Journal of Fluency Disorders最新文献

Discovering developmental stuttering’s biological explanation has been an enduring concern. Novel advances in genomics and neuroscience are making it possible to isolate and pinpoint genetic and brain differences implicated in stuttering. This is giving rise to a hope that, in the future, dysfluency could be better managed if stuttering’s biological basis could be better understood. Concurrent to this, there is another hope rising: a hope of a future where differing fluencies would not be viewed through a reductive lens of biology and associated pathologies. The central aim of this paper is to edge out ethical implications of novel research into stuttering’s biological explanation. In doing so, the paper proposes to look beyond the bifurcation sketched by the medical and social model of disability. The paper demonstrates how the scientific hope of discovering stuttering’s biological explanation acts as an accessory of disablement due to the language of ‘lack’ and ‘deficit’ employed in reporting scientific findings and proposes participatory research with people who stutter as an antidote to manage this disablement.

Background

Stuttering is a disorder that begins in childhood and can persist into adulthood. In the present study, it was hypothesized that the combined intervention of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and Delayed Auditory Feedback (DAF) would cause greater improvement in speech fluency in comparison to the intervention with DAF alone.

Methods

A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled clinical trial was conducted to investigate the effects of the combined intervention. Fifty adults with moderate to severe stuttering (25 females, 25 males, Mean age=26.92, SD=6.23) were randomly allocated to the anodal or sham tDCS group. In the anodal tDCS group, participants received DAF combined with anodal tDCS (1 mA), while the sham tDCS group was exposed to sham tDCS simultaneously with DAF. In this study, a 60-ms delay was used for DAF intervention, and tDCS was applied over the left superior temporal gyrus. Each individual participated in six 20-minute intervention sessions (held on six consecutive days). Speech fluency was assessed before and after the intervention.

Results

In the anodal tDCS group, the scores of the Stuttering Severity Instrument, Overall Assessment of the Speaker’s Experience of Stuttering questionnaire, and the percentage of stuttered syllable reduced significantly (from average baseline rates of 8.45%, across three tasks, to 5.36% at the follow-up assessment) after the intervention.

Conclusion

The results of this study suggest that delivery of anodal tDCS when combined with DAF may enhance stuttering reduction effects for six weeks following the intervention.

Purpose

This narrative systematic review in line with PRISMA guidelines aims to investigate the implementation quality of previously published group comparison clinical trials of stuttering interventions for children and adolescents (under age 18 years).

Methods

We searched for publications in the databases Eric, PsychInfo, PubMed and Web of Science using the search terms ‘stutt*’ or ‘stamm*’and ‘intervention’, ‘trial’ or ‘treatment’. We reviewed the implementation elements reported in studies and how these elements were used to report intervention outcomes.

Results

3,017 references published between 1974–2019 were identified. All references were screened for eligibility using predefined selection criteria resulting in 21 included studies. The implementation quality details reported varied between studies. Existing studies most commonly lacked details about the support system provided to SLPs administering the interventions and monitoring of treatment fidelity both in the clinical setting and in the home environment. Support systems for participant’s parents and treatment dosage were generally well reported. Dosage was the most common implementation quality element considered in analyses of treatment effect and within discussions of findings.

Conclusion

Findings highlight the need for future clinical trials of stuttering interventions to closely adhere to systematic guidelines for reporting implementation quality to ensure reliability of trial outcomes. A checklist for reporting clinical trials of non-pharmacological stuttering interventions is proposed.