Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: Speech timing deficits have been proposed as a causal factor in the disorder of stuttering. The question of whether individuals who stutter have deficits in nonspeech timing is one that has been revisited often, with conflicting results. Here, we uncover subtle differences in a manual metronome synchronization task that included tempo changes with adults who stutter and fluent speakers. We used sensitive circular statistics to examine both asynchrony and consistency in motor production. While both groups displayed a classic negative mean asynchrony (tapping before the beat), individuals who stutter anticipated the beat even more than their fluent peers, and their consistency was particularly affected at slow tempi. Surprisingly, individuals who stutter did not have problems with interval correction at tempo changes. We also examined the influence of music experience on synchronization behavior in both groups. While music perception and training were related to synchronization behavior in fluent participants, these correlations were not present for the stuttering group; however, one measure of stuttering severity (self-rated severity) was negatively correlated with music training. Overall, we found subtle differences in paced auditory-motor synchronization in individuals who stutter, consistent with a timing problem extending to nonspeech.

SUBMITTER: Sares AG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6687520 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Sares Anastasia G AG Deroche Mickael L D MLD Shiller Douglas M DM Gracco Vincent L VL

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 20190529 1

Speech timing deficits have been proposed as a causal factor in the disorder of stuttering. The question of whether individuals who stutter have deficits in nonspeech timing is one that has been revisited often, with conflicting results. Here, we uncover subtle differences in a manual metronome synchronization task that included tempo changes with adults who stutter and fluent speakers. We used sensitive circular statistics to examine both asynchrony and consistency in motor production. While bo ...[more]

PMID: 31144336

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe study aims to better understand the rhythmic abilities of people who stutter and to identify which processes potentially are impaired in this population: (1) beat perception and reproduction; (2) the execution of movements, in particular their initiation; (3) sensorimotor integration.Material and methodFinger tapping behavior of 16 adults who stutter (PWS) was compared with that of 16 matching controls (PNS) in five rhythmic tasks of various complexity: three synchronization tasks - a simple 1:1 isochronous pattern, a complex non-isochronous pattern, and a 4 tap:1 beat isochronous pattern -, a reaction task to an aperiodic and unpredictable pattern, and a reproduction task of an isochronous pattern after passively listening.ResultsPWS were able to reproduce an isochronous pattern on their own, without external auditory stimuli, with similar accuracy as PNS, but with increased variability. This group difference in variability was observed immediately after passive listening, without prior motor engagement, and was not enhanced or reduced after several seconds of tapping. Although PWS showed increased tapping variability in the reproduction task as well as in synchronization tasks, this timing variability did not correlate significantly with the variability in reaction times or tapping force. Compared to PNS, PWS exhibited larger negative mean asynchronies, and increased synchronization variability in synchronization tasks. These group differences were not affected by beat hierarchy (i.e., "strong" vs. "weak" beats), pattern complexity (non-isochronous vs. isochronous) or presence versus absence of external auditory stimulus (1:1 vs. 1:4 isochronous pattern). Differences between PWS and PNS were not enhanced or reduced with sensorimotor learning, over the first taps of a synchronization task.ConclusionOur observations support the hypothesis of a deficit in neuronal oscillators coupling in production, but not in perception, of rhythmic patterns, and a larger delay in multi-modal feedback processing for PWS.

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.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets