A challenge for the procedural deficit hypothesis: how should we measure sequential learning in childhood?

A recent publication by West and colleagues (2018) highlighted the fact that many tasks used to measure implicit learning in developmental populations are unreliable. As indicated by the title of their paper, West and colleagues suggest this is a problem for the procedural deficit hypothesis (a theory that suggests that procedural learning underlies the impairment in those with developmental language disorders (DLD), Ullman & Pierpont, 2005). In a recent commentary, XXX argue that the experiment conducted by West et al. was an inadequate test of the procedural deficit hypothesis. Here, we evaluate both points of view and conclude that we need better measurements of sequential learning in childhood. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.