Comparison of different speech tasks among adults who stutter and adults who do not stutter

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:In this study, we compared the performance of both fluent speakers and people who stutter in three different speaking situations: monologue speech, oral reading and choral reading. This study follows the assumption that the neuromotor control of speech can be influenced by external auditory stimuli in both speakers who stutter and speakers who do not stutter.METHOD:Seventeen adults who stutter and seventeen adults who do not stutter were assessed in three speaking tasks: monologue, oral reading (solo reading aloud) and choral reading (reading in unison with the evaluator). Speech fluency and rate were measured for each task.RESULTS:The participants who stuttered had a lower frequency of stuttering during choral reading than during monologue and oral reading.CONCLUSIONS:According to the dual premotor system model, choral speech enhanced fluency by providing external cues for the timing of each syllable compensating for deficient internal cues.

Adults who stutter and metronome synchronization: evidence for a nonspeech timing deficit

“…For example, it has been proposed that the lateral motor system is associated with the cerebellum and motor cortex and controls externally timed actions . In contrast, the medial motor system is associated with basal ganglia, frontal, and parietal areas, and corresponds to internally generated timing . This division of timing systems lines up well with what we know about neural activity in stuttering: there is less activity in basal ganglia and the overactive cerebellum .…”

“…However, timing does not depend solely on the basal ganglia. For example, it has been proposed that the lateral motor system is associated with the cerebellum and motor cortex and controls externally timed actions . In contrast, the medial motor system is associated with basal ganglia, frontal, and parietal areas, and corresponds to internally generated timing .…”

The potential use of Forbrain® in stuttering: A single-case study

“…Indeed, the effects on CPPS, which reflects voice harmony, suggest reduced voice breathiness with the use of Forbrain ® , whereas the effects on tLTAS, which is thought to reflect voice robustness, indicate strengthening of the voice during Forbrain ® use. This apparent contradiction is reconcilable in the context of the phono-articulatory loop, which features the existence of two parallel premotor systems for speech production (Ritto, Costa, et al, 2016), and supports Forbrain@ in fact as a device of AAF. Indeed, the sensory processing is altered as a consequence of motor adaptation to altered visual, somatosensory and auditory feedback (Ostry & Gribble, 2016), and conversely, motor output is fine-grained adjusted as a consequence of distorted sensory input (Hahnloser & Narula, 2017).…”

Language Familiarity Hypothesis and Delayed Auditory Feedback: A Study on Speech Disruptions in Typical Kannada (L1)-English (L2) Bilinguals

“…We attribute this difference to the variations in the load on the language formulation across the experimental tasks. Also, differential neural circuitries are hypothesized to be functioning for speaking tasks that are guided with/without external sensory stimuli (Ritto, Costa, Juste, & Andrade, 2016). Ritto et al (2016) put forth the hypothesis that propositional speech, such as simple conversation, requires initiation which is controlled by dorsal premotor systems; whereas when speech is guided by external sensory stimuli such as choral reading (auditory) and oral reading (visual), it may involve circuitries of lateral premotor cortex.…”

“…Also, differential neural circuitries are hypothesized to be functioning for speaking tasks that are guided with/without external sensory stimuli (Ritto, Costa, Juste, & Andrade, 2016). Ritto et al (2016) put forth the hypothesis that propositional speech, such as simple conversation, requires initiation which is controlled by dorsal premotor systems; whereas when speech is guided by external sensory stimuli such as choral reading (auditory) and oral reading (visual), it may involve circuitries of lateral premotor cortex. Our findings provide a partial behavioural support for the above hypothesis as propositional (answering questions) and less propositional (oral reading) tasks were employed in the current study, and we posit that change in the recruitment of neural circuitries may also change the behavioural error types.…”