ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2025
Attention Bias in School-Age Children Who Stutter: Evidence From a Dot-Probe Task.
Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2025. 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.
- The role of social anxiety and attentional focus in a virtual reality environment on articulatory control in adults who stutter.Journal of fluency disorders · 2026Article
- Predicting the impact of stuttering in the school years.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCognitive models of anxiety attribute anxiety and ruminative thought patterns to selective processing of threat-related stimuli that automatically capture attention. We explored whether stuttering was associated with similar attentional biases by examining: (a) whether school-age children who stutter (CWS) differed from controls in selective processing of threat-related and neutral stimuli and (b) whether attentional biases in CWS were specific to threat stimuli that reflected stuttering-related experience.
methodParticipants included 39 children (19 CWS), ages 8 to 15 years. Children completed a dot-probe task in which they responded as quickly as possible to on-screen probes that replaced threat-related or neutral words. Three types of threat words were presented: (a) general threat words; (b) words related to stuttering; and (c) personalized words on which participants anticipated stuttering. Attention bias (AB) was computed based on reaction times for congruent conditions (probe replaced threat stimuli) relative to incongruent conditions (probe replaced neutral stimuli) and compared across groups and stimulus types.
resultsStrong evidence for an AB effect was observed for CWS but not for controls, as demonstrated by faster responses to congruent relative to incongruent trials. Within the stuttering group, AB effects were driven primarily by stuttering-related and personal words but not general threat words.
conclusionsFindings indicate that CWS preferentially allocate attention toward stimuli relevant to stuttering experiences. Further research is needed to clarify how such selective processing may contribute to the development of stuttering-related concerns, psycho-emotional reactions to stuttering, and associated behaviors, such as avoidance of sounds, words, or speaking situations. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.29231180.
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.