LeBovidge Elise, Ito Takayuki, Max Ludo
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble-INP, GIPSA-lab, Grenoble, France.
IBRO Neurosci Rep. 2025 Aug 25;19:568-577. doi: 10.1016/j.ibneur.2025.08.018. eCollection 2025 Dec.
Prior findings indicate that individuals who stutter do not show the typical modulation of auditory processing that is observed during speech movement planning in nonstuttering speakers. We now ask whether this lack of planning-related sensory modulation in stuttering adults is specific to the auditory domain. In this first study (15 stuttering and 15 nonstuttering participants), we implemented the prior stimulation timeline in a paradigm with orofacial skin stretch stimuli. A robotic device applied skin stretches to elicit somatosensory evoked potentials during speech movement planning and a silent reading control condition. We compared the N1 component for and to assess a possible influence of movement planning on somatosensory processing. Both groups showed clear N1 responses, consistent with prior validation of the skin stretch stimulation. However, for the selected timepoint of stimulation (i.e., identical to our auditory stimulation studies) we found no evidence of pre-speech somatosensory modulation in either group. There were no amplitude or latency differences between speaking and control conditions and no between-group differences. Given that even typical participants showed no modulation at the probed times during movement planning, whereas some studies have obtained evidence supporting somatosensory modulation for orofacial movements during speech movement execution, (a) the time course of modulation may differ from that observed for auditory stimuli, or (b) input from the specific facial mechanoreceptors stimulated here may be not subject to pre-speech modulation. Future studies should probe somatosensation at different timepoints before and after speech movement onset and in effectors actively performing the articulatory gestures (lip, tongue).
先前的研究结果表明,口吃者在言语运动计划过程中没有表现出非口吃者所观察到的典型听觉加工调制。我们现在要问,口吃成年人中这种与计划相关的感觉调制缺失是否仅局限于听觉领域。在第一项研究中(15名口吃参与者和15名非口吃参与者),我们在一个使用口面部皮肤拉伸刺激的范式中采用了先前的刺激时间线。一个机器人设备在言语运动计划和默读对照条件下施加皮肤拉伸以诱发体感诱发电位。我们比较了言语运动计划和默读对照条件下的N1成分,以评估运动计划对体感加工的可能影响。两组均显示出明显的N1反应,这与先前对皮肤拉伸刺激的验证一致。然而,对于选定的刺激时间点(即与我们的听觉刺激研究相同),我们在两组中均未发现言语前体感调制的证据。言语运动计划和对照条件之间在幅度或潜伏期上没有差异,两组之间也没有差异。鉴于即使是典型参与者在运动计划期间的探测时间也没有表现出调制,而一些研究已经获得了支持言语运动执行期间口面部运动体感调制的证据,(a)调制的时间进程可能与听觉刺激所观察到的不同,或者(b)此处受刺激的特定面部机械感受器的输入可能不受言语前调制。未来的研究应该在言语运动开始前后的不同时间点以及在积极执行发音手势(嘴唇、舌头)的效应器中探测体感。