ArticleJournal of fluency disorders2025
Working memory capacity and rumination in adults who stutter.
Article in Journal of fluency disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Meta-Analytical Review of Executive Function Skills in Adults Who Stutter.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeDifficulty discarding irrelevant negative stimuli activated in working memory has been linked to increased rumination. Adults who stutter (AWS) report (a) rumination about communication events, and (b) difficulties during tasks that require manipulation of information held in working memory compared to non-stuttering adults (AWNS). Given the link between rumination and working memory, this study examined whether AWS discard negative stimuli faster or slower compared to AWNS, and whether speed of discarding negative information is linked to generalized rumination.
methodTo assess the relationship between working memory and rumination, 26 participants (14 AWS, 12 AWNS) completed a version of the Modified Sternberg Task. Participants first memorized wordlists with positive or negative emotional valence. Participants were then cued to recall a specific wordlist, followed by a prompt word that either matched or conflicted with the wordlist. Manual response latency was compared between groups.
resultsAWS and AWNS exhibit comparable speed when discarding irrelevant stimuli, with both groups slower to discard negative rather than positive irrelevant stimuli. Latency of discarding negative information was not associated with self-reported rumination in AWS.
conclusionsPreliminary data indicate no differences in the rate at which AWS and AWNS regulate negative stimuli. Additionally, rumination does not appear to be uniquely associated with the speed at which negative information is discarded. Further research is warranted to determine what role, if any, working memory has in the repetitive negative thinking reported by some, but not all, individuals who stutter.
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.