ArticleBrazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology
Impact of auditory feedback alterations in individuals with stuttering.
Article in Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Therapeutic potential of robots for people who stutter: a preliminary study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
- Recursive Self-feedback Improved Speech Fluency in Two Patients with Chronic Nonfluent Aphasia.Aphasiology · 2024Article
- Deficit or Difference? Effects of Altered Auditory Feedback on Speech Fluency and Kinematic Variability in Adults Who Stutter.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2021Article
- The Application of EEG Mu Rhythm Measures to Neurophysiological Research in Stuttering.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionElectrophysiological evidence has reinforced the hypothesis that stuttering is associated with a deficit in modulation of the cortical auditory system during speech planning, contributing to an inefficient auditory feedback monitoring and, consequently, resulting in disfluencies.
objectiveTo verify the impact of auditory feedback modifications on the spontaneous speech of individuals with stuttering.
methodsSixteen individuals, of both genders, aged 8-17 years and 11 months, with a diagnosis of persistent neurodevelopmental stuttering, were divided into two groups: Moderate Stuttering Group and Severe Stuttering Group. The testing procedures consisted of three stages: collection of identification data, audiological assessment and fluency evaluation of spontaneous speech in four auditory feedback conditions (non-altered, delayed, masked and amplified). The speech sample obtained in the non-altered feedback was considered the control; the others were considered as modified listening conditions.
resultsRegarding the stuttering-like disfluencies, a statistically significant difference was observed in the intragroup analysis of the Moderate Stuttering Group between non-altered and masked auditory feedback (p = 0.042), as well as between non-altered and amplified (p = 0.042). There was a statistically significant difference in the Severe Stuttering Group for all auditory feedback modifications in relation to the non-altered (delayed p = 0.012, masked p = 0.025 and amplified p = 0.042). There was also a reduction in flows of syllables and words-per-minute in the Moderate Stuttering Group for the delayed auditory feedback, as compared to non-altered (p = 0.017 and p = 0.025, respectively).
conclusionThe effect of delayed auditory feedback was favorable for the Severe Stuttering Group, promoting speech fluency. The conditions of masked and amplified auditory feedback resulted in speech benefits in both groups, decreasing the number of stuttering-like disfluencies. The speech rate was not impaired by any listening condition analyzed.
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.