A series of single-subject experiments evaluated the effects of frequency-altered auditory feedback (FAF) on the speech performance of four adult males who stutter. Using alterations of plus or minus one octave, FAF was compared with normal auditory feedback (NAF) in oral reading and spontaneous speech with measurements made of stuttered intervals, stutter-free speech rate, and speech naturalness. The effects of extended FAF conditions on spontaneous speech were also evaluated for two subjects who demonstrated a positive response to FAF. Results showed no consistencies across subjects in responses to FAF: One subject showed no response, another produced an initial temporary response, a third showed a deterioration in speech quality with minimal reductions in stuttering, and a fourth displayed substantial and sustained improvements in speech performance. Some implications of these findings for current research and theory about the relationship between stuttering and FAF are discussed.

In response to the recognized need for a valid and reliable way to measure stuttering, this study investigates a measurement methodology based on time-interval analyses of stuttering event judgments. Three groups of judges, differing in stuttering judgment experience, identified stuttering events in 12 repeated presentations of five 1-min speech samples. Fixed time intervals ranging from 0.2 sec to 7.0 sec were then superimposed on the event judgments by a data analysis program. Inter- and intrajudge interval-by-interval agreement, and agreement for total numbers of intervals containing stuttering event judgments, were calculated for each judge group. Results showed that agreement was superior among more experienced judges and in longer interval lengths. Agreement varied across speech samples but not across the repeated judgment opportunities. Agreement was maximized at greater than chance levels for an interval of approximately 3.0 sec, but even this best agreement did not exceed a mean of approximately 60% for experienced judges.

The study reported in this paper gathered judgments of stuttering on brief (5.0-sec) audiovisual speech samples taken from six adults who stuttered. Judgments were made by 10 highly experienced authorities on stuttering treatment and research, located in seven different universities or clinical research centers. Results showed considerable agreement between pairs of judges working in the same center, but large and potentially fundamental differences were identified in the amount of stuttering recorded in different centers. Approximately 40% of the 5.0-sec speech intervals used in this study were assigned the same judgment, either Stuttered or Nonstuttered, by all judges on two judgment occasions. The possibility that these intervals may serve as a core for establishing an across-center standard for behavioral judgments of stuttering is discussed.

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether a previously developed interval-based training program could improve judges' stuttering event judgments. Two groups of judges made real-time stuttering event judgments (computer-mouse button presses) in 3 to 6 trials before the response-contingent judgment training program and in another 3 to 6 trials after training, for recordings of 9 adults who stuttered. Their judgments were analyzed in terms of number of stuttering events, duration of stuttering, and 5-s intervals of speech that could be categorized as judged (or not judged) to contain stuttering. Results showed (a) changes in the amount of stuttering identified by the judges; (b) improved correspondence between the judges' identifications of stuttering events and interval-based standards previously developed from judgments made by experienced, authoritative judges; (c) improved correspondence between interval-based analyses of the judges' stuttering judgments and the previously developed standards; (d) improved intrajudge agreement; (e) improved interjudge agreement; and (f) convergence between the 2 judge groups, for samples and speakers used during training tasks and also for other speakers. Some implications of these findings for developing standardized procedures for the real-time measurement of stuttering are discussed.

Previous research suggests that multilinguals’ languages are constantly co-activated and that experience managing this co-activation changes inhibitory control function. The present study examined language interaction and inhibitory control using a colour-word Stroop task. Multilingual participants were tested in their three most proficient languages. The classic Stroop effect was detected in all three languages, with participants performing more accurately on congruent than on incongruent trials. Multilinguals were faster and more accurate in the within-language-competition condition than in the between-language-competition condition, indicating that additional processing costs are required when stimulus and response languages differ. Language proficiency influenced speed, accuracy and error patterns in multilingual Stroop task performance. These findings augment our understanding of language processing and inhibitory control in multilingual populations and suggest that experience using multiple languages changes demands on cognitive function.