Brain response to errors in children who stutter.
Yanni Liu, Amanda Hampton Wray, Melissa Hall and 4 others
PMID 38160505WHAT IT FOUND
Children who stutter and children who do not stutter showed similar brain responses after errors on a button-press task.
Parent-reported anxiety and communication attitudes also did not differ between groups.
Key findings
01The brain response to errors did not differ between children who stutter and children who do not stutter.
02In children who stutter, the error-related brain response was larger at older ages, but this age association was not seen in children who do not stutter.
03Parent-reported anxiety was linked to a smaller post-error brain response in children who do not stutter, but not in children who stutter.
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 final analysed sample was 24 children who stutter and 24 children who did not stutter, so the findings may be unstable. The study compared children at one time point, not the same children over time, so it cannot show how error monitoring develops in stuttering. The children who stutter were from a community sample and mostly had mild to moderate stuttering and low anxiety, so results may not apply to clinic-referred or more severe cases. The error task was a nonverbal button-press game, not a speech task, so it may not capture speech-specific error monitoring. Some children who stutter may recover later, and the study did not know persistence status. Two children from the stuttering group were excluded because of task performance, reducing the analysed sample.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that stuttering is caused by heightened error monitoring or anxiety. The main comparison found no group differences in brain responses to errors or in parent-reported anxiety, and the age and anxiety associations were secondary findings in a small cross-sectional sample.