Manual response inhibition and quality of life in adults who stutter.
Shanley B Treleaven, Geoffrey A Coalson
PMID 33065458WHAT IT FOUND
Adults who stutter showed slower manual response inhibition than non-stuttering adults.
Within the stuttering group, lower quality of life scores predicted slower inhibition, but overt stuttering severity did not. This links cognitive control deficits to psychosocial impact rather than speech disfluency.
Key findings
01Adults who stutter demonstrated significantly slower manual response inhibition (SSRT) compared to adults who do not stutter.
02Lower scores on the Quality of Life subtest of the OASES significantly predicted slower response inhibition in adults who stutter.
03Overt stuttering severity, as measured by the SSI-4, did not significantly predict response inhibition latency.
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
Small sample size (N = 34) limits generalizability. The study used manual button-press tasks; it is unknown if these results translate to speech motor inhibition. Participants who stutter had mostly mild to very mild stuttering severity, excluding those with severe stuttering. The study design is cross-sectional, so causality between quality of life and inhibition cannot be determined. Neutral stimuli were used; emotional or stuttering-specific stimuli might yield different results.
Declared interests
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health (N.I.H., Extramural). No other conflicts of interest are reported in the provided text.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume that slower manual response inhibition directly causes or reflects difficulties in stopping stuttered speech. The study measured button-press inhibition, and the authors explicitly state that the link between manual inhibition and verbal response inhibition is inconsistent in the literature and not proven here.