Speech-Motor Control and Interhemispheric Relations in Recovered and Persistent Stuttering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The neurological basis of stuttering is associated with anomalies of interhemispheric relations and of the neural mechanisms of speech-motor control, specifically those involving the supplementary motor area (SMA). Stuttering typically develops through childhood and adolescence but many children will recover without formal treatment or intervention. The hypothesis that such spontaneous recovery is related to a maturation of the SMA is explored. Four experimental tasks were performed by adults whose stuttering has persisted, adults who reported having stuttered as children, and a control group of adults who reported never having stuttered. A Sequence Reproduction Finger Tapping task (Webster, 1986) and a Bimanual Crank Turning task (Preilowski, 1972) examined the functioning of the SMA, and 2 Divided Visual Field tasks examined asymmetries of hemispheric activation. The overall pattern of results for persistent stutterers compared to nonstutterers was consistent with motor-perceptual anomalies previously reported in the literature. The Bimanual Crank Turning task revealed additionally that the bimanual coordination deficits reported in adults who stutter are kinesthetically based and mediated through anterior callosal systems, including the SMA. Ex-stutterers were similar to nonstutterers in their performance of the motor control tasks, but similar to persistent stutterers in perceptual asymmetries associated with Divided Visual Field tasks. Taken together, the results from the four experimental tasks support the general hypothesis that an anomaly in interhemispheric relations and a deficit in the mechanisms of speech-motor control are each a necessary but not sufficient condition for stuttering and that recovery from childhood stuttering reflects a maturation of the mechanisms of speech-motor control.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".