ArticlePloS one2017
Nonword repetition in adults who stutter: The effects of stimuli stress and auditory-orthographic cues.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Meta-Analytical Review of Executive Function Skills in Adults Who Stutter.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026Pooled it
- Working memory capacity and rumination in adults who stutter.Journal of fluency disorders · 2025Article
- The Application of EEG Mu Rhythm Measures to Neurophysiological Research in Stuttering.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2019Article
- A novel non-word speech preparation task to increase stuttering frequency in experimental settings for longitudinal research.Journal of communication disordersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAdults who stutter (AWS) are less accurate in their immediate repetition of novel phonological sequences compared to adults who do not stutter (AWNS). The present study examined whether manipulation of the following two aspects of traditional nonword repetition tasks unmask distinct weaknesses in phonological working memory in AWS: (1) presentation of stimuli with less-frequent stress patterns, and (2) removal of auditory-orthographic cues immediately prior to response.
methodFifty-two participants (26 AWS, 26 AWNS) produced 12 bisyllabic nonwords in the presence of corresponding auditory-orthographic cues (i.e., immediate repetition task), and the absence of auditory-orthographic cues (i.e., short-term recall task). Half of each cohort (13 AWS, 13 AWNS) were exposed to the stimuli with high-frequency trochaic stress, and half (13 AWS, 13 AWNS) were exposed to identical stimuli with lower-frequency iambic stress.
resultsNo differences in immediate repetition accuracy for trochaic or iambic nonwords were observed for either group. However, AWS were less accurate when recalling iambic nonwords than trochaic nonwords in the absence of auditory-orthographic cues.
conclusionsManipulation of two factors which may minimize phonological demand during standard nonword repetition tasks increased the number of errors in AWS compared to AWNS. These findings suggest greater vulnerability in phonological working memory in AWS, even when producing nonwords as short as two syllables.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.