ArticleJournal of fluency disorders2021
Cognitive control of action naming in adults who stutter.
Article in Journal of fluency disorders, 2021. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring the Activation of Target Words in Picture Naming in Children Who Stutter: Evidence From Event-Related Potentials.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2024Article
- Exploring the activation of target words in adults who stutter with and without conscious intention to speak: ERP evidence.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
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeBased on previous evidence that cognitive control of lexical selection in object (noun) naming operates differently in adults who stutter (AWS) versus typically-fluent adults (TFA), the aim was to investigate cognitive control of lexical selection in action (verb) naming in AWS.
method12 AWS and 12 TFA named line drawings depicting actions using verbs. Half of the pictures had high-agreement action names and the other half low-agreement action names. Naming accuracy and reaction times (RT), and event-related potentials (ERPs) time-locked to picture onset, were compared between groups.
resultsNaming RTs were slower for low- versus high-agreement trials, and the magnitude of this effect was larger in AWS versus TFA. Delta-plot analysis of naming RTs revealed that individual differences in selective inhibition were associated with the agreement effect on naming RTs in AWS but not TFA. Action naming elicited frontal-central N2 activity in both agreement conditions in TFA but not AWS. Additionally, a later, posterior P3b component was affected by agreement in TFA only. In AWS, low-agreement action naming elicited frontal P3a activation.
conclusionsResults suggest that cognitive control of action name selection was qualitatively different between groups. In TFA, cognitive control of lexical selection in action naming involved nonselective inhibition, as well as more efficient working memory updating on high- versus low-agreement trials. In AWS, cognitive control of low-agreement action naming involved increased focal attention. Individual differences in selective inhibition may have moderated cognitive control of action naming in AWS.
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.