Eichorn Naomi, Campanelli Luca
School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Memphis, TN.
Division of Speech-Language Pathology, New York Medical College, NY.
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2025 Jul 8;68(7):3155-3170. doi: 10.1044/2025_JSLHR-24-00686. Epub 2025 Jun 20.
Cognitive models of anxiety attribute anxiety and ruminative thought patterns to selective processing of threat-related stimuli that automatically capture attention. We explored whether stuttering was associated with similar attentional biases by examining: (a) whether school-age children who stutter (CWS) differed from controls in selective processing of threat-related and neutral stimuli and (b) whether attentional biases in CWS were specific to threat stimuli that reflected stuttering-related experience.
Participants included 39 children (19 CWS), ages 8 to 15 years. Children completed a dot-probe task in which they responded as quickly as possible to on-screen probes that replaced threat-related or neutral words. Three types of threat words were presented: (a) general threat words; (b) words related to stuttering; and (c) personalized words on which participants anticipated stuttering. Attention bias (AB) was computed based on reaction times for congruent conditions (probe replaced threat stimuli) relative to incongruent conditions (probe replaced neutral stimuli) and compared across groups and stimulus types.
Strong evidence for an AB effect was observed for CWS but not for controls, as demonstrated by faster responses to congruent relative to incongruent trials. Within the stuttering group, AB effects were driven primarily by stuttering-related and personal words but not general threat words.
Findings indicate that CWS preferentially allocate attention toward stimuli relevant to stuttering experiences. Further research is needed to clarify how such selective processing may contribute to the development of stuttering-related concerns, psycho-emotional reactions to stuttering, and associated behaviors, such as avoidance of sounds, words, or speaking situations.
焦虑的认知模型将焦虑和反复思考的思维模式归因于对自动吸引注意力的威胁相关刺激的选择性加工。我们通过研究以下方面来探讨口吃是否与类似的注意力偏差有关：（a）口吃的学龄儿童（CWS）在对威胁相关和中性刺激的选择性加工上是否与对照组不同；（b）CWS中的注意力偏差是否特定于反映口吃相关经历的威胁刺激。
参与者包括39名8至15岁的儿童（19名CWS）。儿童完成一项点探测任务，在该任务中他们要尽快对替换威胁相关或中性词语的屏幕上的探测点做出反应。呈现了三种类型的威胁词语：（a）一般威胁词语；（b）与口吃相关的词语；（c）参与者预期会口吃的个性化词语。注意力偏差（AB）是根据与不一致条件（探测点替换中性刺激）相比，一致条件（探测点替换威胁刺激）下的反应时间计算得出的，并在不同组和刺激类型之间进行比较。
观察到CWS有明显的AB效应证据，而对照组则没有，这表现为与不一致试验相比，对一致试验的反应更快。在口吃组中，AB效应主要由与口吃相关的词语和个性化词语驱动，而不是一般威胁词语。
研究结果表明，CWS优先将注意力分配到与口吃经历相关的刺激上。需要进一步研究来阐明这种选择性加工如何可能导致与口吃相关的担忧、对口吃的心理情绪反应以及相关行为的发展，例如避免发出某些声音、词语或说话情境。
