Anomalous network architecture of the resting brain in children who stutter.
Soo-Eun Chang, Michael Angstadt, Ho Ming Chow and 6 others
PMID 28214015WHAT IT FOUND
Children who stutter had less coordinated connectivity in a resting brain network and unusual links with attention and movement networks.
One early pattern was associated with stuttering that did not recover. No clinical test or treatment is shown.
Key findings
01Children who stutter showed decreased connectivity within the default mode network and altered connectivity between that network and task-positive networks.
02A network component measured at the earliest scan was significantly associated with greater risk of persistent stuttering.
03When children with any comorbid psychiatric diagnosis were excluded, component 5 was no longer individually significant for persistence.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study is correlational, so it does not show that the brain network differences caused stuttering or persistence. The persistence analysis included 15 recovered and 24 persistent children, and 3 children who stutter could not be categorized because of attrition. Many scans were excluded for movement or poor language test performance: 48 scans from 33 participants and 8 scans from 8 participants. Persistent children scored lower than controls on IQ, PPVT, and EVT, so group differences were not only fluency differences. Comorbid diagnoses emerged after enrollment: 14.29% of stuttering children received ADHD diagnosis, 2.38% another developmental disorder, and 9.52% another psychiatric condition. When children with any psychiatric diagnosis were removed, the component that predicted persistence was no longer individually significant. The study did not examine dopamine levels or causal network effects. No treatment was tested, so the study does not show that therapy should target these networks.
Declared interests
The supplied metadata lists research support from the NIH and non-U.S. government sources. The provided article text does not include an author conflict-of-interest statement.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the network pattern as a validated clinical predictor for an individual child. The study found associations in research scans, and the persistence model was based on 15 recovered and 24 persistent children, not a diagnostic test used in clinic.