Neural Processes Underlying Nonword Rhyme Differentiate Eventual Stuttering Persistence and Recovery

Abstract

Purpose Phonological skills have been associated with developmental stuttering. The current study aimed to determine whether the neural processes underlying phonology, specifically for nonword rhyming, differentiated stuttering persistence and recovery. Method Twenty-six children who stutter (CWS) and 18 children who do not stutter, aged 5 years, completed an auditory nonword rhyming task. Event-related brain potentials were elicited by prime, rhyming, and nonrhyming targets. CWS were followed longitudinally to determine eventual persistence ( n = 14) or recovery ( n = 12). This is a retrospective analysis of data acquired when all CWS presented as stuttering. Results CWS who eventually recovered and children who do not stutter exhibited the expected rhyme effect, with larger event-related brain potential amplitudes elicited by nonrhyme targets compared to rhyme targets. In contrast, CWS who eventually persisted exhibited a reverse rhyme effect, with larger responses to rhyme than nonrhyme targets. Conclusions These findings suggest that CWS who eventually persisted are not receiving the same benefit of phonological priming as CWS who eventually recovered for complex nonword rhyming tasks. These results indicate divergent patterns of phonological processing in young CWS who eventually persisted, especially for difficult tasks with limited semantic context, and suggest that the age of 5 years may be an important developmental period for phonology in CWS. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.12682874

Novel Word Recognition in Childhood Stuttering

“…Inefficient use of declarative memory systems in developmental stuttering may also be indicated by differences in neural processes for unfamiliar, novel, or nonword stimuli in children who eventually persist in stuttering compared to children who eventually recover and children who do not stutter. This is supported by a series of studies that performed retrospective analyses of data from 5-years-olds, when all children who stutter were stuttering (Gerwin & Weber, 2020; Hampton Wray & Spray, 2020). Findings revealed that children who eventually persisted in stuttering exhibited less mature nonword rhyme processing compared to children who eventually recovered and children who do not stutter (Hampton Wray & Spray, 2020).…”

“…This is supported by a series of studies that performed retrospective analyses of data from 5-years-olds, when all children who stutter were stuttering (Gerwin & Weber, 2020; Hampton Wray & Spray, 2020). Findings revealed that children who eventually persisted in stuttering exhibited less mature nonword rhyme processing compared to children who eventually recovered and children who do not stutter (Hampton Wray & Spray, 2020). Importantly, when semantic context was available to support the declarative memory system, children who eventually persisted in stuttering exhibited comparable rhyme processing to children who eventually recovered and children who do not stutter (Gerwin & Weber, 2020).…”

“…This may have engaged intact sematic systems in children who stutter, thereby supporting recognition and retention of the novel words. Previous studies demonstrated that children who eventually persist in stuttering exhibit brain responses comparable to peers who recover and children who do not stutter on real word rhyme tasks (Gerwin & Weber, 2020), but exhibit different neural patterns for nonword rhyme tasks (Hampton Wray & Spray, 2020). These studies suggest that stronger semantic context supports neural processing in children who stutter.…”

“…Atypical language abilities, including phonological processing, semantics, and syntax, are posited to play a role in stuttering (e.g., Anderson & Conture, 2004;Gerwin et al, 2019;Luckman et al, 2020). Theories of stuttering (Smith & Weber, 2017), supported by behavioral and neurophysiological 42 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY-MARCH 2022 evidence (e.g., Hakim & Bernstein Ratner, 2004;Weber-Fox et al, 2013), suggest that language abilities play an important role in stuttering development as well as persistence or recovery from stuttering (e.g., Gerwin & Weber, 2020;Hampton Wray & Spray, 2020). Children who stutter with stronger or more mature language abilities may be better able to compensate for unstable speech motor networks, supporting the development of more stable speech motor control over time and eventual recovery from stuttering (Smith & Weber, 2017).…”

Linguistic Aspects of Stuttering

“…In an experimental task, CWS in the Purdue cohort who remained persistent used strategies in creating rhymes that differed from those of typically fluent and recovered children (Gerwin et al, 2019). Finally, atypicalities in cortical processing of rhyming/nonrhyming words were detected in Purdue cohort persistent CWS (Gerwin & Weber, 2020; Hampton Wray & Spray, 2020; Mohan & Weber, 2015).…”