The role of auditory temporal cues in the fluency of stuttering adults
O papel das pistas temporais auditivas na fluência de adultos com gagueira
Juliana Furini; Luana Altran Picoloto; Eduarda Marconato; Anelise Junqueira Bohnen; Ana Claudia Vieira Cardoso; Cristiane Moço Canhetti de Oliveira
Abstract
Purpose: to compare the frequency of disfluencies and speech rate in spontaneous speech and reading in adults with and without stuttering in non-altered and delayed auditory feedback (NAF, DAF).
Methods: participants were 30 adults: 15 with Stuttering (Research Group - RG), and 15 without stuttering (Control Group - CG). The procedures were: audiological assessment and speech fluency evaluation in two listening conditions, normal and delayed auditory feedback (100 milliseconds delayed by Fono Tools software).
Results: the DAF caused a significant improvement in the fluency of spontaneous speech in RG when compared to speech under NAF. The effect of DAF was different in CG, because it increased the common disfluencies and the total of disfluencies in spontaneous speech and reading, besides showing an increase in the frequency of stuttering-like disfluencies in reading. The intergroup analysis showed significant differences in the two speech tasks for the two listening conditions in the frequency of stuttering-like disfluencies and in the total of disfluencies, and in the flows of syllable and word-per-minute in the NAF.
Conclusion: the results demonstrated that delayed auditory feedback promoted fluency in spontaneous speech of adults who stutter, without interfering in the speech rate. In non-stuttering adults an increase occurred in the number of common disfluencies and total of disfluencies as well as reduction of speech rate in spontaneous speech and reading.
Keywords
Resumo
Objetivo: comparar a frequência das disfluências e a taxa de elocução da fala espontânea e leitura em adultos com e sem gagueira em situações de Retroalimentação Auditiva Habitual (RAH) e Atrasada (RAA).
Métodos: participaram 30 adultos: 15 com gagueira (Grupo Pesquisa) e 15 sem gagueira (Grupo Controle). Os procedimentos foram: avaliação audiológica e da fluência nas condições de escuta habitual e atrasada (100 milissegundos de atraso - software FonoTools).
Resultados: a RAA provocou uma melhora significante na fluência da fala espontânea no GP quando comparado à fala com RAH. O efeito da RAA foi diverso no GC, porque aumentou as disfluências comuns e a descontinuidade da fala na fala espontânea e leitura, além de apresentar aumento da frequência das disfluências gagas na leitura. A análise intergrupos mostrou diferenças significantes nas duas tarefas de fala, nas duas condições de escuta na frequência de disfluências gagas e na descontinuidade da fala, e nos fluxos de sílabas e de palavras por minuto na RAH.
Conclusão: os resultados mostraram que a retroalimentação auditiva atrasada promoveu fluência da fala espontânea dos adultos com gagueira, sem interferir na taxa de elocução. Nos adultos sem gagueira ocorreu aumento das disfluências comuns e da descontinuidade da fala, bem como redução da taxa de elocução na fala espontânea e leitura.
Palavras-chave
References
1. Oliveira CMC, Bohnen AJ. Diagnóstico diferencial dos distúrbios da fluência. In: Lamônica DAC, Britto DBO (ed). Tratado de linguagem: perspectivas contemporâneas. Ribeirão Preto (SP): Booktoy, 2017.p.175-82.
2. Merlo S. Hesitações na fala semi-espontânea: análise por séries temporais. [Dissertação] Campinas(SP): IEL-Universidade de Campinas; 2006.
3. Bohnen AJ. Estudo das palabras gaguejadas por crianças e adultos: caracterizando a gagueira como um disturbio da linguagem. [Tese]. Porto Alegre (RS): Universidade Federal do Rio Grande Sul; 2009.
4. Sasisekaran J. Nonword repetition and nonword reading abilities in adults who do and do not stutter. J Fluency Disord. 2013;38(3):275-89.
5. Arcuri CF, Osborn E, Schiefer AM, Chiari BM. Speech rate according to stuttering severity. Pró Fono R. Atual. Cient. 2009;21(1):45-50.
6. Alm PA. Stuttering and the basal ganglia circuits: a critical review of possible relations. J Commun Disord. 2004;37:325-69.
7. Liu J, Wang Z, Huo Y, Davidson SM, Klahr K, Herder CL et al. A Functional imaging study of self-regulatory capacities in persons who stutter. PLoS One. 2014;9(2):898-91.
8. Juste FS, Ritto AP, Silva KGN, Andrade CRF. Sequential diadochokinesus in fluent and stuttering children: rate of production and type of errors. Audiol Commun Res. 2016;21e:1-7.
9. Andrade CRF, Juste, FS, Fortunato-Tavares TL. Lexical priming in fluent and with developmental stuttering children. CoDAS. 2013;25(2):95-105.
10. Celeste LC, Martins-Reis VO. The impact of a dysfluency environment on the temporal organization of consonants in stuttering. Audiol Commun Res. 2015;20(1):10-7.
11. Vanhoutte S, Cosyns M, Van Mierlo P, Batens K, Corthals P, De Letter M et al. When will a stuttering moment occur? The determining role of speech motor preparation. Neuropsy. 2016;86:93-102.
12. Joos K, Ridder D, Boey RA, Vannester S. Functional connectivity changes in adults with developmental stuttering: A preliminar study using quantitative electro-encephalography. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014;8(783):1-9.
13. Cai S, Beal DS, Ghoss SS, Guenther FH, Perkell JS. Impaired timing adjustments in response to time-varying auditory perturbation during connected speech production in persons who stutter. Brain Lang. 2014;129:24-9.
14. Daliri A, Wieland EA, Cai S, Guenther FH, Chang SE. Auditory-motor adaptation is reduced in adults who stutter but not in children who stutter. Dev Sci. No prelo 2017.
15. Chang SE. Subtle differences in brain network connectivity in children who stutter. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2015;193:285.
16. Lu C, Long Y, Zheng L, Shi G, Liu L, Ding G et al. Relationship between speech production and perception in people who stutter. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016;10:224.
17. Chon H, Kraft SJ, Zhan J, Loucks T, Ambrose NG. Individual variability in delayed auditory feedback effects on speech fluency and rate in normally fluent adults. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2013;56(2):489-504.
18. Roob MP, Lynn WL, O'Beime A. An exploration of dichotic listening among adults who stutter. Clin Linguist Phon. 2013;27(9):681-93.
19. Jansson-Verkasalo E, Eggers K, Jarvenpaa A, Suominen K, Van den Bergh B, De Nil L et al. Atypical central auditory, speech-sound discrimination in children who stutter as indexed by the mismatch negativity. J Fluency Disord. 2014;41:1-11.
20. Daliri A, Max L. Modulation of auditory processing during speech movement planning is limited in adults who stutter. Brain Lang. 2015;143:59-68.
21. Prestes R, Andrade AN, Santo RBF, Marangoni AT, Schiefer AM, Gil D. Temporal processing and long-latency auditory evoked potential in stutterers. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. No prelo 2017.
22. Chester J, Baghai-Ravary L, Möttönen R. The effects of delayed auditory and visual feedback on speech production. J Acoust Soc Am. 2015;137(2):873-83.
23. Stuart A, Kalinowski J. The perception of speech naturalness of post-therapeutic and altered auditory feedback speech of adults with mild and severe stuttering. Folia Phoniatr Logopaedica Basel. 2004;56(6):347-57.
24. Saltuklaroglu T, Kalinowski J, Robbins M, Crawcour S, Bowers A. Comparisons of stuttering frequency during and after speech initiation in unaltered feedback, altered auditory feedback and choral speech conditions. Int J Lang Comm Dis. 2009;44(6):1000-17.
25. Yamamoto K, Kawabata H. Temporal recalibration in vocalization induced by adaptation of delayed auditory feedback. Plos One. 2011;6(12):1-8.
26. Foundas AL, Mock JR, Corey DM, Golob EJ, Conture EG. The SpeechEasy device in stuttering and nonstuttering adults: Fluency effects while speaking and reading. Brain Lang. 2013;126(2):141-50.
27. Hudock D, Kalinowski J. Stuttering inhibition via altered auditory feedback during scripted telephone conversations. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2014;49(1):139-47.
28. Carrasco ER, Schiefer AM, Azevedo MF. Effect of the delayed auditory feedback in stuttering. Audiol Commun Res. 2015;20(2):116-22.
29. Ritto AP, Juste FS, Andrade CRF. The effect of the SpeechEasy® device on acoustic and speech motor parameters of adults who stutter. Audiol Commun Res. 2015;20(1):1-9.
30. Ritto AP, Juste FS, Stuart A, Kalinowiski J, Andrade CRF. Randomized Clinical trial: the use of SpeechEasy® in stuttering treatment. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2016;51(6):769-74.
31. Andrade CR, Juste FS. Systematic review of delayed auditory feedback effectiveness for stuttering reduction. J Soc Bras Fonoaudiol. 2011;23(2):187-91.
32. Riley G. Stuttering severity instrument for young children (SSI-3) (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. 1994.
33. Saraiva RA, Moojen SPM, Munarski R. Avaliação da compreensão leitora de textos expositivos para fonoaudiólogos e psicopedagogos. Casa do Psicólogo, 1° ed. 2006.
34. Andrade CRF. Fluência. In: Andrade CRF, Béfi-Lopes DM, Fernandes FDM, Wertzner HF, editores. ABFW - Teste de linguagem infantil nas áreas de fonologia, vocabulário, fluência e pragmática. 2a ed. Barueri (SP): Pró-Fono; 2011. p. 51-81.
35. Civier O, Bullock D, Max L, Guenther FH. Computational modeling of stuttering caused by impairments in a basal ganglia thalamo-cortical circuit involved in syllable selection and initiation. Brain Lang. 2013;126(3):263-78.
36. Smith A, Sadagopan N, Walsh B, Weber-Fox C. Increasing phonological complexity reveals heightened instability in inter-articulatory coordination in adults who stutter. J Fluency Disord. 2010;35(1):1-18.
37. Park J, Logan KJ. The role of temporal speech cues in facilitating the fluency of adults who stutter. J Fluency Disord. 2015;46:41-55.
38. Kalinowski J, Stuart A, Sark S, Armson J. Stuttering amelioration at various auditory feedback delays and speech rates. Europ J Dis Commun. 1996;31(3):259-69.
39. Unger JP, Gluck CW, Cholewa, J. Immediate effects of AAF devices on the characteristics of stuttering: A Clinical analysis. J Fluency Disord. 2012;37(2):122-34.
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
Email