{"title":"在N背任务中口吃和不口吃的成年人之间听觉-言语工作记忆的差异","authors":"Zoi Gkalitsiou , Courtney Byrd","doi":"10.1016/j.jfludis.2023.105998","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>The purpose of this study was to investigate auditory verbal working memory in adults who do (AWS) and do not (AWNS) stutter using a highly demanding linguistic N-back task.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Fifteen AWS and 15 AWNS matched in age, gender and educational level were asked to hear series of words and respond by pressing a “yes” button if the word they just heard was the same as the word one, two, or three trials back. Words were either phonologically similar (i.e., Phonological Linguistic Condition) or phonologically dissimilar (i.e., Neutral Linguistic Condition). Accuracy and false alarms rates as well as reaction time on correct target trials, missed target trials and false alarms were collected and analyzed.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Differences were not found between AWS and AWNS in accuracy. Both groups were more accurate and significantly faster in 1- followed by 2- followed by 3-back trials. However, AWS were significantly slower than AWNS in the 2-back level, regardless of linguistic condition. Furthermore, AWS demonstrated more false alarms compared to AWNS.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Results revealed differences in auditory verbal working memory and interference control between AWS and AWNS when processing highly linguistically demanding stimuli.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49166,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Fluency Disorders","volume":"77 ","pages":"Article 105998"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differences in auditory verbal working memory between adults who do and do not stutter on an N-back task\",\"authors\":\"Zoi Gkalitsiou , Courtney Byrd\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jfludis.2023.105998\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>The purpose of this study was to investigate auditory verbal working memory in adults who do (AWS) and do not (AWNS) stutter using a highly demanding linguistic N-back task.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Fifteen AWS and 15 AWNS matched in age, gender and educational level were asked to hear series of words and respond by pressing a “yes” button if the word they just heard was the same as the word one, two, or three trials back. Words were either phonologically similar (i.e., Phonological Linguistic Condition) or phonologically dissimilar (i.e., Neutral Linguistic Condition). Accuracy and false alarms rates as well as reaction time on correct target trials, missed target trials and false alarms were collected and analyzed.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Differences were not found between AWS and AWNS in accuracy. Both groups were more accurate and significantly faster in 1- followed by 2- followed by 3-back trials. However, AWS were significantly slower than AWNS in the 2-back level, regardless of linguistic condition. Furthermore, AWS demonstrated more false alarms compared to AWNS.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Results revealed differences in auditory verbal working memory and interference control between AWS and AWNS when processing highly linguistically demanding stimuli.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49166,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Fluency Disorders\",\"volume\":\"77 \",\"pages\":\"Article 105998\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Fluency Disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094730X23000414\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Fluency Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094730X23000414","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Differences in auditory verbal working memory between adults who do and do not stutter on an N-back task
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to investigate auditory verbal working memory in adults who do (AWS) and do not (AWNS) stutter using a highly demanding linguistic N-back task.
Methods
Fifteen AWS and 15 AWNS matched in age, gender and educational level were asked to hear series of words and respond by pressing a “yes” button if the word they just heard was the same as the word one, two, or three trials back. Words were either phonologically similar (i.e., Phonological Linguistic Condition) or phonologically dissimilar (i.e., Neutral Linguistic Condition). Accuracy and false alarms rates as well as reaction time on correct target trials, missed target trials and false alarms were collected and analyzed.
Results
Differences were not found between AWS and AWNS in accuracy. Both groups were more accurate and significantly faster in 1- followed by 2- followed by 3-back trials. However, AWS were significantly slower than AWNS in the 2-back level, regardless of linguistic condition. Furthermore, AWS demonstrated more false alarms compared to AWNS.
Conclusion
Results revealed differences in auditory verbal working memory and interference control between AWS and AWNS when processing highly linguistically demanding stimuli.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Fluency Disorders provides comprehensive coverage of clinical, experimental, and theoretical aspects of stuttering, including the latest remediation techniques. As the official journal of the International Fluency Association, the journal features full-length research and clinical reports; methodological, theoretical and philosophical articles; reviews; short communications and much more – all readily accessible and tailored to the needs of the professional.