Volume 19, Issue 1 (Spring 2018)
jrehab 2018, 19(1): 26-35 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Aghazamani M, Shahbodaghi M R, Faghihzadeh E. Motor Speech Sequence Learning in Adults Who Stutter. jrehab 2018; 19 (1) :26-35
URL: http://rehabilitationj.uswr.ac.ir/article-1-2152-en.html
URL: http://rehabilitationj.uswr.ac.ir/article-1-2152-en.html
1- Department of Speech Therapy, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran., School of Rehabilitation,Tehran University of Medical Sciences,Tehran
2- Department of Speech Therapy, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. ,shahbodaghi@sina.tums.ac.ir
3- Department of Biostatics, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran., Tehran,Iran
2- Department of Speech Therapy, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. ,
3- Department of Biostatics, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran., Tehran,Iran
Abstract: (6592 Views)
Objective Developmental stuttering is a speech disorder characterized by repetition, prolongation, block and disruption of the smooth flow of speech. Environmental, physical, mental, and cognitive-linguistic factors were involved in the initiation and development of stuttering. There have been several theories about the development of stuttering. One of these theories suggests that stuttering is a speech motor control disorder. Based on the speech-motor skills hypothesis, speech production is a motor skill similar to any other (fine) motor skill that humans possess, and the individual motor skills develop from the lowest skill level to the highest level of motor skills. The SMS view suggests that stuttering may arise from limitations in speech motor skill in people who stutter are located more toward the lower end of a presumed normal speech motor skill continuum. Therefore, people who stutter have difficulty learning speech motor skills and have a limited ability to benefit from speech motor practice compared to normal individuals. Many of the stuttering treatment programs teach the new pattern of speech, and the success of these treatment programs depends on the learning of the new speech patterns. So if people who stutter have limited speech motor skills, also will have little success in this treatment programs. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate motor speech sequence learning in adults who stutter.
Materials & Methods This was a descriptive-analytical study with participants as 15 adults who stutter and 15 adults who do not stutter. All subjects were matched for age, sex and educational level. The average age was 28.73 for the adults who stutter was 28.4 for the normal people. All of the participants had history of neurological and motor speech disorders. The convenience sampling method was used for this study. The stuttering severity of people who stutter was assessed with Wingate scale and was in moderate range. Participants were asked to repeat an eight syllable non word sequence 30 times during three practice sessions. Recorded samples were analyzed with PRAAT software, and the variables used to measure performance gains included accuracy, response preparation time and sequence duration. The data were statistically analyzed by SPSS software (version 23).
Results Based on the findings of the present study, PWS showed improvement in accuracy from day 1 to day 3 (P<0.05), but there was no difference between the two groups in this variable (P>0.05). Also, the reaction time of the PWS improved from day 1 to day 3 (P<0.05), but there was no difference between the two groups (P>0.05). The sequence duration of the PWS improved from day 1 to day 3 (P<0.05) and there was a significant difference between the two groups (P<0.05). According to the results of this study, PWS showed slower sequence duration compare to PNS .
Conclusion The results of this study showed that PWS show improvement in accuracy, reaction time and sequence duration variables from day 1 to day 3. Also, PWS show more substantial number of errors compared to PNS, but this difference was not significant between the two groups. Similar results were obtained for the reaction time. Results of this study demonstrated that PWS show slower sequence duration compared to PNS. Some studies suggested that this could be because people who stutter use a control strategy to reduce the number of errors, although many studies suggested that this may indicate motor learning. According to speech motor skills hypothesis, it can be concluded that people who stutter have limitations in motor speech learning abilities. The findings of the present study could have clinical implication for the treatment of stuttering.
Materials & Methods This was a descriptive-analytical study with participants as 15 adults who stutter and 15 adults who do not stutter. All subjects were matched for age, sex and educational level. The average age was 28.73 for the adults who stutter was 28.4 for the normal people. All of the participants had history of neurological and motor speech disorders. The convenience sampling method was used for this study. The stuttering severity of people who stutter was assessed with Wingate scale and was in moderate range. Participants were asked to repeat an eight syllable non word sequence 30 times during three practice sessions. Recorded samples were analyzed with PRAAT software, and the variables used to measure performance gains included accuracy, response preparation time and sequence duration. The data were statistically analyzed by SPSS software (version 23).
Results Based on the findings of the present study, PWS showed improvement in accuracy from day 1 to day 3 (P<0.05), but there was no difference between the two groups in this variable (P>0.05). Also, the reaction time of the PWS improved from day 1 to day 3 (P<0.05), but there was no difference between the two groups (P>0.05). The sequence duration of the PWS improved from day 1 to day 3 (P<0.05) and there was a significant difference between the two groups (P<0.05). According to the results of this study, PWS showed slower sequence duration compare to PNS .
Conclusion The results of this study showed that PWS show improvement in accuracy, reaction time and sequence duration variables from day 1 to day 3. Also, PWS show more substantial number of errors compared to PNS, but this difference was not significant between the two groups. Similar results were obtained for the reaction time. Results of this study demonstrated that PWS show slower sequence duration compared to PNS. Some studies suggested that this could be because people who stutter use a control strategy to reduce the number of errors, although many studies suggested that this may indicate motor learning. According to speech motor skills hypothesis, it can be concluded that people who stutter have limitations in motor speech learning abilities. The findings of the present study could have clinical implication for the treatment of stuttering.
Type of Study: Original |
Subject:
Speech & Language Pathology
Received: 24/08/2017 | Accepted: 1/01/2018 | Published: 1/02/2018
Received: 24/08/2017 | Accepted: 1/01/2018 | Published: 1/02/2018
References
1. Guitar B. Stuttering: An intergrated approach to its nature and management. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006.
2. Heydari Nasrabadi M, Kamali M, Arrani Kashani Z. [Others' presence on the life experiences of people stuttering (Persian)]. Archives of Rehabilitation. 2015; 15(4):78-88.
3. Fakar Gharamaleki F, Shahbodaghi MR, Jahan A, Jalayi S. Investigation of acoustic characteristics of speech motor control in children who stutter and children who do not stutter. Journal of Rehabilitation. 2016; 17(3):232–43. doi: 10.21859/jrehab-1703232 [DOI:10.21859/jrehab-1703232]
4. Rahimi SS, Farazi M, Darouie A, Bakhshi E, Abdi S, Valinejad V, et al. Comparison the quality of life among adults with and without stuttering: An emphasis on the severity of stuttering. Journal of Rehabilitation. 2016; 17(4):300–7. doi: 10.21859/jrehab-1704300 [DOI:10.21859/jrehab-1704300]
5. Forster DC, Webster WG. Speech-motor control and interhemispheric relations in recovered and persistent stuttering. Developmental Neuropsychology. 2001; 19(2):125–45. doi: 10.1207/s15326942dn1902_1 [DOI:10.1207/S15326942DN1902_1]
6. Van Lieshout P, Hulstijn W, Peters HF. Searching the weak link in the speech production chain of people who stutter: a motor skill approach. In: Maassen B, Kent R, Peters H, van Lieshout P, Hulstijn W, editors. Speech Motor Control in Normal and Disordered Speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004.
7. Abbruzzese G, Pelosin E, Marchese R. Current problems and strategies in motor rehabilitation for Parkinson's disease. Advances in Alzheimer's and Parkinson's Disease. 23–30. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-72076-0_4 [DOI:10.1007/978-0-387-72076-0_4]
8. Bauerly KR, De Nil LF. Speech sequence skill learning in adults who stutter. Journal of Fluency Disorders. 2011; 36(4):349–60. doi: 10.1016/j.jfludis.2011.05.002 [DOI:10.1016/j.jfludis.2011.05.002]
9. Namasivayam AK, van Lieshout P. Speech motor skill and stuttering. Journal of Motor Behavior. 2011; 43(6):477–89. doi: 10.1080/00222895.2011.628347 [DOI:10.1080/00222895.2011.628347]
10. Smits-Bandstra S, De Nil LF. Sequence skill learning in persons who stutter: Implications for cortico-striato-thalamo-cortical dysfunction. Journal of Fluency Disorders. 2007; 32(4):251–78. doi: 10.1016/j.jfludis.2007.06.001 [DOI:10.1016/j.jfludis.2007.06.001]
11. Tumanova V, Zebrowski PM, Goodman SS, Arenas RM. Motor practice effects and sensorimotor integration in adults who stutter: Evidence from visuomotor tracking performance. Journal of Fluency Disorders. 2015; 45:52–72. doi: 10.1016/j.jfludis.2015.04.001 [DOI:10.1016/j.jfludis.2015.04.001]
12. Webster WG. Response sequence organization and reproduction by stutterers. Neuropsychologia. 1986; 24(6):813–21. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(86)90080-1 [DOI:10.1016/0028-3932(86)90080-1]
13. Smits Bandstra S, De Nil L, Rochon E. The transition to increased automaticity during finger sequence learning in adult males who stutter. Journal of Fluency Disorders. 2006; 31(1):22–42. doi: 10.1016/j.jfludis.2005.11.004 [DOI:10.1016/j.jfludis.2005.11.004]
14. Namasivayam AK, van Lieshout P. Investigating speech motor practice and learning in people who stutter. Journal of Fluency Disorders. 2008; 33(1):32–51. doi: 10.1016/j.jfludis.2007.11.005 [DOI:10.1016/j.jfludis.2007.11.005]
15. De Nil LF. [Uncovering the neural basis of stuttering: Recent contributions from functional neuroimaging (Dutch)]. In E. Manders, D. Lembrechts, E. Bastijns editors. Stotteren. Recente inzichten. Leuven, Belgium: ACCO; 1999. [PMID]
16. Bloodstein O, Ratner B. A handbook on stuttering. Clifton Park, NJ: Thomson Delmar Learning; 2008.
17. Smits Bandstra S, De Nil LF, Saint Cyr JA. Speech and nonspeech sequence skill learning in adults who stutter. Journal of Fluency Disorders. 2006; 31(2):116–36. doi: 10.1016/j.jfludis.2006.04.003 [DOI:10.1016/j.jfludis.2006.04.003]
18. Fitzgerald HE, Cooke PA, Greiner JR. Speech and bimanual hand organization in adult stutterers and nonstutterers. Journal of Fluency Disorders. 1984; 9(1):51–65. doi: 10.1016/0094-730x(84)90007-x [DOI:10.1016/0094-730X(84)90007-X]
19. Wingate ME. Stuttering: Theory and treatmen. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 1976. [PMCID]
20. Sayyahi F, Soleymani Z, Mahmoudi Bakhtiyari B, Jalaie S. Providing a non word repetition test in 4-year-old Persian children and determining its validity and reliability. Bimonthly Audiology-Tehran University of Medical Sciences. 2011; 20(2):47-53.
21. Afshar MR, Ghorbani A, Jalilevand N, Kamali M. Providing the non-word repetition test and determining its validity and reliability and comparing phonological working memory in 4 to 6 Farsi-speaking normal and SSD children in Tehran City. Journal of Research in Rehabilitation Sciences. 2013; 9(5):899-911.
22. Ludlow CL, Siren K, Zikria M. Speech production learning in adults with chronic developmental stuttering. In: Hulstijn W, Peters HF, van Lieshout PH, editors. Speech Production: Motor Control, Brain Research and Fluency Disorders. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1997.
23. Alfonso PJ, Van Lieshout PH. Spatial and temporal variability in obstruent gestural specification by stutterers and controls: Comparisons across sessions. In: Hulstijn W, Peters HF, van Lieshout PH, editors. Speech production: Motor control, brain research and fluency disorders. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1996.
24. Schulz GM, Dingwall WO, Ludlow CL. Speech and oral motor learning in individuals with cerebellar atrophy. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research. 1999; 42(5):1157. doi: 10.1044/jslhr.4205.1157 [DOI:10.1044/jslhr.4205.1157]
25. Pytel JL. The relation of kinematic factors to the acquisition of skill on a novel task. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences. 1980; 5(1):44-8. PMID: 7389047 [PMID]
26. Smith A, Sadagopan N, Walsh B, Weber Fox C. Increasing phonological complexity reveals heightened instability in inter-articulatory coordination in adults who stutter. Journal of Fluency Disorders. 2010; 35(1):1–18. doi: 10.1016/j.jfludis.2009.12.001 [DOI:10.1016/j.jfludis.2009.12.001]
27. Sasisekaran J, Weisberg S. Practice and retention of nonwords in adults who stutter. Journal of Fluency Disorders. 2014; 41:55–71. doi: 10.1016/j.jfludis.2014.02.004 [DOI:10.1016/j.jfludis.2014.02.004]
28. Ludlow CL, Siren K, Zikria M, Hulstijn W, Peters HF, van Lieshout PH. Speech production learning in adults with chronic developmental stuttering. In: Hulstijn W, Peters HF, van Lieshout PH, editors. Speech production: Motor control, brain research and fluency disorders. New York: Springer; 1997.
29. Smits Bandstra S, De Nil L. Speech skill learning of persons who stutter and fluent speakers under single and dual task conditions. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics. 2009; 23(1):38–57. doi: 10.1080/02699200802394914 [DOI:10.1080/02699200802394914]
30. Van Lieshout PHHM, Hulstijn W, Peters HFM. From planning to articulation in speech production: What differentiates a person who stutters from a person who does not stutter. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research. 1996; 39(3):546. doi: 10.1044/jshr.3903.546 [DOI:10.1044/jshr.3903.546]
31. Fitts PM. The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1954; 47(6):381–91. doi: 10.1037/h0055392 [DOI:10.1037/h0055392]
32. Van Lieshout P, Hulstijn W, Peters HF. Searching the weak link in the speech production chain of people who stutter: a motor skill approach. In: Maassen B, Kent R, Peters H, van Lieshout P, Hulstijn W, editors. Speech Motor Control in Normal and Disordered Speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Copyright © The Author(s);
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-By-NC), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
Contact Information
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-By-NC), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
Contact Information
