socioeconomic
status, EEG power at birth, and cognitive skills during infancy.
Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 144–151. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2016.03.004, PubMed: 27003830
Brito, N. H., Troller-Renfree, S. V., Leon-Santos, A., Isler, J. R., Fifer,
W. P., & Noble, K. G. (2020). Associations among the home lan-
guage environment and neural activity during infancy.
Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 43, 100780. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2020.100780, PubMed: 32510343
Burchinal, M., Foster, T. J., Bezdek, K. G., Bratsch-Hines, M., Blair,
C., & Vernon-Feagans, L. (2020). School-entry skills predicting
school-age academic and social–emotional trajectories. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 51, 67–80. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.ecresq.2019.08.004
Byers-Heinlein, K., & Lew-Williams, C. (2013). Bilingualism in the
early years: What the science says. LEARNing landscapes, 7(1),
95. https://doi.org/10.36510/ learnland.v7i1.632, PubMed:
30288204
Campbell, T. F., Dollaghan, C. A., Rackette, H. E., Paradise, J. L.,
Feldman, H. M., Shriberg, L. D., Sabo, D. L., & Kurs-Lasky, M.
(2003). Risk factors for speech delay of unknown origin in 3-
year-old children. Child Development, 74(2), 346–357. https://
doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.7402002, PubMed: 12705559
Cohen, M. X. (2014). Analyzing neural time series data: Theory and
practice. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9609.001
.0001
Coleman, J. S. (2009). Social capital in the creation of human cap-
ital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120. https://doi.org
/10.1086/228943
Davidson, D. J., & Indefrey, P. (2007). An inverse relation between
event-related and time-frequency violation responses in sentence
processing. Brain Research, 1158, 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.brainres.2007.04.082, PubMed: 17560965
Davis-Kean, P. E. (2005). The influence of parent education and
family income on child achievement: The indirect role of paren-
tal expectations and the home environment. Journal of Family
Psychology, 19(2), 294–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200
.19.2.294, PubMed: 15982107
DeGarmo, D. S., Forgatch, M. S., & Martinez, Jr., C. R. (1999).
Parenting of divorced mothers as a link between social status
and boys’ academic outcomes: Unpacking the effects of
Neurobiology of Language
385
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
n
o
/
l
/
l
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
f
/
/
/
/
2
3
3
7
2
1
9
2
8
9
0
3
n
o
_
a
_
0
0
0
4
0
p
d
.
/
l
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Neural differences in word learning among low SES children
socioeconomic status. Child Development, 70(5), 1231–1245.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00089, PubMed: 10546342
Delorme, A., Makeig, S., & Sejnowski, T. (2001). Automatic artifact
rejection for EEG data using high-order statistics and independent
component analysis. In Proceedings of the 3rd International
I n d e p e n d e n t C o m p o n e n t A n a l y s i s a n d B l i n d S o u r c e
Decomposition Conference (vol. 457, p. 462), December 9–12,
San Diego, CA.
Dollaghan, C. A., Campbell, T. F., Paradise, J. L., Feldman, H. M.,
Janosky, J. E., Pitcairn, D. N., & Kurs-Lasky, M. (1999). Maternal
education and measures of early speech and language. Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42(6), 1432–1443.
https://doi.org/10.1044/jslhr.4206.1432, PubMed: 10599625
Duncan, G. J., & Magnuson, K. (2003). Off with Hollingshead:
Socioeconomic resources, parenting, and child development. In
M. H. Bornstein & R. H. Bradley (Eds.), Socioeconomic status,
parenting, and child development (pp. 83–106). Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Duncan, G. J., & Magnuson, K. (2012). Socioeconomic status and
cognitive functioning: Moving from correlation to causation.
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 3(3), 377–386.
https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1176, PubMed: 26301469
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2007). PPVT-4: Peabody picture vo-
cabulary test (4th ed.). Pearson Assessments. https://doi.org/10
.1037/t15144-000
Elleman, A. M., Oslund, E. L., Griffin, N. M., & Myers, K. E. (2019).
A review of middle school vocabulary interventions: Five
research-based recommendations for practice. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 50(4), 477–492.
https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_LSHSS-VOIA-18-0145, PubMed:
31600468
Ensminger, M. E., & Fothergill, K. E. (2014). A decade of measuring
SES: What it tells us and where to go from here. In M. H.
Bornstein & R. H. Bradley (Eds.), Socioeconomic Status,
Parenting, and Child Development (pp. 13–27). New York:
Psychology Press.
Entwislea, D. R., & Astone, N. M. (1994). Some practical guidelines
for measuring youth’s race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status.
Child Development, 65(6), 1521–1540. https://doi.org/10.1111
/J.1467-8624.1994.TB00833.X
Fedorenko, E., Scott, T. L., Brunner, P., Coon, W. G., Pritchett, B.,
Schalk, G., & Kanwisher, N. (2016). Neural correlate of the con-
struction of sentence meaning. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(41),
E6256–E6262. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1612132113,
PubMed: 27671642
Fenson, L., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., Bates, E., Thal, D. J., Pethick,
S. J., Tomasello, M., Mervis, C. B., & Stiles, J. (1994). Variability
in early communicative development. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 59(5). https://doi
.org/10.2307/1166093
Fernald, A., Gruter, T., Hurtado, N., & Marchman, A. (2013).
Relative language exposure, processing efficiency and vocabu-
lary in Spanish–English bilingual toddlers. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 17(1), 189–202. https://doi.org/10
.1017/S136672891300014X
Fukkink, R. G., Blok, H., & De Glopper, K. (2001). Deriving word
meaning from written context: A multicomponential skill.
Language Learning, 51(3), 477–496. https://doi.org/10.1111
/0023-8333.00162
Gersten, R., Dimino, J., Jayanthi, M., Kim, J. S., & Santoro, L. E.
(2010). Teacher study group: Impact of the professional develop-
ment model on reading instruction and student outcomes in first
grade classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 47(3),
694–739. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209361208
Hagoort, P., Hald, L., Bastiaansen, M., & Petersson, K. M. (2004).
Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language
comprehension. Science, 304(5669), 438–441. https://doi.org/10
.1126/science.1095455, PubMed: 15031438
Harding, J. F., Morris, P. A., & Hughes, D. (2015). The relationship
between maternal education and children’s academic outcomes:
A theoretical framework. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(1),
60–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12156
Harmony, T., Alvarez, A., Pascual, R., Ramos, A., Marosi, E., Díaz De
León, A. E., Valdés, P., & Becker, J. (1988). EEG maturation on chil-
dren with different economic and psychosocial characteristics.
International Journal of Neuroscience, 41(1–2), 103–113. https://
doi.org/10.3109/00207458808985747, PubMed: 3410648
Heckman, J. J. (2006). Skill formation and the economics of invest-
ing in disadvantaged children. Science, 312(5782), 1900–1902.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1128898, PubMed: 16809525
Hoff, E. (2003). Causes and consequences of SES-related differ-
ences in parent-to-child speech. In M. H. Bornstein & R. H.
Bradley (Eds.), Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child
development (pp. 147–160). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers.
Hoff, E., Core, C., Place, S., Rumiche, R., Señor, M., & Parra, M.
(2012). Dual language exposure and early bilingual develop-
ment. Journal of Child Language, 39(1), 1. https://doi.org/10
.1017/S0305000910000759, PubMed: 21418730
Hoffman, L. (2003). Methodological issues in studies of SES,
parenting, and child development. In M. H. Bornstein & R. H.
Bradley (Eds.), Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child
development (pp. 125–143). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers.
Kielar, A., Meltzer, J. A., Moreno, S., Alain, C., & Bialystok, E.
(2014). Oscillatory responses to semantic and syntactic viola-
tions. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(12), 2840–2862.
https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00670, PubMed: 24893735
Kielar, A., Panamsky, L., Links, K. A., & Meltzer, J. A. (2015).
Localization of electrophysiological responses to semantic and
syntactic anomalies in language comprehension with MEG.
NeuroImage, 105, 507–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.neuroimage.2014.11.016, PubMed: 25463470
Levine, D., Pace, A., Luo, R., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., de
Villiers, J., Iglesias, A., & Wilson, M. S. (2020). Evaluating socio-
economic gaps in preschoolers’ vocabulary, syntax, and lan-
guage process skills with the Quick Interactive Language
Screener (QUILS). Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 50,
114–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.11.006
Lewis, A. G., & Bastiaansen, M. (2015). A predictive coding frame-
work for rapid neural dynamics during sentence-level language
comprehension. Cortex, 68, 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.cortex.2015.02.014, PubMed: 25840879
Lewis, A. G., Wang, L., & Bastiaansen, M. (2015). Fast oscillatory
dynamics during language comprehension: Unification versus
maintenance and prediction?, Brain and Language, 148, 51–63.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2015.01.003, PubMed: 25666170
Luo, R., Pace, A., Levine, D., Iglesias, A., de Villiers, J., Golinkoff,
R. M., Wilson, M. S., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2021). Home literacy
environment and existing knowledge mediate the link between
socioeconomic status and language learning skills in dual lan-
guage learners. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 55, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.10.007
Maguire, M. J., & Schneider, J. M. (2019). Socioeconomic status re-
lated differences in resting state EEG activity correspond to
Neurobiology of Language
386
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
n
o
/
l
/
l
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
f
/
/
/
/
2
3
3
7
2
1
9
2
8
9
0
3
n
o
_
a
_
0
0
0
4
0
p
d
/
.
l
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Neural differences in word learning among low SES children
differences in vocabulary and working memory in grade school.
Brain and Cognition, 137, 103619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.bandc.2019.103619, PubMed: 31655309
Maguire, M. J., Schneider, J. M., Middleton, A. E., Ralph, Y., Lopez,
M., Ackerman, R. A., & Abel, A. D. (2018). Vocabulary knowl-
edge mediates the link between socioeconomic status and word
learning in grade school. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 166, 679–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017
.10.003, PubMed: 29103588
Maris, E., & Oostenveld, R. (2007). Nonparametric statistical testing
of EEG- and MEG-data. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 164(1),
177–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2007.03.024,
PubMed: 17517438
Mestres-Missé, A., Rodriguez-Fornells, A., & Münte, T. F. (2007).
Watching the brain during meaning acquisition. Cerebral
Cortex, 17(8), 1858–1866. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor
/bhl094, PubMed: 17056648
Nagy, W. E., Herman, P. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1985). Learning
words from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(2), 233.
https://doi.org/10.2307/747758
Nagy, W., & Townsend, D. (2012). Words as tools: Learning aca-
demic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research
Quarterly, 47(1), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.011
Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness:
the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97–113. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4, PubMed: 5146491
Oostenveld, R., Fries, P., Maris, E., & Schoffelen, J. M. (2011).
FieldTrip: Open source software for advanced analysis of MEG,
EEG, and invasive electrophysiological data. Computational
Intelligence and Neuroscience, 2011, 156869. https://doi.org
/10.1155/2011/156869, PubMed: 21253357
Otero, G. A., Pliego-Rivero, F. B., Fernández, T., & Ricardo, J.
(2003). EEG development in children with sociocultural disadvan-
tages: A follow-up study. Clinical Neurophysiology, 114(10),
1918–1925. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1388-2457(03)00173-1,
PubMed: 14499754
Pace, A., Alper, R., Burchinal, M. R., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-
Pasek, K. (2019). Measuring success: Within and cross-domain
predictors of academic and social trajectories in elementary
school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 46, 112–125.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.04.001
Pace, A., Luo, R., Levine, D., Iglesias, A., de Villiers, J., Golinkoff,
R. M., Wilson, M. S., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2021). Within and across
language predictors of word learning processes in dual language
learners. Child Development, 92(1), 35–53. https://doi.org/10
.1111/cdev.13418, PubMed: 32776574
Prystauka, Y., & Lewis, A. G. (2019). The power of neural oscilla-
tions to inform sentence comprehension: A linguistic perspec-
tive. Language and Linguistics Compass, 13(9), e12347. https://
doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12347, PubMed: 33042211
Ralph, Y. K., Schneider, J. M., Abel, A. D., & Maguire, M. J. (2020).
Using the N400 event-related potential to study word learning
from context in children from low- and higher-socioeconomic
status homes. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 191,
104758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2019.104758, PubMed:
31855830
Rice, M. (1990). Preschooler’s QUIL: Quick incidental learning of
words. In G. Conti-Ramsden & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Children’s
Language (7th ed., pp. 171–195). Erlbaum.
Rice, M. L., Buhr, J., & Oetting, J. B. (1992). Specific-language-
impaired children’s quick incidental learning of words. Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 35(5), 1040–1048.
https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3505.1040, PubMed: 1447916
Richels, C. G., Johnson, K. N., Walden, T. A., & Conture, E. G.
(2013). Socioeconomic status, parental education, vocabulary
and language skills of children who stutter. Journal of
Communication Disorders, 46(4), 361–374. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.jcomdis.2013.07.002, PubMed: 23906898
Sauseng, P., Klimesch, W., Doppelmayr, M., Pecherstorfer, T.,
Freunberger, R., & Hanslmayr, S. (2005). EEG alpha synchroni-
zation and functional coupling during top-down processing in a
working memory task. Human Brain Mapping, 26(2), 148–155.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20150, PubMed: 15929084
Schneider, J. M., Abel, A. D., Ogiela, D. A., McCord, C., &
Maguire, M. J. (2018). Developmental differences in the neural
oscillations underlying auditory sentence processing in children
and adults. Brain and Language, 186, 17–25. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.bandl.2018.09.002, PubMed: 30199760
Schneider, J. M., Abel, A. D., Ogiela, D. A., Middleton, A. E., &
Maguire, M. J. (2016). Developmental differences in beta and
theta power during sentence processing. Developmental
Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.dcn.2016.01.001, PubMed: 26774879
Schneider, J. M., & Maguire, M. J. (2018a). Developmental differences
in the neural correlates supporting semantics and syntax during sen-
tence processing. Developmental Science, 22(4), e12782. https://
doi.org/10.1111/desc.12782, PubMed: 30525288
Schneider, J. M., & Maguire, M. J. (2018b). Identifying the relation-
ship between oscillatory dynamics and event-related responses.
International Journal of Psychophysiology, 133, 182–192. https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPSYCHO.2018.07.002, PubMed: 29981766
Schwab, J. F., & Lew-Williams, C. (2016). Language learning,
socioeconomic status, and child-directed speech. Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 7(4), 264–275.
https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1393, PubMed: 27196418
Shavlik, M., Davis-Kean, P. E., Schwab, J. F., & Booth, A. E. (2020).
Early word-learning skills: A missing link in understanding the
vocabulary gap? Developmental Science, 24(2), e13034.
https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.13034, PubMed: 32881178
Spencer, E. J., & Schuele, C. M. (2012). An examination of fast mapping
skills in preschool children from families with low socioeconomic
status. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 26(10), 845–862. https://doi
.org/10.3109/02699206.2012.705215, PubMed: 22954365
Storkel, H. L. (2013). A corpus of consonant–vowel–consonant real
words and nonwords: Comparison of phonotactic probability,
neighborhood density, and consonant age of acquisition.
Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1159–1167. https://doi.org
/10.3758/s13428-012-0309-7, PubMed: 23307574
Texas Demographic Center. (n.d.). Retrieved February 11, 2021,
from https://demographics.texas.gov/
Tomalski, P., Moore, D. G., Ribeiro, H., Axelsson, E. L., Murphy, E.,
Karmiloff-Smith, A., Johnson, M. H., & Kushnerenko, E. (2013).
Socioeconomic status and functional brain development–
associations in early infancy. Developmental Science, 16(5),
676–687. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12079, PubMed: 24033573
Uhlhaas, P. J., Roux, F., Rodriguez, E., Rotarska-Jagiela, A., &
Singer, W. (2010). Neural synchrony and the development of
cortical networks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(2), 72–80.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.12.002, PubMed: 20080054
U.S. Census Bureau.
(n.d.). Poverty thresholds. Retrieved
February 11, 2021, from https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time
-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-thresholds.html
Vanderwert, R. E., Zeanah, C. H., Fox, N. A., & Nelson III, C. A.
(2016). Normalization of EEG activity among previously institu-
tionalized children placed into foster care: A 12-year follow-up
of the Bucharest Early Intervention Project. Developmental
Neurobiology of Language
387
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
n
o
/
l
/
l
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
f
/
/
/
/
2
3
3
7
2
1
9
2
8
9
0
3
n
o
_
a
_
0
0
0
4
0
p
d
.
/
l
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Neural differences in word learning among low SES children
Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.dcn.2015.12.004, PubMed: 26724564
Wagovich, S. A., Pak, Y., & Miller, M. D. (2012). Orthographic word
knowledge growth in school-age children. American Journal of
Speech-Language Pathology, 21(2), 140–153. https://doi.org/10
.1044/1058-0360(2012/10-0032), PubMed: 22411772
Wang, L., Jensen, O., van den Brink, D., Weder, N., Schoffelen,
J.-M., Magyari, L., Hagoort, P., & Bastiaansen, M. (2012). Beta
oscillations relate to the N400m during language comprehen-
sion. Human Brain Mapping, 33(12), 2898–2912. https://doi
.org/10.1002/hbm.21410, PubMed: 22488914
Wang, L., Zhu, Z., & Bastiaansen, M. (2012). Integration or predictability?
A further specification of the functional role of gamma oscillations
in language comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 187.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00187, PubMed: 22701443
Weisleder, A., & Fernald, A. (2013). Talking to children matters:
Early language experience strengthens processing and builds
vocabulary. Psychological Science, 24(11), 2143–2152. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0956797613488145, PubMed: 24022649
Wiederholt, J. L., & Bryant, B. R. (2012). Gray oral reading test:
Examiner’s record booklet; form-A (5th ed.). Pro-Ed.
Winkler, I., Brandl, S., Horn, F., Waldburger, E., Allefeld, C., &
Tangermann, M. (2014). Robust artifactual independent compo-
nent classification for BCI practitioners. Journal of Neural
Engineering, 11(3), 35013. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2560
/11/3/035013, PubMed: 24836294
Winkler, I., Haufe, S., & Tangermann, M. (2011). Automatic classi-
fication of artifactual ICA-components for artifact removal in EEG
signals. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 7(1), 1. https://doi.org/10
.1186/1744-9081-7-30, PubMed: 21810266
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
n
o
/
l
/
l
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
f
/
/
/
/
2
3
3
7
2
1
9
2
8
9
0
3
n
o
_
a
_
0
0
0
4
0
p
d
.
/
l
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Neurobiology of Language
388
