Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31465711›Full record

ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2019

Limited Pre-Speech Auditory Modulation in Individuals Who Stutter: Data and Hypotheses.

Ludo Max, Ayoub Daliri

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Active inference and speech motor control.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. An active inference account of stuttering behavior.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Spatiotemporal Mapping of Auditory Onsets during Speech Production.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Reactive Inhibitory Control Precedes Overt Stuttering Events.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Perceptual formant discrimination during speech movement planning.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The Role of Sensory Feedback in Developmental Stuttering: A Review.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2021
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ludo MaxDepartment of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle.
Ayoub DaliriCollege of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
Arizona State University · USHaskins Laboratories · US

Funding

Neural control and sensorimotor mechanisms in stutteringR01DC007603 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI MAX, LUDO · 2006 to 2010
$1.9M
Dynamic bidirectional sensorimotor interactions in stutteringR01DC017444 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI MAX, LUDO · 2019 to 2023
$1.6M
Adaptive sensorimotor learning in speech productionR01DC014510 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI MAX, LUDO · 2015 to 2019
$1.5M
CIHR MOP-137001NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC007603NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC014510NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC017444
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose We review and interpret our recent series of studies investigating motor-to-auditory influences during speech movement planning in fluent speakers and speakers who stutter. In those studies, we recorded auditory evoked potentials in response to probe tones presented immediately prior to speaking or at the equivalent time in no-speaking control conditions. As a measure of pre-speech auditory modulation (PSAM), we calculated changes in auditory evoked potential amplitude in the speaking conditions relative to the no-speaking conditions. Whereas adults who do not stutter consistently showed PSAM, this phenomenon was greatly reduced or absent in adults who stutter. The same between-group difference was observed in conditions where participants expected to hear their prerecorded speech played back without actively producing it, suggesting that the speakers who stutter use inefficient forward modeling processes rather than inefficient motor command generation processes. Compared with fluent participants, adults who stutter showed both less PSAM and less auditory-motor adaptation when producing speech while exposed to formant-shifted auditory feedback. Across individual participants, however, PSAM and auditory-motor adaptation did not correlate in the typically fluent group, and they were negatively correlated in the stuttering group. Interestingly, speaking with a consistent 100-ms delay added to the auditory feedback signal-normalized PSAM in speakers who stutter, and there no longer was a between-group difference in this condition. Conclusions Combining our own data with human and animal neurophysiological evidence from other laboratories, we interpret the overall findings as suggesting that (a) speech movement planning modulates auditory processing in a manner that may optimize its tuning characteristics for monitoring feedback during speech production and, (b) in conditions with typical auditory feedback, adults who stutter do not appropriately modulate the auditory system prior to speech onset. Lack of modulation of speakers who stutter may lead to maladaptive feedback-driven movement corrections that manifest themselves as repetitive movements or postural fixations.

Indexed as

Auditory PerceptionAdultEvoked Potentials, AuditoryHumansModels, TheoreticalSpeechStuttering

Identifiers

PMID31465711
PMCPMC6813031
OpenAlexW2970404050

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.