Sheila V. Stager

The Effects of Fluency-Evoking Conditions on Voicing Onset Types in Persons Who Do and Do Not Stutter.

Voicing onset changes between control conditions and three fluency-evoking conditions (choral reading [CHORAL], delayed auditory feedback [DAF], and noise [NOISE]) were studied in 12 persons who do not stutter and 10 who do stutter. Voicing onsets were distinguished physiologically using airflow prior to voicing, with zero airflow prevoicing categorized as hard and the rest as breathy. Persons who stutter were more fluent under all fluency-evoking conditions than control conditions. Speaking under fluency-evoking conditions did not significantly increase the overall proportion of breathy onsets from control conditions for either group. However, looking only at hard onsets in the control condition, we found that both groups changed significantly more to breathy (p = 0.001) under CHORAL and NOISE. In persons who stutter, onset type was not associated with whether a word was produced fluently or dysfluently in the control condition. Also, no relationship was found between onsets changing to breathy under fluency-evoking conditions and onsets changing to fluent. The results suggest that although fluency-evoking conditions can modify some voicing onset behaviors, these modifications do not relate to improvements in fluency.

Characteristics of Fluency and Speech in Two Families With High Incidences of Stuttering

PURPOSE This study presents data from 2 families with high incidence of stuttering, comparing methods of phenotype assignment and exploring the presence of other fluency disorders and corresponding speech characteristics. METHOD Three methods for assigning phenotype of stuttering were used: self-identification, family identification, and expert identification. Agreement on which individuals were assigned by each of these methods was studied. Multiple measures of fluency and speech production were obtained. RESULTS Self-reports and descriptions of blocking rather than self-identification as a person who stutters demonstrated the best agreement with expert identification of stuttering. Family identification showed poor agreement with both expert and self-identification of stuttering. Using binary categories of fluent or stuttering, 90% of individuals in 1 family were classified by expert consensus. Only 70% of the other family could be similarly categorized. Experts required 2 other categories, cluttering and other fluency disorders, to fully characterize dysfluency within this family. These 2 families also demonstrated differences in speech production. CONCLUSION Some families with high incidence of stuttering may also have high incidence of other fluency disorders and other speech-production difficulties. This finding may have ramifications for genetic studies, including criteria for defining phenotype and collapsing data across multiple families.