Working memory involvement in stuttering: Exploring the evidence and research implications

Bajaj, Amit

doi:10.1016/j.jfludis.2007.03.002

Cited by 64 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 105 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This reduced speed and accuracy in encoding seen in overt speech tasks have also been revealed during nonvocal speech tasks (e.g., Brocklehurst & Corley, 2011;Postma, Kolk, & Povel, 1990;Sasisekaran, 2013). Thus, together these results suggest that phonological deficits may extend beyond encoding to include other processes distinct to phonological working memory (see Bajaj, 2007 for review of phonological working memory and stuttering). In addition, among the studies that have been completed thus far, vocal indices of phonological working performance have been measured independently of nonvocal indices.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 52%

“…Previous research suggests that phonological working memory may contribute to the difficulties persons who stutter have establishing and/or maintaining fluent speech (see Bajaj, 2007;cf. Nippold, 2012).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nevertheless, it still remains unclear how this difference(s) in phonological working memory contributes to stuttered speech (see Bajaj, 2007 for discussion). Although nonword repetition clearly places a premium on storage and retrieval abilities, factors associated with auditory-perceptual, phonological, and motor planning processes also influence the quality of phonological representations in short-term memory (Gathercole, 2006).…”

Section: Additional Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Researchers have also suggested that the phonological representations of children who stutter may be underspecified (e.g., Anderson, 2007;Anderson & Byrd, 2008;Anderson & Wagovich, 2010;Anderson, Wagovich, & Hall, 2006;Hakim & Ratner, 2004). Furthermore, the incremental processing abilities of children who stutter do not appear to develop within the same timeframe of their typically fluent peers (Byrd et al, 2007) and the phonological encoding of adults who stutter appears to be uniquely compromised by increased cognitive demands (e.g., Bajaj, 2007;Bosshardt, 1990Bosshardt, , 1993Jones, Fox, & Jacewicz, 2012;Sasisekaran & Weisberg, 2014;Weber-Fox et al, 2004). This reduced speed and accuracy in encoding seen in overt speech tasks have also been revealed during nonvocal speech tasks (e.g., Brocklehurst & Corley, 2011;Postma, Kolk, & Povel, 1990;Sasisekaran, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Nonword repetition and phoneme elision in adults who do and do not stutter: Vocal versus nonvocal performance differences

Byrd

McGill

Usler

2015

Journal of Fluency Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 52%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Additional Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Nonword repetition and phoneme elision in adults who do and do not stutter: Vocal versus nonvocal performance differences

Byrd

McGill

Usler

2015

Journal of Fluency Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Lexical-semantic as well as phonological processes in word production have been shown to draw upon domain-general attentional resources (Ferreira and Pashler, 2002; Roelofs, 2008). There is evidence that attentional resources are allocated away from lexical processing in AWS, which may reflect a strategy for managing fluency (Bosshardt, 2006) or aberrant attentional resource allocation (Arends et al, 1988; Heitmann et al, 2004; also see Bajaj, 2007). A third possibility is that, instead of target words activating unstably in AWS, their semantic or phonological neighbors become too strongly activated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Atypical function of auditory sensory gating in children with developmental dyslexia: Investigating its relationship with cognitive abilities

Panahi,

Akbari,

Jarollahi

et al. 2023

Dyslexia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Impairments of auditory processing are among frequent findings in dyslexia. However, it is unclear how auditory signals are gated from brainstem to higher central processing stages in these individuals. The present study was done to investigate auditory sensory gating in children with developmental dyslexia (DD), and to determine whether sensory gating correlates with performance on behavioural tasks. Auditory sensory gating at P50, N1 and P2 waves was evaluated in two groups including 20 children with DD and 19 children with typical reading development (TRD). Behavioural tests were used to evaluate phonological working memory (PWM) and selective attention abilities. Sensory gating in children with DD was significantly less efficient than their peers at P50, N1 and P2 waves. Lower auditory evoked potential (AEP) amplitudes were found in the DD group. The children with TRD scored better in all the behavioural tests. Relationships were reported between sensory gating at P50, N1, P2 and behavioural performance in the two groups. Children with dyslexia had deficient sensory gating in comparison with controls. In addition, children with dyslexia experienced problems with PWM and selective attention tasks. The function of sensory gating was associated with attentional and PWM performances in this group.

show abstract

Working memory involvement in stuttering: Exploring the evidence and research implications

Cited by 64 publications

References 105 publications

Nonword repetition and phoneme elision in adults who do and do not stutter: Vocal versus nonvocal performance differences

Nonword repetition and phoneme elision in adults who do and do not stutter: Vocal versus nonvocal performance differences

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

Atypical function of auditory sensory gating in children with developmental dyslexia: Investigating its relationship with cognitive abilities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About