Some Relationships Between Punishment, Stuttering, and Galvanic Skin Responses

Abstract

The simultaneous effects of response-contingent punishment on stuttering behaviors and the frequency of galvanic skin response (GSR) deflections for 10 subjects were investigated. GSRs and stuttering responses were recorded during base rate, treatment, and extinction conditions. The subjects demonstrated a 50% or greater decrease in stuttering frequency during the treatment condition. Combined data for all subjects indicated that the mean frequency of GSR deflections remained stable or declined across conditions of the study. Analysis of individual data revealed that GSR deflections during treatment as compared with base rate increased for four subjects, remained essentially the same in two subjects, and decreased for four subjects. These results suggest that experimental procedures which result in functional punishment effects on stuttering frequency may not be associated with any predictable pattern of concomitant autonomic arousal.

Sympathetic arousal of young children who stutter during a stressful picture naming task

“…In the last approximately 60 years, based on the present authors’ review of the literature, there have been 12 published empirical studies of the association between skin conductance and stuttering (Adams & Moore, 1972; Berlinsky, 1954; Brutten, 1963; Dietrich & Roaman, 2001; Gray & Brutten, 1965; Gray & Karmen, 1967; Guntupalli, Everhart, Kalinowski, Nanjundeswaran, Saltuklaroglu, 2007; Kraaimaat, Janssen, Brutten, 1988; Jones et al, 2014b; Peters & Hulstjin, 1984; Reed & Lingwall, 1976, 1980; Weber & Smith, 1990). Eleven of these studies involved adults or adolescents who stutter (AWS), with only one, that present authors are aware of, that involved preschool-age children who stutter (Jones et al, 2014b).…”

“…Results of these 12 studies have lead to mixed findings including: (1) no significant between-group differences in skin conductance level (SCL) between AWS and AWNS (Gray & Karmen, 1967; Peters & Hulstjin, 1984, Weber & Smith, 1990; Zhang, Kalinowski, Saltuklaroglu, Hudock, 2010), (2) significant between-group differences in SCL, with AWS exhibiting significantly higher SCL than AWNS during anxiety-inducing conditions (Berlinsky, 1954), (3) significant within-group differences in SCL for AWS in different task conditions such as speaking, listening, viewing (Adams & Moore, 1972; Brutten, 1963; Gray & Karmen, 1967; Jones et al, 2014b; Kraaimaat et al, 1988; Peters & Hulstjin, 1984; Reed & Lingwall; 1976, 1980; Weber & Smith, 1990) and (4) no significant within-group differences in SCL for AWS in different task conditions such as speaking, listening, reading, viewing (Dietrich & Roaman, 2001; Gray & Brutten, 1965). Given between-study differences in sample size, gender, tasks and methods for collecting SCL, it is hard to generalize the above findings.…”

Voluntary stuttering suppresses true stuttering: A window on the speech perception-production link

“…People who stutter have not demonstrated an increase in autonomic responses considered to be associated with fear (e.g., skin conductance, heart rate, and pulse) during speech tasks (Janssen & Kraaimaat, 1980;Peters & Hulstijn, 1984), nor have any significant differences in self-reported levels of anxiety been reported in people who stutter (Blood, Blood, Bennett, Simpson, & Susman, 1994;Kraaimaat, Janssen, & van Dam-Baggen, 1991), as compared with nonstuttering counterparts. Furthermore, autonomic responses in people who stutter have failed to show marked decreases under conditions that reduce stuttering (Adams & Moore, 1972;Gray & Brutten, 1965;Reid & Lingwall, 1976Ritterman & Reidenbach, 1975). These data clearly suggest that the behavioral manifestations of stuttering and the ameliorative effects of pseudostuttering are not directly linked to simple fear reduction.…”