Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38911458›Full record

ArticleNeurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.)2024

Reactive Inhibitory Control Precedes Overt Stuttering Events.

Joan Orpella, Graham Flick, M Florencia Assaneo, Ravi Shroff, Liina Pylkkänen, David Poeppel, Eric S Jackson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Temporally structured motor and auditory representations in covert syllable production.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. An active inference account of stuttering behavior.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Eliciting Stuttering in School-Age and Adolescent Stutterers in Experimental Settings.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2023
    Article
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

7 authors.

Joan OrpellaDepartment of Neuroscience, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9521-2900
Graham FlickDepartment of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9183-4040
M Florencia AssaneoInstitute of Neurobiology, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2793-7827
Ravi ShroffDepartment of Applied Statistics, Social Science, and Humanities, New York University, New York, NY, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3783-9630
Liina PylkkänenDepartment of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6332-9378
David PoeppelDepartment of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0184-163X
Eric S JacksonDepartment of Communicative Sciences and Disorders, New York University, New York, NY, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2896-0452

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research points to neurofunctional differences underlying fluent speech between stutterers and non-stutterers. Considerably less work has focused on processes that underlie stuttered vs. fluent speech. Additionally, most of this research has focused on speech motor processes despite contributions from cognitive processes prior to the onset of stuttered speech. We used MEG to test the hypothesis that reactive inhibitory control is triggered prior to stuttered speech. Twenty-nine stutterers completed a delayed-response task that featured a cue (prior to a go cue) signaling the imminent requirement to produce a word that was either stuttered or fluent. Consistent with our hypothesis, we observed increased beta power likely emanating from the right pre-supplementary motor area (R-preSMA)-an area implicated in reactive inhibitory control-in response to the cue preceding stuttered vs. fluent productions. Beta power differences between stuttered and fluent trials correlated with stuttering severity and participants' percentage of trials stuttered increased exponentially with beta power in the R-preSMA. Trial-by-trial beta power modulations in the R-preSMA following the cue predicted whether a trial would be stuttered or fluent. Stuttered trials were also associated with delayed speech onset suggesting an overall slowing or freezing of the speech motor system that may be a consequence of inhibitory control. Post-hoc analyses revealed that independently generated anticipated words were associated with greater beta power and more stuttering than researcher-assisted anticipated words, pointing to a relationship between self-perceived likelihood of stuttering (i.e., anticipation) and inhibitory control. This work offers a neurocognitive account of stuttering by characterizing cognitive processes that precede overt stuttering events.

Indexed as

anticipationfluencyMEGpreSMAreactive inhibitory controlstuttering

Identifiers

PMID38911458
PMCPMC11192511

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.