Dataset Information

From Grapheme to Phonological Output: Performance of Adults Who Stutter on a Word Jumble Task.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The purpose of the present study was to extend previous research by analyzing the ability of adults who stutter to use phonological working memory in conjunction with lexical access to perform a word jumble task.

Method

Forty English words consisting of 3-, 4-, 5-, and 6-letters (n = 10 per letter length category) were randomly jumbled using a web-based application. During the experimental task, 26 participants were asked to silently manipulate the scrambled letters to form a real word. Each vocal response was coded for accuracy and speech reaction time (SRT).

Results

Adults who stutter attempted to solve fewer word jumble stimuli than adults who do not stutter at the 4-letter, 5-letter, and 6-letter lengths. Additionally, adults who stutter were significantly less accurate solving word jumble tasks at the 4-letter, 5-letter, and 6-letter lengths compared to adults who do not stutter. At the longest word length (6-letter), SRT was significantly slower for the adults who stutter than the fluent controls.

Conclusion

Results of the current study lend further support to the notion that differences in various aspects of phonological processing, including vision-to-sound conversions, sub-vocal stimulus manipulation, and/or lexical access are compromised in adults who stutter.

SUBMITTER: McGill M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4786262 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe purpose of this study was to utilize a visuomotor tracking task, with both the jaw and hand, to add to the literature regarding non-speech motor practice and sensorimotor integration (outside of auditory-motor integration domain) in adults who do (PWS) and do not (PWNS) stutter.MethodParticipants were 15 PWS (14 males, mean age = 27.0) and 15 PWNS (14 males, mean age = 27.2). Participants tracked both predictable and unpredictable moving targets separately with their jaw and their dominant hand, and accuracy was assessed by calculating phase and amplitude difference between the participant and the target. Motor practice effect was examined by comparing group performance over consecutive tracking trials of predictable conditions as well as within the first trial of same conditions.ResultsResults showed that compared to PWNS, PWS were not significantly different in matching either the phase (timing) or the amplitude of the target in both jaw and hand tracking of predictable and unpredictable targets. Further, there were no significant between-group differences in motor practice effects for either jaw or hand tracking. Both groups showed improved tracking accuracy within and between the trials.ConclusionOur findings revealed no statistically significant differences in non-speech motor practice effects and integration of sensorimotor feedback between PWS and PWNS, at least in the context of the visuomotor tracking tasks employed in the study. In general, both talker groups exhibited practice effects (i.e., increased accuracy over time) within and between tracking trials during both jaw and hand tracking. Implications for these results are discussed.Educational objectivesThe reader will be able to: (a) describe the importance of motor learning and sensory-motor integration for speech, (b) summarize past research on PWS's performance during speech and nonspeech motor tasks, and (c) describe the relation between different aspects of speech and non-speech motor control and stuttering.