Eliciting Stuttering in Laboratory Contexts

Abstract

Purpose The contextual variability of stuttering events makes it difficult to reliably elicit stuttered speech in laboratory settings. As a result, studies that compare stuttered versus fluent speech are difficult to conduct and, thus, are limited in the literature. The purpose of the current study is to describe a novel approach to elicit stuttering during laboratory testing. Method A semistructured clinical interview leveraging the phenomenon of stuttering anticipation was administered to 22 adults who stutter (1st visit). The interview was used to generate participant-specific anticipated and unanticipated word lists, which were used as stimuli during a 2nd visit so that the validity of the method could be tested. Results The method yielded a near-equal distribution of unambiguously stuttered and fluent utterances (43.6% and 43.5%, respectively). Moreover, 12.9% of the utterances were judged to be ambiguous, that is, not unambiguously stuttered or fluent. Conclusion This approach outperformed previous attempts to elicit stuttering during laboratory testing. It could be implemented in future studies that compare neural, physiological, or behavioral correlates of fluent versus stuttered speech.

Reactive Inhibitory Control Precedes Overt Stuttering Events

“…19 In contrast to the approach of Korzeczek et al, we used anticipated words, which are meaningful to the participant and therefore more likely to be stuttered, even in the unnatural environment of a neuroimaging experiment. 1 Although Korzeczek et al did not find differences between stuttered and fluent speech, or group differences between stutterers and non-stutterers, they did report an association between stuttering severity and beta power. Stutterers rated as more severe, based on pre-experiment clinical assessment, exhibited greater beta power.…”

“…The interview was adapted from Jackson et al 1,22 In that study, both anticipated and unanticipated words were elicited from participants, which yielded a near equal distribution of stuttered and fluent speech during fNIRS recording. However, Jackson et al 1,22 included interactive speech whereas the current study did not; the likelihood of stuttering during testing with face-to-face communication is higher.…”

“…The interview was adapted from Jackson et al 1,22 In that study, both anticipated and unanticipated words were elicited from participants, which yielded a near equal distribution of stuttered and fluent speech during fNIRS recording. However, Jackson et al 1,22 included interactive speech whereas the current study did not; the likelihood of stuttering during testing with face-to-face communication is higher. Therefore, we only elicited anticipated words in the current study to increase the probability of a near-balanced distribution of stuttered and fluent speech in the absence of face-to-face communication (i.e., in the shielded room while MEG data were recorded).…”

Speech planning and execution in children who stutter: Preliminary findings from a fNIRS investigation

“…Speech was perceptually fluent in the current study, and participants were not asked about whether they anticipated stuttering, and therefore this interpretation requires further testing. Future investigations might include the extension of previous methods to elicit anticipation during neuroimaging (den Ouden et al, 2013;Jackson, Gracco, et al, 2019;Wymbs et al, 2013), which would allow for a comparison between anticipated and unanticipated (and stuttered versus nonstuttered) productions.…”

Novel insights into speech production networks of adults with developmental stuttering as revealed by analyses of speech intention, syllable frequency, and long-term therapy effects

“…Exclusion criteria included any speech or language disorder other than developmental stuttering, neurological impairment, drug abuse, or medications that act on the CNS. We excluded the data of one participant due to an incomplete dataset and another participant because of a medicated depression that was reported only after the experiment was are known to stutter less in experimental settings than during daily situations (Jackson et al, 2020). To be able to elicit enough stuttering events, many trials or speech material with high phonetic complexity (Dworzynski & Howell, 2004) need to be administered.…”