Abstract :
Keywords Eye tracking; Lexical development; Lexical processing; Screening methods; Very preterm Highlights * Preterm children's reaction time and correct looking time was assessed at 18 months. * Both reaction time and correct looking time were associated with expressive lexicon. * CLT was more significant than RT for explaining lexical development. Abstract Background Associations between lexical processing and lexical development during the second year of life have been little studied in preterm children. Aims To evaluate associations between lexical processing at 18 months and lexical development between 12 and 18 months in very preterm children. Study design Correlational study. Subjects 25 Finnish-speaking children born Outcome measures Lexical processing (reaction time RT; correct looking time CLT) was measured with an eye tracking technology-based task at 18 months' corrected age. Lexical development was measured longitudinally at 12-, 15- and 18-months' corrected age using the following screening instruments: the short form version of the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories and the Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scale: Infant-Toddler Checklist. Results The longer the RT of the child, the weaker expressive skills the child had at 12 and 15 months (correlations coefficient values -0.45 to -0.51). The more the child looked at the target image compared to the distractor (CLT), the stronger expressive skills the child had at 18 months (r = 0.45--0.52). A linear regression model with RT and gender as independent variables explained 33 % of the variance in lexical skills at 18 months. A model with CLT explained 40 % of expressive skills at 18 months. Conclusions Lexical processing at 18 months was associated with expressive lexical development in very preterm children. The results suggest eye tracking technology based methods may have utility in the assessment of early lexical growth in preterm children, although further research is needed to assess psychometric properties and predictive value of the method. Author Affiliation: (a) University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland (b) Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland (c) Tampere University, Tampere, Finland (d) University of Turku, Turku, Finland (e) Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland * Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology and Logopedics, Unit of Logopedics, Haartmaninkatu 3, PO Box 21, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland. Article History: Received 7 December 2021; Revised 31 May 2022; Accepted 9 June 2022 Byline: Eva Ståhlberg-Forsén [eva.stahlberg-forsen@helsinki.fi] (a,*), Reija Latva [reija.latva@pshp.fi] (b,c), Jukka Leppänen [jukka.leppanen@utu.fi] (d), Liisa Lehtonen [liisa.lehtonen@utu.fi] (d,e), Suvi Stolt [suvi.stolt@helsinki.fi] (a)