Relationships among linguistic processing speed, phonological working memory, and attention in children who stutter

Anderson, Julie D.; Wagovich, Stacy A.

doi:10.1016/j.jfludis.2010.04.003

Cited by 77 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The nonsignificant overall group differences in distractibility are consistent with findings reported by some researchers (e.g., Anderson & Wagovich, 2010;Eggers et al, 2010) but not others (e.g., Anderson et al, 2003;Karrass et al, 2006). Perhaps such equivocal findings relate to between-studies differences in methodology (e.g., caregiver reports vs. experimental paradigms).…”

Section: Between-groups Differences In Distractibilitysupporting

confidence: 88%

“…Several researchers have compared the attentional processes of preschool-age CWS and CWNS using caregiver reports or various experimental paradigms, and findings have been inconsistent (Anderson et al, 2003;Eggers et al, 2010Eggers et al, , 2012Embrechts et al, 2000;Felsenfeld et al, 2010;Karrass et al, 2006;Schwenk, Conture, & Walden, 2007). Some have reported that CWS tend to be less distractible (e.g., Anderson et al, 2003) and exhibit poorer attention regulation compared with CWNS (e.g., Karrass et al, 2006), whereas others have reported no between-groups differences in attentional processes (e.g., Anderson & Wagovich, 2010). Such inconsistencies may relate to the methodological differences across studies (e.g., using various parent questionnaires vs. experimental paradigms), making it difficult to directly compare findings.…”

Section: Attention and Childhood Stutteringmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Speech-Language Dissociations, Distractibility, and Childhood Stuttering

Clark

Conture

Walden

et al. 2015

Am J Speech Lang Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This study investigated the relation among speech-language dissociations, attentional distractibility, and childhood stuttering. Method: Participants were 82 preschool-age children who stutter (CWS) and 120 who do not stutter (CWNS). Correlationbased statistics (Bates, Appelbaum, Salcedo, Saygin, & Pizzamiglio, 2003) identified dissociations across 5 normbased speech-language subtests. The Behavioral Style Questionnaire Distractibility subscale measured attentional distractibility. Analyses addressed (a) between-groups differences in the number of children exhibiting speechlanguage dissociations; (b) between-groups distractibility differences; (c) the relation between distractibility and speech-language dissociations; and (d) whether interactions between distractibility and dissociations predicted the frequency of total, stuttered, and nonstuttered disfluencies.Results: More preschool-age CWS exhibited speechlanguage dissociations compared with CWNS, and more boys exhibited dissociations compared with girls. In addition, male CWS were less distractible than female CWS and female CWNS. For CWS, but not CWNS, less distractibility (i.e., greater attention) was associated with more speechlanguage dissociations. Last, interactions between distractibility and dissociations did not predict speech disfluencies in CWS or CWNS.Conclusions: The present findings suggest that for preschool-age CWS, attentional processes are associated with speech-language dissociations. Future investigations are warranted to better understand the directionality of effect of this association (e.g., inefficient attentional processes → speech-language dissociations vs. inefficient attentional processes ← speech-language dissociations).

show abstract

Section: Between-groups Differences In Distractibilitysupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Attention and Childhood Stutteringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Speech-Language Dissociations, Distractibility, and Childhood Stuttering

Clark

Conture

Walden

et al. 2015

Am J Speech Lang Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 In particular, there has been recent focus on the area of attentional control in CWS (Anderson & Wagovich, 2010;Chou, 2014;Eggers, De Nil, & Van den Bergh, 2010Felsenfeld, van Beijsterveldt, & Boomsma, 2010;Johnson, Conture, & Walden, 2012;Kaganovich, Wray, & Weber-Fox, 2010;Karrass et al, 2006;Schwenk, Conture, & Walden, 2007). Some of these studies have used parent or teacher questionnaires, most of them finding that CWS are rated less well than CWNS on aspects of attention (Eggers et al, 2010;Felsenfeld et al, 2010;Karrass et al, 2006;cf.…”

Section: Response Inhibition In Cwsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explicit and Implicit Verbal Response Inhibition in Preschool-Age Children Who Stutter

Anderson

Wagovich

2017

J Speech Lang Hear Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine (a) explicit and implicit verbal response inhibition in preschool children who do stutter (CWS) and do not stutter (CWNS) and (b) the relationship between response inhibition and language skills. Method: Participants were 41 CWS and 41 CWNS between the ages of 3;1 and 6;1 (years;months). Explicit verbal response inhibition was measured using a computerized version of the grass-snow task (Carlson & Moses, 2001), and implicit verbal response inhibition was measured using the baa-meow task. Main dependent variables were reaction time and accuracy.Results: The CWS were significantly less accurate than the CWNS on the implicit task, but not the explicit task. The CWS also exhibited slower reaction times than the CWNS on both tasks. Between-group differences in performance could not be attributed to working memory demands. Overall, children's performance on the inhibition tasks corresponded with parents' perceptions of their children's inhibition skills in daily life. Conclusions: CWS are less effective and efficient than CWNS in suppressing a dominant response while executing a conflicting response in the verbal domain.

show abstract

“…The interest in the interaction between factors of language and speech fluency in children who stutter has grown in the last 20 years 10 . Studies that investigated the abilities and disorders of language in children, who stutter, indicated that this group compared with those who do not stutter, had presented lower scores on several indices of receptive and expressive language [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Habilidades fonológicas em crianças com gagueira

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sources of Funding: Fapesp -Processo no. 09/54638-0 Conflict of interest: non-existent three years or more years. Persistent and transient stuttering seem to be the result of a common genetic factor. The persistent stuttering probably has additional factors that may influence recovery. Natural recovery of stuttering appears to be linked to factors such as, good performance on tests of phonology, language, non-verbal skills, have no family history of stuttering or family members who have recovered, and being female 3, 4 .The language develops quickly and an increase in the complexity and extent of emissions of children who exceed their abilities to speech production. The selection of words, phonological coding, syntactic and prosodic planning for effective emission occur when the child is just starting production of speech. There is evidence that delays in language acquisition, especially in phonological development may be associated with risk of persistent stuttering. One study found that about 30% of stutterers have an increased rate of phonological changes compared with non-stutterers, with values ranging between 2% and 6% 5 . ABSTRACTPurpose: to study the phonological development characteristics of stuttering and non-stuttering children, and to investigate possible association between stuttering and phonological processes. Methods: 20 children (10 stuttering), female and male, between 4 to 8 years old, matched by gender and age. Children in the experimental group diagnosed with Stuttering and classified to severity of disease through the Stuttering Severity Instrument-3. Those who had evidence of deafness, neurological diseases and/ or psychiatric disorders were excluded. Children in both groups underwent speech and phonology evaluations by ABFW -Child Language Test. Results: 60% of phonological processes not expected for age were observed in the experimental group. Moreover, in the control group were only 10%. Differences between groups were not statistically significant on the incidence of phonological processes. There is evidence that the group of stuttering children is more likely the presence of at least one phonological process. Conclusion: the methodology applied in the investigation of phonological processes was effective, but due to small sample not been possible to develop the issue and verify if there is a difference in performance as the stuttering children phonological processes when compared to non-stuttering.

show abstract

Relationships among linguistic processing speed, phonological working memory, and attention in children who stutter

Cited by 77 publications

References 71 publications

Speech-Language Dissociations, Distractibility, and Childhood Stuttering

Speech-Language Dissociations, Distractibility, and Childhood Stuttering

Explicit and Implicit Verbal Response Inhibition in Preschool-Age Children Who Stutter

Habilidades fonológicas em crianças com gagueira

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About