Speech-Language Dissociations, Distractibility, and Childhood Stuttering

Abstract

Purpose: This study investigated the relation among speech-language dissociations, attentional distractibility, and childhood stuttering. Method: Participants were 82 preschool-age children who stutter (CWS) and 120 who do not stutter (CWNS). Correlationbased statistics (Bates, Appelbaum, Salcedo, Saygin, & Pizzamiglio, 2003) identified dissociations across 5 normbased speech-language subtests. The Behavioral Style Questionnaire Distractibility subscale measured attentional distractibility. Analyses addressed (a) between-groups differences in the number of children exhibiting speechlanguage dissociations; (b) between-groups distractibility differences; (c) the relation between distractibility and speech-language dissociations; and (d) whether interactions between distractibility and dissociations predicted the frequency of total, stuttered, and nonstuttered disfluencies.Results: More preschool-age CWS exhibited speechlanguage dissociations compared with CWNS, and more boys exhibited dissociations compared with girls. In addition, male CWS were less distractible than female CWS and female CWNS. For CWS, but not CWNS, less distractibility (i.e., greater attention) was associated with more speechlanguage dissociations. Last, interactions between distractibility and dissociations did not predict speech disfluencies in CWS or CWNS.Conclusions: The present findings suggest that for preschool-age CWS, attentional processes are associated with speech-language dissociations. Future investigations are warranted to better understand the directionality of effect of this association (e.g., inefficient attentional processes → speech-language dissociations vs. inefficient attentional processes ← speech-language dissociations).

Developmental Stuttering in Children Who Are Hard of Hearing

“…If language proficiency is a contributing factor for stuttering onset (Conture & Walden, 2012;Smith & Weber, 2016), then the language delays seen in CHH may be contributing to the higher incidence of stuttering in this sample. Furthermore, there was a significant group difference in the 3-year Vineland expressive, but not the Vineland receptive, demonstrating a potential disassociation, something that has been hypothesized to be a risk factor for stuttering (Anderson et al, 2005;Clark et al, 2015;Coulter et al, 2009). However, there were no significant differences in speech or language measures at 4 years of age between children who never stuttered and children who stuttered.…”

“…However, no single variable provides predictive ability to differentiate at the individual level that children will or will not recover from stuttering. At present, the data suggest that these factors should be viewed as potential risk factors and should be weighed together with other potential factors like language dissociations (Anderson, Pellowski, & Conture, 2005;Clark, Conture, Walden, & Lambert, 2015;Coulter, Anderson, & Conture, 2009), family history of stuttering (Kraft & Yairi, 2012), and the goodness of fit between temperament and environmental contexts Jones, Choi, Conture, & Walden, 2014).…”

Tavallista sujumattomuutta: Aikuisten puheen sujuvuuden kvantitatiivinen analyysi

“…typical/other disfluencies; sanan toisto, fraasin toisto, keskeytys, korjaus, interjektio ja/tai epäröinti) erotellaan "epätyypillisistä" eli "änkytyksenkaltaisista" sujumattomuuksista (engl. stuttering-like disfluencies; äänteen tai tavun toisto, venytys ja blokki) (Ambrose & Yairi, 1999;Clark, Conture, Walden & Lambert, 2015;Gregory, 1993;Johnson, 1961). Formaalissa tarkastelussa tyypillistä sujumattomuutta kuvataan usein sujumattomuusprosentilla (engl.…”

Preliminary Evidence That Growth in Productive Language Differentiates Childhood Stuttering Persistence and Recovery

“…Because 70%-80% of children are likely to experience spontaneous recovery from stuttering, it is of both practical and scientific value to determine whether or not there are features of early stuttering that can inform recovery. These studies have used a variety of metrics, including language proficiency scores close to onset and phonological encoding skill, including nonword repetition ability (Spencer & Weber-Fox, 2014) and phonological skills measured by standardized assessments Paden, Yairi, & Ambrose, 1999), dissociations among scores on standardized test measures (Clark, Conture, Walden, & Lambert, 2015), expressive language measures (Watkins & Yairi, 1997;Watkins, Yairi, & Ambrose, 1999), standardized language assessment scores over time (Ambrose et al, 2015), cortical processing indices of speech and language (such as event-related potentials; Mohan & Weber, 2015;Usler & Weber-Fox, 2015;Weber-Fox, Wray, & Arnold, 2013), and temperamental factors (Ambrose et al, 2015).…”