Exogenous verbal response inhibition in adults who do and do not stutter

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q1 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY Journal of Fluency Disorders Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jfludis.2022.105957
Mehdi Bakhtiar , Kurt Eggers
{"title":"Exogenous verbal response inhibition in adults who do and do not stutter","authors":"Mehdi Bakhtiar ,&nbsp;Kurt Eggers","doi":"10.1016/j.jfludis.2022.105957","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Behavioral and questionnaire-based studies suggest that children who stutter (CWS) exhibit poorer response inhibition than children who do not stutter (CWNS). However, the behavioral findings in adults who stutter (AWS) are less unequivocal and mainly based on manual response inhibition. Further study is therefore needed, especially given the lack of studies on verbal response inhibition among these groups.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Thirteen AWS and 14 adults who do not stutter (AWNS) participated in a verbal stop signal task (SST) in which they were asked to read aloud six Chinese characters as fast as possible during the go-signal and ignore-signal trials and refrain from naming them during the stop-signal trials.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The two groups showed a comparable response reaction time in the go-signal and ignore-signal trial conditions. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in terms of the stop-signal reaction time (SSRT) and accuracy. However, a significant positive correlation was found between SSRT and the frequency of stuttering in conversation but not in reading.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Current findings seem to provide additional support that exogenously triggered response inhibition among AWS does not differ from AWNS. The association between stuttering frequency and SSRT seems to suggest that individuals with more severe stuttering in conversational speech have reduced exogenous response inhibition. However, this finding needs to be further explored in future studies using different measures of stuttering severity.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49166,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Fluency Disorders","volume":"75 ","pages":"Article 105957"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Fluency Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094730X22000626","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Behavioral and questionnaire-based studies suggest that children who stutter (CWS) exhibit poorer response inhibition than children who do not stutter (CWNS). However, the behavioral findings in adults who stutter (AWS) are less unequivocal and mainly based on manual response inhibition. Further study is therefore needed, especially given the lack of studies on verbal response inhibition among these groups.

Methods

Thirteen AWS and 14 adults who do not stutter (AWNS) participated in a verbal stop signal task (SST) in which they were asked to read aloud six Chinese characters as fast as possible during the go-signal and ignore-signal trials and refrain from naming them during the stop-signal trials.

Results

The two groups showed a comparable response reaction time in the go-signal and ignore-signal trial conditions. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in terms of the stop-signal reaction time (SSRT) and accuracy. However, a significant positive correlation was found between SSRT and the frequency of stuttering in conversation but not in reading.

Conclusion

Current findings seem to provide additional support that exogenously triggered response inhibition among AWS does not differ from AWNS. The association between stuttering frequency and SSRT seems to suggest that individuals with more severe stuttering in conversational speech have reduced exogenous response inhibition. However, this finding needs to be further explored in future studies using different measures of stuttering severity.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
口吃和不口吃成年人的外源性言语反应抑制
引言基于行为和问卷的研究表明,有口吃(CWS)的儿童表现出比没有口吃(CWNS)的儿童更差的反应抑制。然而,成人口吃(AWS)的行为发现并不明确,主要基于手动反应抑制。因此,需要进一步的研究,特别是考虑到缺乏对这些群体的言语反应抑制的研究。方法13名AWS和14名无口吃(AWNS)的成年人参与了一项语言停止信号任务(SST),要求他们在发出信号时尽可能快地朗读6个汉字,在停止信号试验中忽略信号并避免命名。结果两组在go信号和忽略信号试验条件下的反应时间相当。此外,在停止信号反应时间(SSRT)和准确性方面没有显著差异。然而,SSRT与会话中的口吃频率之间存在显著的正相关,而与阅读无关。结论目前的研究结果似乎提供了额外的支持,即外源性触发的AWS反应抑制与AWNS没有差异。口吃频率和SSRT之间的关联似乎表明,在会话言语中口吃更严重的人减少了外源性反应抑制。然而,这一发现需要在未来的研究中进一步探索,使用不同的口吃严重程度衡量标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Fluency Disorders
Journal of Fluency Disorders AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-REHABILITATION
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
14.30%
发文量
23
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Fluency Disorders provides comprehensive coverage of clinical, experimental, and theoretical aspects of stuttering, including the latest remediation techniques. As the official journal of the International Fluency Association, the journal features full-length research and clinical reports; methodological, theoretical and philosophical articles; reviews; short communications and much more – all readily accessible and tailored to the needs of the professional.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Stuttering severity and social anxiety among adults who stutter: A multilevel analysis Corrigendum to “Do dyslexia and stuttering share a processing eficit?", [Journal of Fluency Disorders, 67 (2021) 105827] Editorial Board A theory building critical realist evaluation of an integrated cognitive-behavioural fluency enhancing stuttering treatment for school-age children. Part 1: Development of a preliminary program theory from expert speech-language pathologist data.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1