A Role for Visual Memory in Vocabulary Development: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Although attention and early associative learning in preverbal children is predominantly driven by rapid eye-movements in response to moving visual stimuli and sounds/words (e.g., associating the word “bottle” with the object), the literature examining the role of visual attention and memory in ongoing vocabulary development across childhood is limited. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis examined the association between visual memory and vocabulary development, including moderators such as age and task selection, in neurotypical children aged 2-to-12 years, from the brain-based perspective of cognitive neuroscience. Visual memory tasks were classified according to the visual characteristics of the stimuli and the neural networks known to preferentially process such information, including consideration of the distinction between the ventral visual stream (processing more static visuo-perceptual details, such as form or colour) and the more dynamic dorsal visual stream (processing spatial temporal action-driven information). Final classifications included spatio-temporal span tasks, visuo-perceptual or spatial concurrent array tasks, and executive judgment tasks. Visuo-perceptual concurrent array tasks, reliant on ventral stream processing, were moderately associated with vocabulary, while tasks measuring spatio-temporal spans, associated with dorsal stream processing, and executive judgment tasks (central executive), showed only weak correlations with vocabulary. These findings have important implications for health professionals and researchers interested in language, as they advocate for the development of more targeted language learning interventions that include specific and relevant aspects of visual processing and memory, such as ventral stream visuo-perceptual details (i.e., shape or colour). Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11065-022-09561-4.


Table of Contents
Table S1:     Provide an explicit statement of the objective(s) or question(s) the review addresses.9-10

Eligibility criteria 5
Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review and how studies were grouped for the syntheses.10-16 Information sources 6 Specify all databases, registers, websites, organisations, reference lists and other sources searched or consulted to identify studies.Specify the date when each source was last searched or consulted.

10
Search strategy 7 Present the full search strategies for all databases, registers and websites, including any filters and limits used.

11
Table S3 Selection process 8 Specify the methods used to decide whether a study met the inclusion criteria of the review, including how many reviewers screened each record and each report retrieved, whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.

11-13
Data collection process 9 Specify the methods used to collect data from reports, including how many reviewers collected data from each report, whether they worked independently, any processes for obtaining or confirming data from study investigators, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.

12-13
Data Items 10a List and define all outcomes for which data were sought.Specify whether all results that were compatible with each outcome domain in each study were sought (e.g., for all measures, time points, analyses), and if not, the methods used to decide which results to collect.

14-16
10b List and define all other variables for which data were sought (e.g., participant and intervention characteristics, funding sources).Describe any assumptions made about any missing or unclear information.

14-16
Study risk of bias assessment 11 Specify the methods used to assess risk of bias in the included studies, including details of the tool(s) used, how many reviewers assessed each study and whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.

13-14
Effect measures 12 Specify for each outcome the effect measure(s) (e.g., risk ratio, mean difference) used in the synthesis or presentation of results.15 Synthesis methods 13a Describe the processes used to decide which studies were eligible for each synthesis.

Study selection 16a
Describe the results of the search and selection process, from the number of records identified in the search to the number of studies included in the review, ideally using a flow diagram.

17-18
Figure 1 16b Cite studies that met many but not all inclusion criteria ('near-misses') and explain why they were excluded.
18 Table S5 Study characteristics 17 Cite each included study and present its characteristics.

20-22
Tables 3  & 4 Risk of bias in studies 18 Present assessments of risk of bias for each included study.

19-20 Tables 2 & S7 Results of individual studies 19
For all outcomes, present, for each study: (a) summary statistics for each group (where appropriate) and (b) an effect estimate and its precision (e.g.confidence/credible interval), ideally using structured tables or plots.

Table S6
Correspondence for Additional Study Information

Response
The average age of all the children was 4.44, SD 9.56.
Note.AWMA = Automated Working Memory Assessment; WASI = Weschler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence; STM = Short-Term Memory; WM = Working Memory; PMA = Primary Mental Ability (Batteria Primaria di Abilità); PPVT = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test; BAS = British Ability Scale; WRAML = Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning -2; WISC-IV-I = Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children -Fourth Edition -Integrated); EVT = Expressive Vocabulary Test; WMTB-C = Working Memory Test Battery for Children; DM = Declarative Memory; CMS = Children's Memory Scale; EOWPVT = Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test; ROWPVT = Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test. a Used data from Cohort 1, Grade 1. b Used first grade results mean (and SD) age of participants (at the first point of testing) for the whole sample (n = 76).
clarify if the M and SD provided for participant ages (section 2.1, page 190) is represented in years, or months?ResponseThe participant ages and their descriptive are represented in years.3.Palombo andCuadro (2020) -The incidence of visual-motor processes in the acquisition of orthographic representations in Spanish-speaking schoolchildren (La incidencia de los procesos perceptivo-motrices en la adquisición de las representaciones ortográficas en escolares hispanoparlante) Questions 1. Can you please confirm the total n included in the study?The text (Participants, page 492) states 96, but when I add up the numbers provided in Note. Green = yes; Red = no; Orange = unclear; Black = not applicable; Intro = Introduction; COI = Conflict of Interest.For details of each criteria, see supplemental documentation fromDownes et al. (2016).

Figure S2 Fisher's z score
Figure S2

Table S2
Pickering et al., 2019)o PROSPERO Protocol (CRD42019125132;Pickering et al., 2019) 1. Addition of a new author (who will also serve as a co-reviewer)the initial main co-reviewer is no longer able to complete some parts of the review, and thus a new co-reviewer was needed.2.Revision of funding sources3.Slight revision to exclusion criteria -the first exclusion criteria under question 19 has been revised to exclude children with medical conditions (as well as neurodevelopmental conditions).This was added as research on these children was appearing within the systematic search, however, as the aim of this review is to understand visual memory and vocabulary relations within typical development,

Table S7
Risk of Bias Details for Included Studies

Table S8
Results of Meta-Regression for Receptive Vocabulary TasksNote.SE = Standard Error; df = degrees of freedom.

Table S9
Results of Meta-Regression for Concurrent Array TasksNote.SE = Standard Error; df = degrees of freedom.