Effects of Monitoring Condition and Frequency-Altered Feedback on Stuttering Frequency The purpose of the study was to examine stuttering frequency during speaking conditions that are believed to mitigate stuttering frequency both with normal nonaltered auditory feedback (NAF) and a known fluency-enhancing feedback. Specifically, stuttering frequency was examined as a function of three monitoring conditions under NAF and frequency-altered feedback (FAF): ... Research Article
Research Article  |   December 01, 1999
Effects of Monitoring Condition and Frequency-Altered Feedback on Stuttering Frequency
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Joseph Kalinowski
    East Carolina University Greenville, NC
  • Andrew Stuart
    East Carolina University Greenville, NC
  • Loma Wamsley
    East Carolina University Greenville, NC
  • Michael P. Rastatter
    East Carolina University Greenville, NC
Article Information
Speech, Voice & Prosodic Disorders / Fluency Disorders / Speech / Research Articles
Research Article   |   December 01, 1999
Effects of Monitoring Condition and Frequency-Altered Feedback on Stuttering Frequency
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, December 1999, Vol. 42, 1347-1354. doi:10.1044/jslhr.4206.1347
History: Received November 9, 1998 , Accepted April 14, 1999
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, December 1999, Vol. 42, 1347-1354. doi:10.1044/jslhr.4206.1347
History: Received November 9, 1998; Accepted April 14, 1999

The purpose of the study was to examine stuttering frequency during speaking conditions that are believed to mitigate stuttering frequency both with normal nonaltered auditory feedback (NAF) and a known fluency-enhancing feedback. Specifically, stuttering frequency was examined as a function of three monitoring conditions under NAF and frequency-altered feedback (FAF): no monitoring (i.e., speaking alone, in the absence of audio and visual recording), audiovisual monitoring (i.e., speaking alone with audiovisual recording), and audiovisual monitoring with observers (i.e., speaking with audiovisual recording in the presence of two observers). Seven adults and one adolescent who stutter served as participants. Stuttering frequency was differentially affected across monitoring conditions under each auditory feedback condition (p = .027). Post hoc analyses revealed no significant difference in stuttering frequency between the two conditions in the absence of the observers (i.e., no monitoring vs. audiovisual monitoring) under NAF (p = .45). There was, however, a significant difference in stuttering frequency for the no-monitoring and audiovisual-monitoring conditions relative to the audiovisual-monitoring-with-observers condition (p = .0002). There was no statistically significant difference in stuttering frequency across monitoring conditions under FAF (p > .05). The findings are consistent with the notion that during NAF stuttering frequency varies as a function of hierarchical socioenvironmental conditions in which inanimate monitoring conditions constitute one entity. Such a relationship does not exist during FAF.

KEY WORDS: stuttering, cognitive input, environmental stress, stuttering treatment

Acknowledgments
The editorial comments of three anonymous reviews were invaluable in the revision of this manuscript. The assistance of Ms. Catherine Montgomery towards the completion of this research is greatly appreciated.
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access