ArticleCognitive processing2020
Counting fast or slow, aloud or silently? A comparison of adult stutterers and non-stutterers.
Article in Cognitive processing, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influence of musical training on temporal productions when using fast and slow counting paces.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2024Article
- The Processing of Short Time Intervals: Some Critical Issues.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This study assesses factors influencing the capacity to maintain a steady rhythm during explicit counting activities. There are three counting paces (count every 800, 1200, or 1600 ms) and three experimental conditions (count silently, aloud and aloud in the presence of someone). The study also assesses the effect of a speech disorder, namely stuttering, on this counting ability by comparing the performance of a group of adult stutterers (n = 21) to that of a group of adult non-stutterers (n = 24). For temporal variability, in addition to replicating the fact that counting more slowly leads to lower performance, the results show that there are benefits to expect when participants count aloud instead of silently. There is no main effect of group, but the interaction between the experimental condition, the counting pace, and the group is significant. Adult non-stutterers are better than adult stutterers in the silent and long time-interval conditions (1600 ms). The significantly higher variability at 1600 ms indicates a loss of efficiency in the capacity to keep time constant when counting is slow, and it is in this condition that stutterers will gain the most benefits from counting aloud instead of silently.
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.