Inhibitory control in childhood stuttering

Eggers, Kurt; Nil, Luc F. De; Bergh, Bea Van den

doi:10.1016/j.jfludis.2012.10.001

Cited by 113 publications

(120 citation statements)

References 85 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Then again, the P3 peak was quite ambiguous and sometimes not even visible especially in the CWS, but the P3 latency seemed slightly delayed. In our study the groups did not differ significantly by errors or RT (see however Eggers et al, 2013). …”

Section: Introductioncontrasting

confidence: 45%

“…Bearing in mind Eggers' findings (Eggers et al, 2013) and the reports of atypical temperament traits in CWS (for an overview, please see review by Alm, 2014), we hypothesize that the groups may allocate brain resources differently in the inhibitory task despite accurate performance in the behavioural task.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…In this task the Go-signal requires a response, but to the Nogo-signal the response has to be withheld. In a recent study using the Go/Nogo subtest of the Amsterdam Neuropsychological Tasks (ANT) with equiprobable Go/Nogo stimuli, CWS had more false alarms, premature responses and difficulties in adapting their response style after errors (Eggers et al, 2013) indicating abnormal inhibitory control in CWS. However, behavioral indices as errors and reaction time are quite robust measures and do not give detailed information on the underlying processes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Atypical brain activation in children who stutter in a visual Go/Nogo task: An ERP study

Piispala

Määttä

Pääkkönen

et al. 2017

Clinical Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Please cite this article as: Piispala, J., Mä ättä, S., Pä äkkönen, A., Bloigu, R., Kallio, M., Jansson-Verkasalo, E., Atypical brain activation in children who stutter in a visual Go/Nogo task: An ERP study, Clinical Neurophysiology (2016), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph. 2016.11.006 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. Atypical brain activation in children who stutter in a visual Go/Nogo task: An ERP study Event related potential, Go/Nogo, children, stuttering, stimulus evaluation, inhibitory control. Highlights 1. Children with stutter (CWS) show atypical brain activation compared to typically developing children (TDC) in a visual Go/Nogo task especially in the right frontal area.2. CWS had prolonged N2 in both conditions while the Nogo P3 component was diminished compared to TDC.3. Stimulus classification and/or inhibitory control may operate abnormally in the CWS. AbstractObjective: The aim of the study was to investigate inhibitory control by evaluating possible differences in the strength and distribution of the brain activity in a visual Go/Nogo task in children who stutter (CWS) compared to typically developing children (TDC).Methods: Eleven CWS and 19 TDC participated. Event related potentials (ERP) were recorded using a 64-channel EEG-cap during an equiprobable visual Go/Nogo task. The global field power (GFP) as well as the mean amplitudes in the P3 time frame were compared between groups. Additionally, the potential maps of the groups were investigated visually in the N2 and P3 time windows.Results: The groups differed significantly in the right frontal area especially in the Nogo condition Conclusions: The CWS show atypical brain activation compared to the TDC in a Go/Nogo task as indexed by the excessive N2-related activity in both conditions and reduced P3-related activity in Nogo condition.Significance: These findings indicate atypical stimulus evaluation and response inhibition processes in CWS.

show abstract

Section: Introductioncontrasting

confidence: 45%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Atypical brain activation in children who stutter in a visual Go/Nogo task: An ERP study

Piispala

Määttä

Pääkkönen

et al. 2017

Clinical Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The two tasks differed in that one (grass-snow task) contained explicit verbal material (words), whereas the other (baa-meow task) contained implicit verbal material (meaningful nonverbal sounds). These tasks, therefore, are more complex than the go/no-go task used in Eggers et al (2013), in which children simply had to suppress a response depending on the stimulus (e.g., pushing a button when presented with a picture of a man running and not pushing the button when presented with a picture of a man standing; de Sonneville, 2003). Nevertheless, Eggers et al (2013) did find differences between CWS and CWNS using the simpler go/no-go task, with CWS displaying not only more false alarms and premature responses than CWNS, but also shorter overall RTs, contrary to expectations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Anderson

Wagovich

2017

J Speech Lang Hear Res

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

“…Interestingly, this study showed that activity in the 15 ACC was negatively correlated with the severity of stuttering symptoms, possibly reflecting a 16 failure to recruit conflict related regions to resolve stuttering (Liu et al, 2014). 17 Even though almost no studies examined functional brain activation in children who 18 stutter, some hypotheses can be derived from studies that related stuttering in children to showing less inhibitory control in CWS (Eggers et al, 2009(Eggers et al, , 2010(Eggers et al, , 2013 time, they were shown a feedback screen with the marble at the point at which they had 14 stopped it. These trials measured stimulus-driven action and were called Green-Go trials.…”

mentioning

confidence: 86%

Children who stutter show reduced action-related activity in the rostral cingulate zone

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1Previous studies have indicated that children who stutter show not only speech-related 2 problems, but also wider difficulties in self-control. In this study we test the novel hypothesis 3 that children who stutter may experience difficulties with inhibitory control over voluntary 4 actions. We used functional MRI to compare brain activity between children who stutter and 5 children who do not stutter in a task that captures key cognitive aspects of voluntary action 6 control. Participants performed a rolling marble task, in which they were instructed to press a 7 key to stop a rolling marble from crashing on some of the trials (instructed action condition).

show abstract

Inhibitory control in childhood stuttering

Cited by 113 publications

References 85 publications

Atypical brain activation in children who stutter in a visual Go/Nogo task: An ERP study

Atypical brain activation in children who stutter in a visual Go/Nogo task: An ERP study

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

Children who stutter show reduced action-related activity in the rostral cingulate zone

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About