Volume 10 -                   MEJDS (2020) 10: 128 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Derakhshani M H, Al-hosseini M, Shafiei B, Nikkhah S. Effects of Timing Training on Stuttering Severity and Motor Timing in Children Who Stutter. MEJDS 2020; 10 :128-128
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-1308-en.html
1- Department of Sports sciences, University of Isfahan
2- Department of Speech Therapy, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Medical University of Isfahan
Abstract:   (2359 Views)
Background & Objectives: Stuttering is caused by the destruction of spatial and temporal control of the movements necessary to produce speech fluency. People who stutter act differently in control of the variability, speed and timing of speech movements at the time of speaking fluently. Physiological evidence suggests that the mechanisms of motor control for speech production and limb movements have the same nervous structures. Accordingly, in the present study, the researchers decided to use a motor timing intervention program assuming that by practicing this task, people who stutter can get the timing or ability to synchronize themselves with each move or the ability to accurately repeat the motor task with the rhythm. In addition, with the help of intrinsic (or emergent) timing processes, they can also transfer this probable improvement of timing stability during the implementation of motor tasks assignments to oral–motor tasks.
Methods: A quasi–experimental study with a pre–test post–test design was conducted on 14 children (10 boys and 4 girls) ranged between 4–6 years of age. The participants were recruited conveniently and assigned randomly to two groups of experimental and control. The experimental group underwent an eight–week sequential motor timing training. The Audacity and Stuttering Severity Instrument–Fourth Edition tests were used in order to measure the stuttering severity and motor timing, respectively. The data were analyzed using the covariance analysis.
 Results: Analysis of covariance showed that by controlling the effect of pre–test, there was a significant difference between the mean scores of motor timing and the stuttering severity of children in both groups, and the average scores of motor timing (p<0.001) and stuttering severity (p=0.018) in the experimental group were significantly lower than the control group.
Conclusion: Based on the findings of this study, timing training improved mental timing and, as a result, stuttering severity decreased in children who stutter. In these children, speech and non–speech movements control processes had the same nervous structure. Weakness in the speech and non– speech abilities of people who stutter may therefore be due to defect in the timing mechanisms and impact of timing training on the mental timing or in fact same intrinsic (or emergent) timing processes improved the speech and reducing stuttering severity in these children.
Full-Text [PDF 591 kb]   (506 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Original Research Article | Subject: Rehabilitation

References
1. Smith A. Stuttering: A unified approach to a multifactorial, dynamic disorder. In: Ratner NB, Healey EC, editors. Stuttering research and practice: Bridging the gap. New York: Psychology Press; 1999. pp: 27-44.
2. Olander L, Smith A, Zelaznik HN. Evidence that a motor timing deficit is a factor in the development of stuttering. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 2010;53(4):876-886. [DOI]
3. Hilger AI, Zelaznik H, Smith A. Evidence that bimanual motor timing performance is not a significant factor in developmental stuttering. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 2016;59(4):674-85. [DOI]
4. Franz EA, Zelaznik HN, Smith A. Evidence of common timing processes in the control of manual, orofacial, and speech movements. Journal of Motor behavior. 1992;24(3):281-7. [DOI]
5. Binkofski F, Buccino G. Motor functions of the Broca’s region. Brain and language. 2004;89(2):362-9. [DOI]
6. Bengtsson SL, Ehrsson HH, Forssberg H, Ullén F. Effector‐independent voluntary timing: behavioural and neuroimaging evidence. European Journal of Neuroscience. 2005;22(12):3255-65. [DOI]
7. Smith A, Mcfarland DH, Weber CM. Interactions between speech and finger movements: An exploration of the dynamic pattern perspective. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 1986;29(4):471-80. [DOI]
8. Cooper MH, Allen GD. Timing control accuracy in normal speakers and stutterers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research. 1977;20(1):55-71. [DOI]
9. Chang S-E, Kenney MK, Loucks TM, Ludlow CL. Brain activation abnormalities during speech and non-speech in stuttering speakers. Neuroimage. 2009;46(1):201-12. [DOI]
10. Neef NE, Jung K, Rothkegel H, Pollok B, von Gudenberg AW, Paulus W, et al. Right-shift for non-speech motor processing in adults who stutter. Cortex. 2011;47(8):945-54. [DOI]
11. Max L, Caruso AJ, Gracco VL. Kinematic analyses of speech, orofacial nonspeech, and finger movements in stuttering and nonstuttering adults. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 2003;46(1):215–32. [DOI]
12. Zelaznik HN, Smith A, Franz EA. Motor performance of stutterers and nonstutterers on timing and force control tasks. Journal of Motor Behavior. 1994;26(4):340-7. [DOI]
13. Yu G-H, Lee J-S, Kim S-K, Cha T-H. Effects of interactive metronome training on upper extremity function, ADL and QOL in stroke patients. NeuroRehabilitation. 2017;41(1):161-8. [DOI]
14. Riley G. SSI-4 stuttering severity instrument fourth edition. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. 2009.
15. Zolfaghari M, Shafiei B, Tahmasebi Garmatani N, Ashoorioon V. Reliability of the Persian Version of the Stuttering Severity Instrument-(SSI-4) for Preschool-Age Children. Middle Eastern Journal of Disability Studies. 2014;4(2):20-5. [Persian]
16. Davidow JH, Scott KA. Intrajudge and Interjudge Reliability of the Stuttering Severity Instrument–Fourth Edition. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 2017;26(4):1105-19. [DOI]
17. Free open source cross-platform audio software [Internet]. 2000. [Article]
18. Hockicko P. Nontraditional approach to studying science and technology. Communications-Scientific letters of the University of Zilina. 2010;12(3):66-71.
19. Muradoglu M, Ng EMW, Ng TW. Experimentation on recurrent sphere collision with Audacity. European Journal of Physics. 2014;35(6):065017. [DOI]
20. Olivier I, Baker C, Cordier J, Thomann G, Nougier V. Cognitive and motor aspects of a coincidence-timing task in Cerebral Palsy children. Neuroscience letters. 2015;602:33-7. [DOI]
21. Packman A. Theory and therapy in stuttering: A complex relationship. Journal of fluency disorders. 2012;37(4):225-33. [DOI]
22. Flaugnacco E, Lopez L, Terribili C, Zoia S, Buda S, Tilli S, et al. Rhythm perception and production predict reading abilities in developmental dyslexia. Frontiers in human neuroscience. 2014;8:392. [DOI]
23. Etchell AC, Johnson BW, Sowman PF. Beta oscillations, timing, and stuttering. Frontiers in human neuroscience. 2015;8:1036. [DOI]
24. Zelaznik HN, Smith A, Franz EA, Ho M. Differences in bimanual coordination associated with stuttering. Acta Psychologica. 1997;96(3):229-43. [DOI]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Middle Eastern Journal of Disability Studies

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb