The Efficiency of Attentional Networks in Children Who Stutter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether previously reported questionnaire-based differences in self-regulatory behaviors (Eggers, De Nil, & Van den Bergh, 2009, 2010) between children who stutter (CWS) and children who do not stutter (CWNS) would also be reflected in their underlying attentional networks. METHOD: Participants consisted of 41 CWS (mean age = 6;09; years;months) and 41 CWNS (mean age = 6;09) ranging in age from 4;00 to 9;00. Participants were matched on age and gender. The efficiency of the attentional networks was assessed by using the computerized Attention Network Test (Fan, McCandliss, Sommer, Raz, & Posner, 2002). RESULTS: Primary results indicated that CWS had a significantly lower efficiency of the orienting network compared with CWNS, whereas no differences were found on the alerting or executive control network. CONCLUSION: Current findings corroborate previously found differences in self-regulatory behavior and were taken to suggest a possible role for attentional processes in developmental stuttering.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".