Literature DB >> 22531285

Phonological priming in adults who stutter.

Irena Vincent1, Bernard G Grela, Harvey R Gilbert.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: The purpose of this study was to compare the speed of phonological encoding between adults who stutter (AWS) and adults who do not stutter (ANS). Fifteen male AWS and 15 age- and gender-matched ANS participated in the study. Speech onset latency was obtained for both groups and stuttering frequency was calculated for AWS during three phonological priming tasks: (1) heterogeneous, during which the participants' single-word verbal responses differed phonemically; (2) C-homogeneous, during which the participants' response words shared the initial consonant; and (3) CV-homogeneous, during which the participants' response words shared the initial consonant and vowel. Response words containing the same C and CV patterns in the two homogeneous conditions served as phonological primes for one another, while the response words in the heterogeneous condition did not. During each task, the participants produced a verbal response after being visually presented with a semantically related cue word, with cue-response pairs being learned beforehand. The data showed that AWS had significantly longer speech onset latency when compared to ANS in all priming conditions, priming had a facilitating effect on word retrieval for both groups, and there was no significant change in stuttering frequency across the conditions for AWS. This suggests that phonological encoding may play no role, or only a minor role, in stuttering. EDUCATIONAL
OBJECTIVES: The reader will be able to: (1) describe previous research paradigms that have been used to assess phonological encoding in adults and children who stutter; (2) explain performance similarities and differences between adults who do and do not stutter during various phonological priming conditions; (3) compare the present findings to past research that examined the relationship between phonological encoding and stuttering.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22531285     DOI: 10.1016/j.jfludis.2012.01.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Fluency Disord        ISSN: 0094-730X            Impact factor:   2.538


  2 in total

1.  Use of a phoneme monitoring task to examine lexical access in adults who do and do not stutter.

Authors:  Timothy A Howell; Nan Bernstein Ratner
Journal:  J Fluency Disord       Date:  2018-02-06       Impact factor: 2.538

2.  Nonword repetition in adults who stutter: The effects of stimuli stress and auditory-orthographic cues.

Authors:  Geoffrey A Coalson; Courtney T Byrd
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-11-29       Impact factor: 3.240

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.