PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether previously reported parental questionnaire-based differences in inhibitory control (IC; Eggers, De Nil, & Van den Bergh, 2010) would be supported by direct measurement of IC using a computer task. METHOD: Participants were 30 children who stutter (CWS; mean age=7;05 years) and 30 children who not stutter (CWNS; mean age=7;05 years). Participants were matched on age and gender (±3 months). IC was assessed by the Go/NoGo task of the Amsterdam Neuropsychological Tasks (De Sonneville, 2009). RESULTS: Results indicated that CWS, compared to CWNS, (a) exhibited more false alarms and premature responses, (b) showed lower reaction times for false alarms, and (c) were less able to adapt their response style after experiencing response errors. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide further support for the hypothesis that CWS and CWNS differ on IC. CWS, as a group, were lower in IC pointing toward a lowered ability to inhibit prepotent response tendencies. The findings were linked to previous IC-related studies and to emerging theoretical frameworks of stuttering development. EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES: The reader will be able to: (1) describe the concept of inhibitory control, and its functional significance; (2) describe the findings on self-regulatory processes, attentional processes, and inhibitory control in CWS; (3) identify which Go/NoGo task variables differentiated between CWS and CWNS; and (4) summarize the theoretical implications for the development of stuttering and the possible clinical implications.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether previously reported parental questionnaire-based differences in inhibitory control (IC; Eggers, De Nil, & Van den Bergh, 2010) would be supported by direct measurement of IC using a computer task. METHOD:Participants were 30 children who stutter (CWS; mean age=7;05 years) and 30 children who not stutter (CWNS; mean age=7;05 years). Participants were matched on age and gender (±3 months). IC was assessed by the Go/NoGo task of the Amsterdam Neuropsychological Tasks (De Sonneville, 2009). RESULTS: Results indicated that CWS, compared to CWNS, (a) exhibited more false alarms and premature responses, (b) showed lower reaction times for false alarms, and (c) were less able to adapt their response style after experiencing response errors. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide further support for the hypothesis that CWS and CWNS differ on IC. CWS, as a group, were lower in IC pointing toward a lowered ability to inhibit prepotent response tendencies. The findings were linked to previous IC-related studies and to emerging theoretical frameworks of stuttering development. EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES: The reader will be able to: (1) describe the concept of inhibitory control, and its functional significance; (2) describe the findings on self-regulatory processes, attentional processes, and inhibitory control in CWS; (3) identify which Go/NoGo task variables differentiated between CWS and CWNS; and (4) summarize the theoretical implications for the development of stuttering and the possible clinical implications.
Authors: Soo-Eun Chang; Michael Angstadt; Ho Ming Chow; Andrew C Etchell; Emily O Garnett; Ai Leen Choo; Daniel Kessler; Robert C Welsh; Chandra Sripada Journal: J Fluency Disord Date: 2017-01-25 Impact factor: 2.538
Authors: Hatun Zengin-Bolatkale; Edward G Conture; Alexandra P Key; Tedra A Walden; Robin M Jones Journal: J Fluency Disord Date: 2018-04-19 Impact factor: 2.538