UNLABELLED: The purpose of the present study was to explore the phonological working memory of adults who stutter through the use of a non-word repetition and a phoneme elision task. Participants were 14 adults who stutter (M=28 years) and 14 age/gender matched adults who do not stutter (M=28 years). For the non-word repetition task, the participants had to repeat a set of 12 non-words across four syllable lengths (2-, 3-, 4-, and 7-syllables) (N=48 total non-words). For the phoneme elision task, the participants repeated the same set of non-words at each syllable length, but with a designated target phoneme eliminated. Adults who stutter were significantly less accurate than adults who do not stutter in their initial attempts to produce the longest non-words (i.e., 7-syllable). Adults who stutter also required a significantly higher mean number of attempts to accurately produce 7-syllable non-words than adults who do not stutter. For the phoneme elision task, both groups demonstrated a significant reduction in accuracy as the non-words increased in length; however, there was no significant interaction between group and syllable length. Thus, although there appear to be advancements in the phonological working memory for adults who stutter relative to children who stutter, preliminary data from the present study suggest that the advancements may not be comparable to those demonstrated by adults who do not stutter. EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES: At the end of this activity the reader will be able to (a) summarize the nonword repetition data that have been published thus far with children and adults who stutter; (b) describe the subvocal rehearsal system, an aspect of the phonological working memory that is critical to nonword repetition accuracy; (c) employ an alternative means to explore the phonological working memory in adults who stutter, the phoneme elision task; and (d) discuss both phonological and motoric implications of deficits in the phonological working memory.
UNLABELLED: The purpose of the present study was to explore the phonological working memory of adults who stutter through the use of a non-word repetition and a phoneme elision task. Participants were 14 adults who stutter (M=28 years) and 14 age/gender matched adults who do not stutter (M=28 years). For the non-word repetition task, the participants had to repeat a set of 12 non-words across four syllable lengths (2-, 3-, 4-, and 7-syllables) (N=48 total non-words). For the phoneme elision task, the participants repeated the same set of non-words at each syllable length, but with a designated target phoneme eliminated. Adults who stutter were significantly less accurate than adults who do not stutter in their initial attempts to produce the longest non-words (i.e., 7-syllable). Adults who stutter also required a significantly higher mean number of attempts to accurately produce 7-syllable non-words than adults who do not stutter. For the phoneme elision task, both groups demonstrated a significant reduction in accuracy as the non-words increased in length; however, there was no significant interaction between group and syllable length. Thus, although there appear to be advancements in the phonological working memory for adults who stutter relative to children who stutter, preliminary data from the present study suggest that the advancements may not be comparable to those demonstrated by adults who do not stutter. EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES: At the end of this activity the reader will be able to (a) summarize the nonword repetition data that have been published thus far with children and adults who stutter; (b) describe the subvocal rehearsal system, an aspect of the phonological working memory that is critical to nonword repetition accuracy; (c) employ an alternative means to explore the phonological working memory in adults who stutter, the phoneme elision task; and (d) discuss both phonological and motoric implications of deficits in the phonological working memory.
Authors: Tyler K Perrachione; Satrajit S Ghosh; Irina Ostrovskaya; John D E Gabrieli; Ioulia Kovelman Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2017-07-12 Impact factor: 2.297
Authors: Nathan D Maxfield; Wendy L Olsen; Daniel Kleinman; Stefan A Frisch; Victor S Ferreira; Jennifer J Lister Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2016-02-01 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Erica Lescht; Michael Walsh Dickey; Melissa D Stockbridge; Nan Bernstein Ratner Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2022-02-08 Impact factor: 2.674