## 1 Introduction  
The aim of the present study was to investigate the utility of software specifically designed to test a wide range of short-term memory (STM) abilities in children with learning disorders. More specifically, the focus was on the capacity of the tool to highlight different STM profiles for different subgroups of learning disorders. Many tasks or activities of daily life involve short-term memory (STM) and working memory (WM). In fact, there is hardly a task that can be completed without the involvement of these systems, making them critical components of cognition. The processes that create and operate on representations include encoding and maintenance activities and rehearsal and retrieval mechanisms [1]. In addition, it is necessary to account also for forgetting processes, caused by either rapid information decay or interference [2, 3]. Different approaches and theoretical models have been developed to study the processes involved with STM and WM. The definitions of, and distinctions between, STM and WM vary depending on the theoretical approach and on the wide variety of techniques that can be used to explore WM (see [4]). It could be argued that WM and STM significantly overlap, and might even be the same thing, especially if we consider the existence of similar decay and capacity limits in both. The term \"working memory\" became much more dominant in the field after [PERSON] and [PERSON] [5] demonstrated that a single module could not account for all kinds of temporary memory. The concept of modality-specific buffers for the temporary storage of information (see [5; 6]) refers to two stores (the \"phonological loop\" for auditory information and the \"visuospatial sketchpad\" for visual information) governed by a \"central executive\" that controls and mediates between these two components, processes information, directs attention, sets goals, and makes decisions. This model of separate memory systems has been the subject of several discussions that led to multiple alternative frameworks, each of which is supported by empirical evidence [7; 8; 9]. Some approaches emphasize the synergic effect of both attention and memory to store the pieces of information that are relevant to the current task and keep them active, while simultaneously stopping the non-relevant ones. Other approaches consider WM as the activated portion of long-term memory (LTM) and emphasize the role of attention resources and control processes [10; 11; 12]. As well described by [PERSON] [13], WM has been conceived and defined in three different, slightly discrepant ways as follows: as STM applied to cognitive tasks, as a multi-component system that holds and manipulates information in STM, and as the use of attention to manage STM. The main distinction is that WM refers to the ability to use, manipulate, and apply memory for a period of time (for example, recalling a set of instructions as you complete a task), while STM refers only to the temporary storage of information in memory [13]. Moreover, the attentional and executive components should be involved mainly in WM activities and significantly less in simple, passive short-term storage tasks [4]. The present study more specifically addresses STM, viewed as the capacity to store a small amount of information, keep it readily available for a short period of time, and release it without any manipulation. To start with, the processing and storage of verbal and visual materials occur in different buffers and have distinct neural correlates. Verbal STM is especially supported by the left hemisphere, in particular, by the left inferior frontal and the left parietal cortices [14]. Visual short-term memory (V-STM), involved in the brief storage of visual information, consists of two components. Spatial information includes information about the spatial positions of stimuli while object information includes the storage of non-spatial visual features related to object identity.