Edward C Brown, Andrew Bowers, M Blake Rafferty, Devin M Casenhiser, Kevin Reilly, Ashley Harkrider, Tim Saltuklaroglu
{"title":"Influences of speaking task demands on sensorimotor oscillations in adults who stutter: Implications for speech motor control.","authors":"Edward C Brown, Andrew Bowers, M Blake Rafferty, Devin M Casenhiser, Kevin Reilly, Ashley Harkrider, Tim Saltuklaroglu","doi":"10.1016/j.clinph.2024.10.017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Motivated by previous inconsistent findings, this study aims to improve understanding of sensorimotor beta (β; 15-30 Hz) and alpha (α; 8-14 Hz) speech-related power differences between stuttering and non-stuttering adults.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Electroencephalography was recorded as adults who stutter (AWS) and matched fluent controls answered questions in Quiet and Informational Masked backgrounds. Bilateral sensorimotor β and α power during speech planning and execution were measured from mu (μ) rhythm components.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared to controls, AWS exhibited reduced left hemisphere β and α power in both speaking conditions during speech planning and execution. AWS displayed reduced left α power in the Informational Masking compared to Quiet. Within AWS β and α power, which were tightly coupled, oppositely predicted stuttering severity and β-α dissociation (β minus α) was the strongest predictor.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Neither β nor α power are reliable markers of speech motor stability due to their sensitivity to speech task automaticity. However, relationships between these two sensorimotor rhythms warrant further investigation for understanding motor control.</p><p><strong>Significance: </strong>Data help explain previous mixed findings in reference to extant models of speech motor control in stuttering and may have clinical implications for developing neurostimulation protocols targeting improved speech fluency.</p>","PeriodicalId":10671,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Neurophysiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Neurophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2024.10.017","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: Motivated by previous inconsistent findings, this study aims to improve understanding of sensorimotor beta (β; 15-30 Hz) and alpha (α; 8-14 Hz) speech-related power differences between stuttering and non-stuttering adults.
Methods: Electroencephalography was recorded as adults who stutter (AWS) and matched fluent controls answered questions in Quiet and Informational Masked backgrounds. Bilateral sensorimotor β and α power during speech planning and execution were measured from mu (μ) rhythm components.
Results: Compared to controls, AWS exhibited reduced left hemisphere β and α power in both speaking conditions during speech planning and execution. AWS displayed reduced left α power in the Informational Masking compared to Quiet. Within AWS β and α power, which were tightly coupled, oppositely predicted stuttering severity and β-α dissociation (β minus α) was the strongest predictor.
Conclusion: Neither β nor α power are reliable markers of speech motor stability due to their sensitivity to speech task automaticity. However, relationships between these two sensorimotor rhythms warrant further investigation for understanding motor control.
Significance: Data help explain previous mixed findings in reference to extant models of speech motor control in stuttering and may have clinical implications for developing neurostimulation protocols targeting improved speech fluency.
期刊介绍:
As of January 1999, The journal Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, and its two sections Electromyography and Motor Control and Evoked Potentials have amalgamated to become this journal - Clinical Neurophysiology.
Clinical Neurophysiology is the official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology, the Brazilian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, the Czech Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, the Italian Clinical Neurophysiology Society and the International Society of Intraoperative Neurophysiology.The journal is dedicated to fostering research and disseminating information on all aspects of both normal and abnormal functioning of the nervous system. The key aim of the publication is to disseminate scholarly reports on the pathophysiology underlying diseases of the central and peripheral nervous system of human patients. Clinical trials that use neurophysiological measures to document change are encouraged, as are manuscripts reporting data on integrated neuroimaging of central nervous function including, but not limited to, functional MRI, MEG, EEG, PET and other neuroimaging modalities.