Speeded verbal responding in adults who stutter: Are there deficits in linguistic encoding?

Hennessey, Neville; Nang, Charn; Beilby, Janet M.

doi:10.1016/j.jfludis.2008.06.001

Cited by 41 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Group and Condition did not interact to affect naming RTs or accuracy, indicating that gains in performance due to priming were not disproportionate for one group versus the other. This resembles other evidence of similar naming times in various priming conditions in AWS versus TFA (Burger and Wijnen, 1999; Hennessey et al, 2008), but contrasts disproportionate effects of priming on naming times that were seen in CWS versus typically-fluent children (Pellowski and Conture, 2005; Hartfield and Conture, 2006; Anderson, 2008). Finally, naming RTs were shown to correlate positively with receptive vocabulary scores for the TFA (in both priming conditions) but not for the AWS.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Real-time processing in picture naming in adults who stutter: ERP evidence

Maxfield

Morris

Frisch

et al. 2015

Clinical Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The aim was to compare real-time language/cognitive processing in picture naming in adults who stutter (AWS) versus typically-fluent adults (TFA). Methods Participants named pictures preceded by masked prime words. Primes and target picture labels were Identical or mismatched. Priming effects on naming and picture-elicited ERP activity were analyzed. Vocabulary knowledge correlations with these measures were assessed. Results Priming improved naming RTs and accuracy in both groups. RTs were longer for AWS, and correlated positively with receptive vocabulary in TFA. Electrophysiologically, posterior-P1 amplitude negatively correlated with expressive vocabulary in TFA versus receptive vocabulary in AWS. Frontal/temporal-P1 amplitude correlated positively with expressive vocabulary in AWS. Identity priming enhanced frontal/posterior-N2 amplitude in both groups, and attenuated P280 amplitude in AWS. N400 priming was topographically-restricted in AWS. Conclusions Results suggest that conceptual knowledge was perceptually-grounded in expressive vocabulary in TFA versus receptive vocabulary in AWS. Poorer expressive vocabulary in AWS was potentially associated with greater suppression of irrelevant conceptual information. Priming enhanced N2-indexed cognitive control and visual attention in both groups. P280-indexed focal attention attenuated with priming in AWS only. Topographically-restricted N400 priming suggests that lemma/word form connections were weaker in AWS. Significance Real-time language/cognitive processing in picture naming operates differently in AWS.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Real-time processing in picture naming in adults who stutter: ERP evidence

Maxfield

Morris

Frisch

et al. 2015

Clinical Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several relatively simple word production experiments found no evidence of atypical phonological encoding in AWS (Hennessey et al, 2008; Wijnen and Boers, 1994; Burger and Wijnen, 1999; Newman and Ratner, 2007). However, sub-vocalized phonological tasks have produced evidence of phonological processing decrements in AWS (Sasisekaran et al, 2006; Sasisekaran and De Nil, 2006; Bosshardt and Nandyal, 1988; Postma et al, 1990; Hand and Haynes, 1983; Rastatter and Dell, 1987).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Attention demands of language production in adults who stutter

Maxfield

Olsen

Kleinman

et al. 2016

Clinical Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective We investigated whether language production is atypically resource-demanding in adults who stutter (AWS) versus typically-fluent adults (TFA). Methods Fifteen TFA and 15 AWS named pictures overlaid with printed Semantic, Phonological or Unrelated Distractor words while monitoring frequent low tones versus rare high tones. Tones were presented at a short or long stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) relative to picture onset. Group, Tone Type, Tone SOA and Distractor type effects on P3 amplitudes were the main focus. P3 amplitude was also investigated separately in a simple tone oddball task. Results P3 morphology was similar between groups in the simple task. In the dual task, a P3 effect was detected in TFA in all three Distractor conditions at each Tone SOA. In AWS, a P3 effect was attenuated or undetectable at the Short Tone SOA depending on Distractor type. Conclusions In TFA, attentional resources were available for P3-indexed processes in tone perception and categorization in all Distractor conditions at both Tone SOAs. For AWS, availability of attentional resources for secondary task processing was reduced as competition in word retrieval was resolved. Significance Results suggest that language production can be atypically resource-demanding in AWS. Theoretical and clinical implications of the findings are discussed.

show abstract

“…There are significant data to suggest phonological encoding, the process of retrieving the sound segments in words prior to motor programming and execution (Levelt, 1989), is one of the many factors that contribute to the difficulties persons who stutter have establishing and/or maintaining fluent speech (e.g., Aboul Oyoun, El Dessouky, Shohdi, & Fawzy, 2010;Anderson, 2007;Anderson & Byrd, 2008;Bosshardt, 1993;Byrd, Conture, & Ohde, 2007;Byrd, Vallely, Anderson, & Sussman, 2012;cf., Bakhtiar, Ali, & Sadegh, 2007;Hakim & Ratner, 2004;Hennessey, Nang, & Beilby, 2008;Ludlow, Siren, & Zikria, 1997;Melnick, Conture, & Ohde, 2003;Nippold, 2002Nippold, , 2012Ntourou, Conture, & Lipsey, 2011;Pelczarski & Yaruss, 2014;Sasisekaran & Byrd, 2013;Sasisekaran, De Nil, Smyth, & Johnson, 2006;Vincent, Grela, & Gilbert, 2012;Weber-Fox, Spencer, Spruill, & Smith, 2004). For example, of the disorders that co-occur with stuttering, disorders of phonology are among the most frequent (Arndt & Healey, 2001;Louko, Conture, & Edwards, 1999;Yaruss, LaSalle, & Conture, 1998;cf., Nippold, 2001cf., Nippold, , 2012.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%