PURPOSE: Stuttering involves a breakdown in the speech motor system. We address whether stuttering in its early stage is specific to the speech motor system or whether its impact is observable across motor systems. METHOD: As an extension of Olander, Smith, and Zelaznik (2010), we measured bimanual motor timing performance in 115 children: 70 children who stutter (CWS) and 45 children who do not stutter (CWNS). The children repeated the clapping task yearly for up to 5 years. We used a synchronization-continuation rhythmic timing paradigm. Two analyses were completed: a cross-sectional analysis of data from the children in the initial year of the study (ages 4;0 [years;months] to 5;11) compared clapping performance between CWS and CWNS. A second, multiyear analysis assessed clapping behavior across the ages 3;5-9;5 to examine any potential relationship between clapping performance and eventual persistence or recovery of stuttering. RESULTS: Preschool CWS were not different from CWNS on rates of clapping or variability in interclap interval. In addition, no relationship was found between bimanual motor timing performance and eventual persistence in or recovery from stuttering. The disparity between the present findings for preschoolers and those of Olander et al. (2010) most likely arises from the smaller sample size used in the earlier study. CONCLUSION: From the current findings, on the basis of data from relatively large samples of stuttering and nonstuttering children tested over multiple years, we conclude that a bimanual motor timing deficit is not a core feature of early developmental stuttering.
PURPOSE: Stuttering involves a breakdown in the speech motor system. We address whether stuttering in its early stage is specific to the speech motor system or whether its impact is observable across motor systems. METHOD: As an extension of Olander, Smith, and Zelaznik (2010), we measured bimanual motor timing performance in 115 children: 70 children who stutter (CWS) and 45 children who do not stutter (CWNS). The children repeated the clapping task yearly for up to 5 years. We used a synchronization-continuation rhythmic timing paradigm. Two analyses were completed: a cross-sectional analysis of data from the children in the initial year of the study (ages 4;0 [years;months] to 5;11) compared clapping performance between CWS and CWNS. A second, multiyear analysis assessed clapping behavior across the ages 3;5-9;5 to examine any potential relationship between clapping performance and eventual persistence or recovery of stuttering. RESULTS: Preschool CWS were not different from CWNS on rates of clapping or variability in interclap interval. In addition, no relationship was found between bimanual motor timing performance and eventual persistence in or recovery from stuttering. The disparity between the present findings for preschoolers and those of Olander et al. (2010) most likely arises from the smaller sample size used in the earlier study. CONCLUSION: From the current findings, on the basis of data from relatively large samples of stuttering and nonstuttering children tested over multiple years, we conclude that a bimanual motor timing deficit is not a core feature of early developmental stuttering.
Authors: S D Robertson; H N Zelaznik; D A Lantero; K G Bojczyk; R M Spencer; J G Doffin; T Schneidt Journal: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform Date: 1999-10 Impact factor: 3.332
Authors: Cara M Singer; Alison Hessling; Ellen M Kelly; Lisa Singer; Robin M Jones Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2020-08-10 Impact factor: 2.297