No evidence of altered language laterality in people who stutter across different brain imaging studies of speech and language.

IF 4.1 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Brain communications Pub Date : 2024-09-13 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1093/braincomms/fcae305
Birtan Demirel, Jennifer Chesters, Emily L Connally, Patricia M Gough, David Ward, Peter Howell, Kate E Watkins
{"title":"No evidence of altered language laterality in people who stutter across different brain imaging studies of speech and language.","authors":"Birtan Demirel, Jennifer Chesters, Emily L Connally, Patricia M Gough, David Ward, Peter Howell, Kate E Watkins","doi":"10.1093/braincomms/fcae305","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A long-standing neurobiological explanation of stuttering is the incomplete cerebral dominance theory, which refers to competition between two hemispheres for 'dominance' over handedness and speech, causing altered language lateralization. Renewed interest in these ideas came from brain imaging findings in people who stutter of increased activity in the right hemisphere during speech production or of shifts in activity from right to left when fluency increased. Here, we revisited this theory using functional MRI data from children and adults who stutter, and typically fluent speakers (119 participants in total) during four different speech and language tasks: overt sentence reading, overt picture description, covert sentence reading and covert auditory naming. Laterality indices were calculated for the frontal and temporal lobes using the laterality index toolbox running in Statistical Parametric Mapping. We also repeated the analyses with more specific language regions, namely the pars opercularis (Brodmann area 44) and pars triangularis (Brodmann area 45). Laterality indices in people who stutter and typically fluent speakers did not differ, and Bayesian analyses provided moderate to anecdotal levels of support for the null hypothesis (i.e. no differences in laterality in people who stutter compared with typically fluent speakers). The proportions of the people who stutter and typically fluent speakers who were left lateralized or had atypical rightward or bilateral lateralization did not differ. We found no support for the theory that language laterality is reduced or differs in people who stutter compared with typically fluent speakers.</p>","PeriodicalId":93915,"journal":{"name":"Brain communications","volume":"6 5","pages":"fcae305"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11430911/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/braincomms/fcae305","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A long-standing neurobiological explanation of stuttering is the incomplete cerebral dominance theory, which refers to competition between two hemispheres for 'dominance' over handedness and speech, causing altered language lateralization. Renewed interest in these ideas came from brain imaging findings in people who stutter of increased activity in the right hemisphere during speech production or of shifts in activity from right to left when fluency increased. Here, we revisited this theory using functional MRI data from children and adults who stutter, and typically fluent speakers (119 participants in total) during four different speech and language tasks: overt sentence reading, overt picture description, covert sentence reading and covert auditory naming. Laterality indices were calculated for the frontal and temporal lobes using the laterality index toolbox running in Statistical Parametric Mapping. We also repeated the analyses with more specific language regions, namely the pars opercularis (Brodmann area 44) and pars triangularis (Brodmann area 45). Laterality indices in people who stutter and typically fluent speakers did not differ, and Bayesian analyses provided moderate to anecdotal levels of support for the null hypothesis (i.e. no differences in laterality in people who stutter compared with typically fluent speakers). The proportions of the people who stutter and typically fluent speakers who were left lateralized or had atypical rightward or bilateral lateralization did not differ. We found no support for the theory that language laterality is reduced or differs in people who stutter compared with typically fluent speakers.

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
在不同的言语和语言脑成像研究中,没有证据表明口吃患者的语言侧位发生了改变。
长期以来,对口吃的一种神经生物学解释是 "不完全大脑优势理论",指的是两个大脑半球对手势和言语 "优势 "的竞争,从而导致语言侧化的改变。在口吃患者的大脑成像中发现,在说话过程中,右半球的活动增加,或者在流利度提高时,右半球的活动从右半球转移到左半球,这重新引起了人们对这些观点的兴趣。在此,我们利用口吃儿童和成人以及典型流利说话者(共 119 人)在四种不同的言语和语言任务(公开句子阅读、公开图片描述、隐蔽句子阅读和隐蔽听觉命名)中的功能磁共振成像数据,重新审视了这一理论。我们使用 "统计参数映射"(Statistical Parametric Mapping)中运行的侧向指数工具箱计算了额叶和颞叶的侧向指数。我们还对更特殊的语言区域进行了重复分析,即厣旁(布罗德曼第 44 区)和三角旁(布罗德曼第 45 区)。口吃患者与典型流利者的侧位指数没有差异,贝叶斯分析为零假设(即口吃患者与典型流利者的侧位没有差异)提供了中等程度的支持。口吃患者与典型流利说者中左侧化或非典型右侧化或双侧化的比例没有差异。我们没有发现口吃患者与典型流利说话者相比,语言侧位减少或不同的理论支持。
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
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Loss of tissue-type plasminogen activator causes multiple developmental anomalies. Mapping sentence comprehension and syntactic complexity: evidence from 131 stroke survivors. Outcome prediction comparison of ischaemic areas' radiomics in acute anterior circulation non-lacunar infarction. Overcoming genetic neuromuscular diagnostic pitfalls in a middle-income country. Concussion leads to opposing sensorimotor effects of habituation deficit and fatigue in zebrafish larvae.
×
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