Laryngeal Muscle Activity During Stuttering

Freeman, Frances J.; Ushijima, Tatsujiro

doi:10.1044/jshr.2103.538

Cited by 121 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies in the past have shown that people who stutter, as compared to matched controls, show higher IEMG amplitudes (Freeman & Ushijima, 1978;Shapiro, 1980;Van Lieshout et al, 1993), and especially longer IEMG durations (Aimé & McAllister, 1987;Guitar, Guitar, Neilson, O'Dwyer, & Andrews, 1988;Hulstijn, Sum mers, Van Lieshout, & Peters, 1992;Peters et al, 1989;Van Lieshout et al, 1993). Zimmermann (1980) proposed a mode) in which he claims that whenever " normal ranges are exceeded the afferent nerve impulses generated are pre sumed to increase the gains of associated brainstem reflex pathways.…”

Section: Implications Of the Findings For Stutteringmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although our primary interest would be to relate such findings to stuttering, we used only nonstuttering subjects in this study, since several studies in the past have shown that stutterers, even in their perceptually fluent speech, differ from control speakers in amplitude and/or durational as pects of neuromotor input (e.g., Freeman & Ushijima, 1978;Shapiro, 1980;Van Lieshout, Peters, Starkweather, & Hulstijn, 1993). Using only normal speakers, the suspected EMG changes related to linguistic factors cannot be con taminated or masked by variations in the more general speech motor characteristics of stutterers.…”

Section: Abstract: Speech Motor Physiology Speech Motor Control Stmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of Linguistic Correlates of Stuttering on Emg Activity in Nonstuttering Speakers

Lieshout

Starkweather

Hulstijn³

et al. 1995

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study changes in upper lip and lower lip integrated electromyographic (IEMG) amplitude and temporal measures related to linguistic factors known for their influence on stuttering were investigated. Nonstuttering subjects first read and then verbalized sentences of varying length (sentence length factor), in which meaningless but phonologically appropriate character strings were varied in their position within the sentence (word position factor) and their size (word size factor). It was hypothesized that the production of stressed, vowel-rounding gestures of words in initial position, longer words, and words in longer sentences would be characterized by specific changes in IEMG amplitude that would reflect an increase in speech motor demands, intuitively defined as articulatory effort. Basically, the findings corroborated our assumptions, showing that words in sentence initial position have shorter word and vowel durations in combination with an increase in IEMG activity. Similarly, we found shorter vowel durations for longer words, and in sentence final position an increase in IEMG activity. For longer sentences we found a clear increase in speech rate, but contrary to our expectations a decrease in IEMG activity. It was speculated that this might relate to the use of a movement reduction strategy to allow higher speech rates with increased coarticulation. These findings were discussed both for their implications in normal speech production, as well as for their possible implications for explaining stuttering behavior. To this end our data can illustrate both why stutterers might run a higher risk of stuttering at these linguistic loci of stuttering, and why they might come up with a strategic solution to decrease the motor demands in speech production. The basic outcome of this study shows that higher order (linguistic) specifications can have clear effects on speech motor production.

show abstract

Section: Implications Of the Findings For Stutteringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Abstract: Speech Motor Physiology Speech Motor Control Stmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Linguistic Correlates of Stuttering on Emg Activity in Nonstuttering Speakers

Lieshout

Starkweather

Hulstijn³

et al. 1995

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The difference which was seen when comparing fluent and stuttered speech of both normal and stuttering subjects was an increase in muscular tension beyond that characteristic of normal speech during moments of stuttering. Investigation of laryngeal muscle activity during stuttering by Freeman and Ushijima (1978) revealed muscle action potentials higher than those recorded during normal phonation. Additionally, they found the normal pattern of reciprocity of contraction of the laryngeal adductor and laryngeal abductor muscles to be disrupted by cocontraction of these muscles when the subject stuttered.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An electromyographic comparison of muscle action potentials of adult stutterers during signalled expectancy and non-expectancy to stutter

Miller

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous studies have demonstrated the tension component of stuttering behavior; however, the relationship between muscle tension and the moment of signalled expectancy to stutter has not been investigated. Many theories of stuttering are based on the hypothesis that all moments of stuttering are preceded by expectancy to stutter. It also is held by many authorities on stuttering that expectancy is a precipitative, if not causal, factor of stuttering. If such is the case, one might expect to see the moment of signalled expectancy to stutter accompanied by an increase in muscle tension in the speech mechanism. 2The purpose of this study was to determine what relationship (if any) exists between signalled expectancy to stutter and a significant increase in muscle action potential in adults as measured by electromyography (EMG).The question posed in this study was: Is the moment of signalled expectancy to stutter accompanied by a .significant increase in muscle tension compared to the moment of signalled non-expectancy to stutter as measured by EMG? In answer to this question, the present study demonstrated no significant increase in muscle tension during signalled expectancy to stutter.The subjects in this study included 9 male and 1 female stutterers ranging in age from 22 years to 50 years of age with a mean age of 32 years and 9 months. This study took place in a 6' x 8' shielded room containing a Grass electroencephalograph amplifier, Model 6B, with a built-in 8-channel polygraph recorder. Seven of the 8 channels were utilized for this study. Tin, dish-shaped electrodes were placed at 6 sites as follows: orbicularis oris; digastric muscle; slightly above the larynx; trapezius muscle; right earlobe (reference electrode); and center of the forehead (ground electrode). Muscle action potentials (MAPs) were recorded for the first 4 electrode sites. Each subject was presented with 50 test words, one at a time.Before saying each word aloud, the subject indicated whether or not he expected to stutter when saying the word by pressing a button once for "yes" and twice for "no." After pressing the button, the subject was signalled to say the word.Peak-to-peak measurements of muscle action potentials for 10 expectancy responses and 10 non-expectancy responses, selected at random, were taken for each of the subjects at each of the 4 electrode Further analysis of the data revealed a high correlation of +0.77 between accuracy of prediction and the frequency of stuttering.The more one stuttered, the more accurate he was in predicting his stuttering. Conversely, the less one stuttered, the greater the error of prediction. , Those subjects who were most accurate in predicting moments of stuttering stuttered on all or nearly all of their expectancy words. Those who were least accurate in predicting their stuttering expected to stutter much more often than they actually did. 4The relationship between the frequency of stuttering and percentage of expectancy words demonstrated a moderate correlation of +0.65. On!e possible interpre...

show abstract

“…If people who stutter are different from control speakers in the way they prepare muscle commands, this could also give rise to group differences in the time course of EMG signals (Aimé & McAllister, 1987;Guitar et ai., 1988;Hulstijn, Van Lieshout, & Peters, 1991;Van Lieshout, Peters, Stark weather, & Hulstijn, 1993;Van Lieshout et al, 1996) and/or their amplitudes (Freeman & Ushijima, 1978;Kalotkin, Manschreck, & O'Brien, 1979;Murray, Empson, & Weaver, 1987;Shapiro, 1980;Van Lieshout et al, 1993; but see Caruso, Gracco, & Abbs, 1987;McClean, Goldsmith, & Cerf, 1984;Smith, 1989;Smith, Denny, & Wood, 1991). This, in turn, may lead to group differences in kinematic characteristics of the resulting movement patterns (e.g., Alfonso, 1991; Ca ruso, Abbs, & Gracco, 1988;Van Lieshout, Alfonso, Hulstijn, & Peters, 1994;Van Lieshout et al, 1996;Zimmermann, 1980aZimmermann, , 1980b, and, indirectly, to group differences in the duration of acoustic events (e.g., Borden, 1983;Healey & Ramig, 1986;McMillian & Pindzola, 1986;…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

From Planning to Articulation in Speech Production: What Differentiates a Person Who Stutters From a Person Who Does Not Stutter?

Lieshout

Hulstijn²,

Peters

1996

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main purpose of the present study was to differentiate between people who stutter and control speakers regarding their ability to assemble motor plans and to prepare (and execute) muscle commands. Adult males who stutter, matched for age, gender, and educational level with a group of control speakers, were tested on naming words and symbols. In addition, their ability to encode and retrieve memory representations of combinations of a symbol and a word, was tested in a recognition task, using manual reaction times and sensitivity scores, as defined in signa! detection theory, as performance measures. Group differences in muscle command preparation were assessed from electromyographic recordings of upper lip and lower lip. Results indicated no interaction between group and word size effects in choice reaction times or a group effect in the ability to recognize previously learned symbol-word combinations. However, they were significantly different in the timing of peak amplitudes in the integrated electromyographic signals o f upper lip and lower lip (IEMG peak latency). Findings question the claim that people who stutter have problems in creating abstract motor plans for speech. In addition, it is argued that the group differences in IEMG peak latency that were found in the present study might be better understood in terms of motor control strategies than in terms of motor control deficits.

show abstract

Laryngeal Muscle Activity During Stuttering

Cited by 121 publications

References 0 publications

Effects of Linguistic Correlates of Stuttering on Emg Activity in Nonstuttering Speakers

Effects of Linguistic Correlates of Stuttering on Emg Activity in Nonstuttering Speakers

An electromyographic comparison of muscle action potentials of adult stutterers during signalled expectancy and non-expectancy to stutter

From Planning to Articulation in Speech Production: What Differentiates a Person Who Stutters From a Person Who Does Not Stutter?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About