Lieshout Pascal van, Ben-David Boaz, Lipski Melinda, Namasivayam Aravind
University of Toronto, Speech-Language Pathology, Oral Dynamics Lab (ODL), Canada; Department of Psychology, Canada; Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, Canada; Graduate Department of Rehabilitation Science, Canada; Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, Canada.
University of Toronto, Speech-Language Pathology, Oral Dynamics Lab (ODL), Canada; Department of Psychology, Canada; Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, Canada; Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, School of Psychology, Communication, Aging and Neuropsychology Lab (CANlab), Israel.
J Fluency Disord. 2014 Jun;40:93-109. doi: 10.1016/j.jfludis.2014.02.003. Epub 2014 Mar 3.
In the present study, an Emotional Stroop and Classical Stroop task were used to separate the effect of threat content and cognitive stress from the phonetic features of words on motor preparation and execution processes.
A group of 10 people who stutter (PWS) and 10 matched people who do not stutter (PNS) repeated colour names for threat content words and neutral words, as well as for traditional Stroop stimuli. Data collection included speech acoustics and movement data from upper lip and lower lip using 3D EMA.
PWS in both tasks were slower to respond and showed smaller upper lip movement ranges than PNS. For the Emotional Stroop task only, PWS were found to show larger inter-lip phase differences compared to PNS. General threat words were executed with faster lower lip movements (larger range and shorter duration) in both groups, but only PWS showed a change in upper lip movements. For stutter specific threat words, both groups showed a more variable lip coordination pattern, but only PWS showed a delay in reaction time compared to neutral words. Individual stuttered words showed no effects. Both groups showed a classical Stroop interference effect in reaction time but no changes in motor variables.
This study shows differential motor responses in PWS compared to controls for specific threat words. Cognitive stress was not found to affect stuttering individuals differently than controls or that its impact spreads to motor execution processes.
After reading this article, the reader will be able to: (1) discuss the importance of understanding how threat content influences speech motor control in people who stutter and non-stuttering speakers; (2) discuss the need to use tasks like the Emotional Stroop and Regular Stroop to separate phonetic (word-bound) based impact on fluency from other factors in people who stutter; and (3) describe the role of anxiety and cognitive stress on speech motor processes.
在本研究中，采用情绪斯特鲁普任务和经典斯特鲁普任务，以区分威胁内容和认知应激的影响与单词语音特征对运动准备和执行过程的影响。
一组10名口吃者（PWS）和10名匹配的非口吃者（PNS）重复说出威胁内容词和中性词的颜色名称，以及传统斯特鲁普刺激词的颜色名称。数据收集包括使用3D电磁发声仪（EMA）获取的语音声学数据以及上唇和下唇的运动数据。
在两项任务中，PWS的反应速度均比PNS慢，且上唇运动范围更小。仅在情绪斯特鲁普任务中，发现PWS与PNS相比，唇间相位差更大。两组中，一般威胁词的下唇运动速度更快（范围更大、持续时间更短），但只有PWS的上唇运动有变化。对于口吃特定威胁词，两组的唇协调模式变化更大，但只有PWS与中性词相比反应时间延迟。单个口吃词未显示出影响。两组在反应时间上均表现出经典的斯特鲁普干扰效应，但运动变量无变化。
本研究表明，与对照组相比，PWS对特定威胁词有不同的运动反应。未发现认知应激对口吃个体的影响与对照组有差异，也未发现其影响会扩散到运动执行过程。
阅读本文后，读者将能够：（1）讨论理解威胁内容如何影响口吃者和非口吃者言语运动控制的重要性；（2）讨论使用情绪斯特鲁普任务和常规斯特鲁普任务等将基于语音（单词相关）对流畅性的影响与口吃者的其他因素区分开来的必要性；（3）描述焦虑和认知应激在言语运动过程中的作用。
