Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
31 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Why do we need a good definition of stuttering? |
It is helpful for assessment, diagnosis, and when to dismiss someone from therapy. |
|
|
A few aspects to consider when defining stuttering |
impact on emotions and cognition, speech characteristics, motor skills of the patient and variability. |
|
|
World Health Organizations Classifications |
impairment, disability, handicap |
|
|
How Yaruss changed the WHO classifications |
Impairment: stuttering itself Disability: impact on communication Handicap: Limitations on life roles. |
|
|
Yairi and Seery stuttering definition |
focus is on a disorder that changes over time. |
|
|
Characteristics of Stuttering (SLD) |
1. Part-Word (PW): ttthis 2. Whole Word (WW): she-she 3. Dysrhythmic Phonation (DP): prolongations 4. Repitition Units: RU
|
|
|
Characteristics of Stuttering (OD) |
1. interjections (I): um, uh, like 2. Revisions/Abandon (R): start saying something and then quit. 3. Multisyllabic (M): Recre- instead of recreation multiple times. 4. Phrase Repititions (P) |
|
|
Physical Characteristics & Reactive Components |
1. pitch/loudness variations 2. accessory/secondary: tremor, tension, body movement. 3. changes in heartbeat, muscle contractions, digestive disturbances. 4. physiological adjustment, emotion, self-concept, lack of concentration |
|
|
Stuttered Disfluencies v. Normal Disfluencies |
Some who don't stutter have more dysfluencies but people who stutter have more SLD. |
|
|
What helps determine if someone is stuttering or not? |
1. frequency 2. type 3. duration 4. manner of dysfluencies |
|
|
How can psychological set of a listener affect perception of stuttered or non-stuttered speech? |
This is how a person is asked to do a task. Depending on what you ask and how you ask it, it may have a different result. |
|
|
Prevelance and Incidence of stuttering |
P: 1% I: 5% |
|
|
Bluemel's stages of stuttering and its' criticism. |
Primary: no tension, no awareness or emotional reaction. Secondary: happened after a traumatic event so opposite than primary. Criticism: primary stuttering wasn't really stuttering. |
|
|
Bloodstein's 4 stages |
1. 2-6 yrs; stutters on function words, repititions, unaware. 2. school age; stuttering is chronic, aware, stutter when excited, stutter on content words 3. late childhood; stuttering occurs in specific situations, some reaction. 4. Adults; anticipate stuttering, word fears, emotional reactions, avoidance. |
|
|
Evidence for Bloodstein's phases |
clinical reports; saw phases across developmental milestones. |
|
|
Bloodstein's struggle and continuity hypothesis |
struggle: based off fear, tension, fragmentation. continuity: variation of normal fluent speech. All speech = disfluent. |
|
|
Van Riper Tracks |
1. most dominant (44%): easy reps -> prolongations, later developed fear, awareness, and avoidance. 2. (25%): gradual onset with delayed speech and poor articulation. Few prolongations. no awareness/avoidance. 3. (11%): onset following trauma; later age; prolongations, blocks, awareness, frustration, fear, avoidance. most severe. 4. (9%): sudden and late onset, WW reps, no fear/avoidance, no interruptions or forcing. |
|
|
Johnson where stuttering began in ears of parent |
he said development in normal fluent and stutterers were same but parents were the ones who became anxious. |
|
|
Johnson's conclusions and criticism |
concluded: stuttering was caused by bystanders reactions. criticism: the age range was too wide and had a late onset. |
|
|
Monster study and stuttering as a learned behavior |
students with normal fluent speech were told they stuttered and in return, developed stuttering-like qualities. placebo affect. |
|
|
Sheehan, Wischner, Shames and Sherrick |
Sheehan: repetitions of stuttering Wischner: kids shows instrumental avoidance. Shames & Sherrick: reactions (negative or positive) enforced stuttering behavior. |
|
|
Smith and Kelly criticism on singular theories |
singular theories saw stuttering as an event or linear disorder. Smith and Kelly say it's dynamic. One thing affects another.
|
|
|
Multifactorial model components |
environment, genetics, emotion, cognition, language, speech, motor system. |
|
|
Demands-capacities model cause of stuttering |
when the environment or demands exceeds a child's capacity. multiple cause model. |
|
|
Covert Repair hypothesis |
make an error and repair it before the utterance is even said. Leads to stuttering. |
|
|
Orton and Travis' cerebral dominance theory |
they felt one hemisphere needed to be more dominant than the other. Lack of dominance is caused by stress. They tried to make a left-handed person, right-handed. |
|
|
Moore's theory of atypical lateralization |
the right hemisphere is for speech production and global processing so people who stuttered were inefficient. (if bad with speech production then bad with global processing also) |
|
|
Webster's deficient left-hemisphere functioning theory |
right hemisphere interferes with the left causing a deficiency (stuttering) |
|
|
Brain in people who stutter and people's view. |
Brain is different in people who stutter. Salmelin: PW's activated motor areas 1st before planning areas. Fox: right hemisphere dominance; left auditory cortex was inactive. Foundas: Physical brain differences; more gyri. Somer: less myelin. Hickok & Poeppel: dorsal stream: auditory/motor ventral: sound into meaning.
|
|
|
Right hemisphere activation is compensatory |
fluent people use their right hemisphere more. Right hemisphere activates more to compensate for the left, in people who stutter. |
|
|
Limitations of brain imaging |
PET: risk of radioactivity; can't get repeated scans, can't use children, not good resolution. MRI: no timing date; very noisy. EEG: no indicator of where brain signals come from. MEG: no image of subcortical areas. |
