Middle Eastern Journal of Disability Studies

fa بررسی و مقایسهٔ توانایی کنترل بازداری در کودکان دارای لکنت و همسالان طبیعی Comparison of the Inhibitory Control Ability in Children with Stuttering and Normal Peers توانبخشی Rehabilitation مقاله پژوهشی اصیل Original Research Article زمینه و هدف: بازداری به‌معنای توانایی فعالانهٔ متوقف‌کردن یا تأخیر فعالیتی است. چندین محقق به نقش ممکن فرایندهای خودتنظیمی و فرایندهای کنترل توجه و به‌ویژه کنترل بازداری در رشد لکنت اشاره کرده‌اند. هدف این پژوهش بررسی تفاوت‌ها در عملکرد کنترل بازداری بین کودکان لکنتی و غیرلکنتی بود. روش‌بررسی: در این پژوهش مقطعی‌مقایسه‌ای، توانایی کنترل بازداری ۳۰ کودک ۷تا۱۳سالهٔ شهر تهران با تشخیص لکنت رشدی و ۳۰ کودک غیرلکنتی رشدیافتهٔ طبیعی که به‌لحاظ سن و جنس با کودکان لکنتی تطابق داشته با استفاده از تکلیف برو-بایست شنیداری ارزیابی شد. تحلیل اطلاعات ازطریق آمار توصیفی تحلیلی ازجمله آزمون تی مقایسهٔ میانگین‌های دو گروه مستقل و آزمون من‌ویتنی و آزمون همبستگی پیرسون با نرم‌افزار SPSS نسخهٔ ۲۴ صورت گرفت. در تمامی آزمون‌ها سطح معناداری کمتر از ۰٫۰۵در نظر گرفته شد. یافته‌ها: تفاوت‌های بین‌گروهی برای خطاهای ارتکاب و خطاهای بازداری نشان داد میانگین درصد خطاهای ارتکاب و بازداری در گروه لکنتی (۱۳٫۰۹±۱۰٫۴۷) و (۱۵٫۱۱±۳۰٫۲۱) درمقایسه با گروه غیرلکنتی (۶٫۱۷±۸٫۰۲) و (۱۳٫۷۳±۲۴٫۶۶) بیشتر به‌دست آمد؛ اما از نظر آماری تفاوت‌های معناداری نداشت. همچنین میانگین زمان واکنش بیشتری، در گروه لکنتی (۷۳٫۹±۶۲۷٫۰۶) درمقایسه با گروه غیرلکنتی (۵۳٫۳۷±۶۱۵٫۴) مشاهده شد؛ ولی این تفاوت میانگین در کودکان لکنتی و غیرلکنتی از نظر آماری معنادار نبود. نتیجه‌گیری: نتایج این پژوهش براساس تکلیف برو-بایست شنیداری، مشخص کرد کودکان لکنتی و غیرلکنتی در کنترل بازداری تفاوت معناداری ندارند. بین دو گروه کودکان دارای لکنت و غیرلکنتی در متغیرهای ارتکاب و بازداری و زمان واکنش تفاوت معناداری مشاهده نشد. <div style="text-align: justify;">Background & Objective: Inhibition refers to the ability to actively suppress, interrupt or delay an action. Several authors have shown a possible role for self–regulatory processes, attentional control processes, and more specifically inhibitory control in the development of stuttering. Inhibition control (IC) is essential for doing daily tasks and implicate in cognitive development, executive functioning and the conscious use of attention or attentional control. Inhibition control relates to the coordination and integration of mental processes in successful task doing and plays an important role in the self–regulation of emotional states. Children who stutter (CWS) have low adaptability, lower in biological rhythmicity and less efﬁcient in emotional regulation. Based on role of IC in speech motor planning and production, study in this field is important. The aim of this study was to investigate differences in inhibitory control performance between CWS and children who not stutter (CWNS). Methods: This cross sectional study investigated inhibitory control ability of 30 children diagnosed with developmental stuttering and 30 typically developing nonstuttering children aged 7–13 in Tehran (capital city of Iran), matched by age and gender to the children who stutter. All children were monolingual speaking (Persian). All participants had normal or corrected to normal vision and normal speech and language development (except for stuttering in the experimental group), based on the criteria described below. Participants had no known or reported neurological, psychological, developmental or hearing problems. Auditory Go/No Go task was used that assess to inhibitory control in CWS and CWNS. One of two easily discriminated auditory stimuli –the low frequency tone (1000 Hz) and high frequency tone (1300 Hz) – is randomly presented for 100 milliseconds. Pairs corresponding to trials present stimuli. Inter–stimulus interval in a pair was equal to 1000 millisecond. Two different pairs of stimuli are presented only: Low–Low pair (“Go” trial) and Low–High pair (“Nogo” trial). Trials presented at random order with 50% probability. Subject has to press a button (right arrow key) as soon as possible in case of presentation of Low–Low pair and ignore Low–High pairs of stimuli. The total number of trials was equal to 480. The parameters of performance were calculated for Go and No Go condition. Data analysis in this cross sectional study was done using descriptive–analysis statistics such as independent sample T–test, Mann–Whitney test and Pearson correlation coefficient test using SPSS program 24 series. Results: Mean percentages of Commission errors and Omission errors were higher in the stuttering group (M=10.47, SD=13.09), (M=30.21, SD=15.11) than in the nonstuttering group (M=8.02, SD=6.17), (M=24.66, SD=13.73). Nevertheless, there was not any significant differences in Commission errors and Omission errors statically. The mean reaction time was higher in the stuttering group than in the nonstuttering group (M=627.06, SD=73.9) (M=615.4, SD=53.37). However, the mean reaction time for CWS and CWNS was not significantly different.  Conclusion: According to results obtained in this study, based on auditory Go/No Go task, showed that CWS and CWNS not differ in inhibitory control. CWS had lower mean in inhibitory control, which suggests a lowered ability to inhibit prepotent response tendencies. The findings were showed that inhibitory control ability had important role in persistent developmental stuttering. CWS, who exhibit a lowered IC, would most likely exhibit difﬁculties in suppressing prepotent responses across a variety of settings (school setting, playing with a friend). Therefore it might be important to council parents that these children may have more difﬁculties dealing with everyday situations requiring response inhibition (following instructions, waiting for something, ending an activity), resulting in increased emotional arousal. </div> برو-بایست شنیداری, کنترل بازداری, لکنت رشدی. Auditory Go/No Go, Inhibitory control, Developmental stuttering. 29 29 http://jdisabilstud.org/browse.php?a_code=A-10-1483-1&slc_lang=fa&sid=1 Kowsar Esfandeh کوثر اسفنده ksfande@gmail.con 100319475328460038337 100319475328460038337 Yes Hamadan University of Medical Sciences دانشگاه علوم پزشکی همدان Gholamreza Hajvalii غلامرضا حاج ولیئی ksfande@gmail.com 100319475328460038338 100319475328460038338 No Hamadan University of Medical Sciences دانشگاه علوم پزشکی همدان Hashem Farhangdoost هاشم فرهنگ دوست farhangdoosth@yahoo.com 100319475328460038339 100319475328460038339 No University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran دانشگاه علوم بهزیستی و توان‌بخشی تهران