Inhibitory control in childhood stuttering

K. Eggers, L. de Nil, B.R.H. Van den Bergh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

Purpose
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether previously reported parental questionnaire-based differences in inhibitory control (IC; Eggers, De Nil, & Van den Bergh, 2010) would be supported by direct measurement of IC using a computer task.
Method
Participants were 30 children who stutter (CWS; mean age = 7;05 years) and 30 children who not stutter (CWNS; mean age = 7;05 years). Participants were matched on age and gender (±3 months). IC was assessed by the Go/NoGo task of the Amsterdam Neuropsychological Tasks (De Sonneville, 2009).
Results
Results indicated that CWS, compared to CWNS, (a) exhibited more false alarms and premature responses, (b) showed lower reaction times for false alarms, and (c) were less able to adapt their response style after experiencing response errors.
Conclusions
Our findings provide further support for the hypothesis that CWS and CWNS differ on IC. CWS, as a group, were lower in IC pointing toward a lowered ability to inhibit prepotent response tendencies. The findings were linked to previous IC-related studies and to emerging theoretical frameworks of stuttering development.Educational objectives: The reader will be able to: (1) describe the concept of inhibitory control, and its functional significance; (2) describe the findings on self-regulatory processes, attentional processes, and inhibitory control in CWS; (3) identify which Go/NoGo task variables differentiated between CWS and CWNS; and (4) summarize the theoretical implications for the development of stuttering and the possible clinical implications.Highlights► CWS exhibited more false alarms and premature responses on the Go/NoGo task. ► CWS showed lower reaction times for false alarms on the Go/NoGo task. ► CWS were less able to adapt their response style after experiencing response errors.
Keywords: Stuttering, Children, Inhibitory control, Temperament, Executive control
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-13
JournalJournal of Fluency Disorders
Volume38
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2013

Fingerprint

childhood
Executive Function
Inhibitory Control
Childhood Stuttering
questionnaire
gender
ability
Group
Stuttering
time
Surveys and Questionnaires
Reaction Time

Cite this

Eggers, K. ; de Nil, L. ; Van den Bergh, B.R.H. / Inhibitory control in childhood stuttering. In: Journal of Fluency Disorders. 2013 ; Vol. 38, No. 1. pp. 1-13.
@article{a91e918469af4a7bb85e5572d2640bef,
title = "Inhibitory control in childhood stuttering",
abstract = "PurposeThe purpose of this study was to investigate whether previously reported parental questionnaire-based differences in inhibitory control (IC; Eggers, De Nil, & Van den Bergh, 2010) would be supported by direct measurement of IC using a computer task.MethodParticipants were 30 children who stutter (CWS; mean age = 7;05 years) and 30 children who not stutter (CWNS; mean age = 7;05 years). Participants were matched on age and gender (±3 months). IC was assessed by the Go/NoGo task of the Amsterdam Neuropsychological Tasks (De Sonneville, 2009).ResultsResults indicated that CWS, compared to CWNS, (a) exhibited more false alarms and premature responses, (b) showed lower reaction times for false alarms, and (c) were less able to adapt their response style after experiencing response errors.ConclusionsOur findings provide further support for the hypothesis that CWS and CWNS differ on IC. CWS, as a group, were lower in IC pointing toward a lowered ability to inhibit prepotent response tendencies. The findings were linked to previous IC-related studies and to emerging theoretical frameworks of stuttering development.Educational objectives: The reader will be able to: (1) describe the concept of inhibitory control, and its functional significance; (2) describe the findings on self-regulatory processes, attentional processes, and inhibitory control in CWS; (3) identify which Go/NoGo task variables differentiated between CWS and CWNS; and (4) summarize the theoretical implications for the development of stuttering and the possible clinical implications.Highlights► CWS exhibited more false alarms and premature responses on the Go/NoGo task. ► CWS showed lower reaction times for false alarms on the Go/NoGo task. ► CWS were less able to adapt their response style after experiencing response errors.Keywords: Stuttering, Children, Inhibitory control, Temperament, Executive control",
author = "K. Eggers and {de Nil}, L. and {Van den Bergh}, B.R.H.",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1016/j.jfludis.2012.10.001",
language = "English",
volume = "38",
pages = "1--13",
journal = "Journal of Fluency Disorders",
issn = "0094-730X",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "1",

}

Eggers, K, de Nil, L & Van den Bergh, BRH 2013, 'Inhibitory control in childhood stuttering', Journal of Fluency Disorders, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2012.10.001

Inhibitory control in childhood stuttering. / Eggers, K.; de Nil, L.; Van den Bergh, B.R.H.

In: Journal of Fluency Disorders, Vol. 38, No. 1, 2013, p. 1-13.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Inhibitory control in childhood stuttering

AU - Eggers, K.

AU - de Nil, L.

AU - Van den Bergh, B.R.H.

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - PurposeThe purpose of this study was to investigate whether previously reported parental questionnaire-based differences in inhibitory control (IC; Eggers, De Nil, & Van den Bergh, 2010) would be supported by direct measurement of IC using a computer task.MethodParticipants were 30 children who stutter (CWS; mean age = 7;05 years) and 30 children who not stutter (CWNS; mean age = 7;05 years). Participants were matched on age and gender (±3 months). IC was assessed by the Go/NoGo task of the Amsterdam Neuropsychological Tasks (De Sonneville, 2009).ResultsResults indicated that CWS, compared to CWNS, (a) exhibited more false alarms and premature responses, (b) showed lower reaction times for false alarms, and (c) were less able to adapt their response style after experiencing response errors.ConclusionsOur findings provide further support for the hypothesis that CWS and CWNS differ on IC. CWS, as a group, were lower in IC pointing toward a lowered ability to inhibit prepotent response tendencies. The findings were linked to previous IC-related studies and to emerging theoretical frameworks of stuttering development.Educational objectives: The reader will be able to: (1) describe the concept of inhibitory control, and its functional significance; (2) describe the findings on self-regulatory processes, attentional processes, and inhibitory control in CWS; (3) identify which Go/NoGo task variables differentiated between CWS and CWNS; and (4) summarize the theoretical implications for the development of stuttering and the possible clinical implications.Highlights► CWS exhibited more false alarms and premature responses on the Go/NoGo task. ► CWS showed lower reaction times for false alarms on the Go/NoGo task. ► CWS were less able to adapt their response style after experiencing response errors.Keywords: Stuttering, Children, Inhibitory control, Temperament, Executive control

AB - PurposeThe purpose of this study was to investigate whether previously reported parental questionnaire-based differences in inhibitory control (IC; Eggers, De Nil, & Van den Bergh, 2010) would be supported by direct measurement of IC using a computer task.MethodParticipants were 30 children who stutter (CWS; mean age = 7;05 years) and 30 children who not stutter (CWNS; mean age = 7;05 years). Participants were matched on age and gender (±3 months). IC was assessed by the Go/NoGo task of the Amsterdam Neuropsychological Tasks (De Sonneville, 2009).ResultsResults indicated that CWS, compared to CWNS, (a) exhibited more false alarms and premature responses, (b) showed lower reaction times for false alarms, and (c) were less able to adapt their response style after experiencing response errors.ConclusionsOur findings provide further support for the hypothesis that CWS and CWNS differ on IC. CWS, as a group, were lower in IC pointing toward a lowered ability to inhibit prepotent response tendencies. The findings were linked to previous IC-related studies and to emerging theoretical frameworks of stuttering development.Educational objectives: The reader will be able to: (1) describe the concept of inhibitory control, and its functional significance; (2) describe the findings on self-regulatory processes, attentional processes, and inhibitory control in CWS; (3) identify which Go/NoGo task variables differentiated between CWS and CWNS; and (4) summarize the theoretical implications for the development of stuttering and the possible clinical implications.Highlights► CWS exhibited more false alarms and premature responses on the Go/NoGo task. ► CWS showed lower reaction times for false alarms on the Go/NoGo task. ► CWS were less able to adapt their response style after experiencing response errors.Keywords: Stuttering, Children, Inhibitory control, Temperament, Executive control

U2 - 10.1016/j.jfludis.2012.10.001

DO - 10.1016/j.jfludis.2012.10.001

M3 - Article

VL - 38

SP - 1

EP - 13

JO - Journal of Fluency Disorders

JF - Journal of Fluency Disorders

SN - 0094-730X

IS - 1

ER -