Neuropsychological components of intellectual disability: the contributions of immediate, working, and associative memory.
Tailor instruction to syndrome-specific memory strengths, then re-test yearly because profiles can flatten with age.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Atladóttir et al. (2010) compared memory skills in youth with Down syndrome and Williams syndrome.
They tested immediate, working, and associative memory.
IQ and daily-living scores were collected to see which memory type links to real-world skills.
What they found
Down syndrome showed stronger spatial associative memory.
Williams syndrome showed better verbal immediate memory.
Each pattern matched the group’s IQ and adaptive-behavior profile.
How this fits with other research
Fernández-Alcaraz et al. (2020) later saw a flat profile in adults with Down syndrome—no verbal-visual split.
The adult data seem to clash with the youth data, but age explains it: selective memory gaps may close or shift as people age.
Dembo et al. (2023) found three developmental tracks in infants with Down syndrome, proving that within-syndrome differences start early and may soften the verbal-spatial gap over time.
Waller et al. (2010) showed that when Down syndrome adults start to decline, executive-function slips come first; this warns us that late-life flattening can hide early warning signs.
Why it matters
Match your teaching style to the learner’s memory strength.
Use spatial arrays and paired cues for learners with Down syndrome.
Use quick verbal drills for learners with Williams syndrome.
Re-check the profile each year—strengths can shift as clients age.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run a quick spatial associative game for your Down syndrome learner and a rapid verbal naming drill for your Williams syndrome learner, then note which produces the most correct responses.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Efficient memory functions are important to the development of cognitive and functional skills, allowing individuals to manipulate and store information. Theories of memory have suggested the presence of domain-specific (i.e. verbal and spatial) and general processing mechanisms across memory domains, including memory functions dependent on the prefrontal cortex (PFC) and the hippocampus. Comparison of individuals who have syndromes associated with striking contrasts in skills on verbal and spatial tasks [e.g. Down syndrome (DS) and Williams syndrome (WS)] allows us to test whether or not these dissociations may extend across cognitive domains, including PFC and hippocampal memory processes. METHODS: The profile of memory function, including immediate memory (IM), working memory (WM) and associative memory (AM), was examined in a sample of adolescents and young adults with DS (n = 27) or WS (n = 28), from which closely CA- and IQ-matched samples of individuals with DS (n = 18) or WS (n = 18) were generated. Relations between memory functions and IQ and adaptive behaviour were also assessed in the larger sample. RESULTS: Comparisons of the two matched groups indicated significant differences in verbal IM (DS < WS), spatial IM (DS > WS) and spatial and verbal AM (DS > WS), but no between-syndrome differences in WM. For individuals with DS, verbal IM was the most related to variation in IQ, and spatial AM related to adaptive behaviour. The pattern was clearly different for individuals with WS. Verbal and spatial AM were the most related to variation in IQ, and verbal WM related to adaptive behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that individuals with these two syndromes have very different patterns of relative strengths and weaknesses on memory measures, which do not fully mirror verbal and spatial dissociations. Furthermore, different patterns of memory dysfunction relate to outcome in individuals with each syndrome.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2010 · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2010.01278.x