Introduction
Persistent developmental stuttering manifests as prolongations or repetitions of speech sounds, or blocks to airflow, characteristically accompanied by elevated stress in muscle tissue of the face and articulatory system (Bloodstein et al., 2021). Behavioral manifestation is accompanied by variations in neurological exercise and morphology by comparability with ordinarily fluent audio system (Budde et al., 2014; Belyk et al., 2015; Neef et al., 2015a; Etchell et al., 2017).
A constant discovering in stuttering analysis is that the quantity of stuttering will be decreased with alterations to timing and/or audition throughout ongoing speech. Examples of fluency-inducing interventions for individuals who stutter embrace talking with masking (Kern, 1932; Cherry et al., 1956), with a metronome (Barber, 1939; Fransella and Beech, 1965), in refrain with one other speaker (Barber, 1940; Cherry et al., 1956), or in tandem with delayed (Neelly, 1961; Yates, 1963) and frequency-shifted (Howell et al., 1987) playback of ongoing speech. The findings are to a big diploma captured by the disruptive rhythm speculation (Howell et al., 1983; Howell, 2004), which proposes that sensory inputs further to personal speech audition might be maximally fluency-enhancing after they coordinate with ongoing speech.
Analysis because the Nineties reveals that the vestibular system in mammals responds to sonic and vibratory frequencies as much as 1,000Hz, and should section lock to greater frequencies (Rosengren and Colebatch, 2018; Curthoys et al., 2019). Vestibular sensitivity is significantly better to vibrations performed by way of the physique than to sound waves in air (Welgampola et al., 2003), a lot in order that body-conducted vibration created by the act of talking will deflect vestibular mechanoreceptors in people (Todd et al., 2008; Curthoys, 2017; Curthoys et al., 2019). Electrophysiological responses of vestibular origin in people are current at 70 dB above perceptual threshold for air-conducted stimuli, and 35 dB above perceptual threshold for body-conducted stimuli (McNerney and Burkard, 2011; consists of adjustment for temporal integration). Thus, when referenced to a 60 dBA sound degree typical of conversational speech, the indication is that air-conducted vestibular thresholds might be 10 dB above baseline and body-conducted vestibular thresholds 25 dB under baseline.
Deflection of vestibular mechanoreceptors by the vibrational vitality created by speech units off a series of exercise culminating in neural firing alongside the VIII cranial nerve. These neural firing patterns of vestibular origin might be coordinated with ongoing speech and, based on the disruptive rhythm speculation, will improve fluency. Contrariwise, if neural firing patterns of vestibular origin are delayed or attenuated, dysfluency could be anticipated. This examine was pre-registered (Gattie et al., 2019) with the speculation that vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials (VEMPs) in a stutter group would have considerably smaller amplitudes or considerably totally different latencies than in a non-stutter management group. Both outcome would help an interpretation through which the neural firing patterns arising from deflection of vestibular and cochlear mechanoreceptors mix otherwise between individuals who do and don’t stutter.
Supplies and Strategies
Background
Along with the corticopetal and corticofugal pathways typical to sensory methods, the vestibular system contains reflexes inflicting physique actions compensatory to modifications in head place or physique rotation. Examples embrace the vestibulo-collic reflex, which maintains steadiness, and the vestibulo-ocular reflex, which maintains path of gaze (Beraneck et al., 2014). Automated operation of reflex arcs through the brainstem (i.e., with no requisite cortical mediation) permits a quicker motor response than could be attainable if cortical involvement was needed (Goldberg, 2012).
Determine 1 reveals reflexes recognized in postural muscle tissue. Determine 2 reveals pathways for the vestibulo-collic reflex. Modelling of the vestibulo-collic reflex, together with appraisal of relative contributions from saccule, utricle and vestibular canals, and precise trajectory by way of vestibular nuclei, stays ongoing (Forbes et al., 2013). The vestibulo-collic reflex may in precept be recorded from any neck muscle (Forbes et al., 2018). A brief latency fragment of the vestibulo-collic reflex, known as a cervical VEMP, is continuously recorded utilizing floor electrodes over the sternocleidomastoid muscle (SCM) (Goldberg and Cullen, 2011).
Determine 1. Reflexes evoked by sound or vibration in postural muscle tissue. Circles present websites, laterality and approximate latencies based mostly on air-conducted stimulation. The fitting ear (strong purple headphone) is the stimulated facet. Strong circles present reflexes whose polarity has been confirmed with intramuscular recordings (black: excitatory; gray: inhibitory). Open circles present reflexes whose polarity has both not been definitively decided (triceps and gastrocnemius) or is understood to rely upon head place (soleus). Reproduced from Rosengren and Colebatch (2018), see authentic for references to supporting research. Inventive Commons Attribution License (CC-BY).
Determine 2. Recording association and neural pathways of the electrically evoked vestibulo-collic reflex in monkey and human, reproduced from Forbes et al. (2020). Single motor unit recordings had been constructed from the sternocleidomastoid muscle (SCM) utilizing irregular stimuli, and sine wave stimuli at frequencies as much as 300 Hz. Cervical motor unit exercise in each human and monkey was modulated by the stimuli. Recording of vestibular afferents within the monkey solely confirmed related modulation. See Forbes et al. (2020) for element of filtering and section locking results. When evaluated utilizing floor electrodes and sound or vibration stimuli, inhibition of SCM spindles will be measured because the cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential (VEMP) which is the topic of the present examine. INC, interstitial nucleus of Cajal; MN, motoneurons; MRST, medial reticulospinal tract; VN, vestibular nuclei; VST, vestibulospinal tract. Inventive Commons Attribution License (CC-BY).
The VEMP measures a brief inhibition of tonic exercise within the SCM (Corneil and Camp, 2018; Rosengren and Colebatch, 2018). It’s a massive response having a attribute peak (p1) and trough (n1). Measures of curiosity embrace the distinction in amplitude (p1-n1 amplitude) and time (p1-n1 latency) between the attribute peak and trough. In modelling research, the VEMP represents a superposition of motor unit motion potentials occurring at irregular time intervals (Wit and Kingma, 2006), with technology of motor unit motion potentials being inhibited following presentation of sound or vibration. The VEMP will be described by two mathematical features: one specifies the imply variety of motor unit motion potentials per unit of time, and the opposite describes the time course of a person motor unit motion potential (Lütkenhöner, 2019). As such, the VEMP doesn’t correspond on to neural firing charges of curiosity within the present examine (i.e., these alongside the VIII cranial nerve or inside vestibular nuclei). On this approach, interpretation of knowledge is disanalogous to experiments whose end result measures do straight correspond to neural firing charges of curiosity (e.g., many examine designs utilizing single cell recordings, electrocorticography or electroencephalography).
Vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials don’t present a whole appraisal of the vestibular system, and discover medical software as a part of a neuro-otological check battery. Cervical VEMPs are used clinically to determine acute vestibular syndrome, episodic vertigo, power dizziness or imbalance, and superior canal dehiscence and third window syndromes (Rosengren et al., 2019).
Contributors
This was a case management examine, with 15 individuals who stutter and a non-stutter group of 15 paired controls. All individuals had regular listening to as assessed by otoscopy, tympanometry and pure tone audiometry. Stuttering was assessed utilizing the SSI-4 (Riley, 2009). Non-stutter management individuals had SSI-4 scores decrease than 10, while individuals who stutter had SSI-4 scores between 18 and 39 (a variety from “delicate” to “very extreme” based on the SSI-4).
Stutter and non-stutter teams had been paired on intercourse, and to inside 0.05 years (SD 1.05) on age in mixture. Of the 15 non-stutter controls, the seven individuals aged youthful than 21 years had been chosen from a normative pattern of 48 undergraduate college students (Gattie et al., in preparation). VEMP response amplitudes in these controls are consultant of the normative pattern of 48, somewhat than a normative pattern of seven as would have been the case if controls aged youthful than 21 years had been sampled randomly from the final inhabitants. Full particulars of screening and pairing can be found within the Supplementary Materials.
Previous to any testing, all individuals gave written knowledgeable consent based on the Declaration of Helsinki. The College of Manchester Ethics Committee authorized the examine.
Electromyography
Vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials had been recorded on an Eclipse EP25 system (Interacoustics AS, Assens, Denmark). Disposable non-metallic silver chloride electrodes had been used (sort M0835, Biosense Medical, Essex, United Kingdom). Pores and skin was ready with NuPrep® (Weaver and Firm, CO, United States) previous to electrode attachment utilizing Ten20® conductive paste (Weaver and Firm, CO, United States). Electrode impedances had been maintained under 3 kΩ. An lively electrode was positioned over the SCM on the fitting hand facet, with reference and floor electrodes on the higher sternum and nasion, respectively.
The stimulus was a 500 Hz sinusoidal service with rectangular windowing generated by the Eclipse. This frequency is discovered to be optimum for VEMP testing (Rosengren et al., 2010; Papathanasiou et al., 2014). The rise/fall time of zero, and plateau time of two ms, gave traits intermediate between a tone burst and a click on (Laukli and Burkard, 2015). Stimuli had been delivered at a fee of 5.1 per second by way of a B81 bone conductor (Radioear, MN, United States), positioned on the mastoid bone behind the fitting ear. The bone conductor was calibrated with a Mannequin 4930 synthetic mastoid and 2250 Investigator (Brüel and Kjaer, Naerum, Denmark), and an Agilent 54621A 2-Channel Oscilloscope (Keysight, CA, United States). Calibrations had been based mostly on the substitute mastoid having a reference equal threshold pressure degree re 1 μN of 40.2 dB for 500 Hz. Interacoustics present a correction issue of 69.5 dB for peSPL to nHL conversion of a 2-2-2 500 Hz tone burst. This correction issue was utilized to the 0-1-0 500 Hz tone burst, with bone conduction ranges accordingly reported in dB HL. Thus, stimulus ranges on this report are calculated as they apply to the cochlea, somewhat than the vestibular system. Extra exactly, the stimulus ranges describe a physique performed equal to standardised sound stress ranges within the ear canal. Most stimulus degree was set at 40 dB HL, since sine waves with amplitude above 40 dB HL displayed clipped on the oscilloscope.
The electromyography (EMG) sign was amplified and band-pass filtered previous to sampling on the Eclipse system, utilizing the Interacoustics analysis license. Low go was a digital FIR filter of 102nd order at 1500 Hz, and excessive go was a ten Hz analog Butterworth filter of 1st order at 6 dB per octave. Pattern fee was 3 kHz.
Process
Contributors had been seated with the brow resting in opposition to a padded bar, utilizing equipment specifically constructed for this experiment (Determine 3). Contributors had been instructed to push their heads in opposition to the padded bar such that they’d keep an EMG biofeedback goal as shut as attainable to 50 μV root imply sq. (RMS) all through testing. If the background EMG was decrease than 50 μV RMS, the stimulus would cease taking part in and individuals had been instructed to push tougher. Contributors had been requested to push no tougher than they wanted to, and would hardly ever try to take action. The significance of sustaining a relentless background EMG was relayed to individuals, and the experimenter monitored background EMG all through.
Determine 3. Customized head bar. Contributors had been instructed to push in opposition to a padded bar utilizing the brow, such that sternocleidomastoid stress was maintained as shut as attainable to 50 μV RMS all through testing. Biofeedback within the Eclipse medical software program enabled individuals to observe sternocleidomastoid stress.
Eclipse recordings adopted the Interacoustics really useful process for VEMPs, together with rejection of epochs having peak or trough amplitudes with magnitude bigger than ±800 μV. A software program characteristic compensated for rejected epochs such that the averaged response to precisely 300 epochs was recorded for each stimulus degree examined. Such averages of 300 epochs might be referred to henceforth as “sequences.” The preliminary sequence was recorded with a stimulus degree of 40 dB HL, with additional sequences recorded with stimulus degree descending in 2 dB steps till 34 dB HL or till the averaged VEMP hint summarising the sequence was akin to background noise, whichever got here soonest. Comparability of the averaged VEMP hint to background noise was made by the experimenter utilizing the EP25 medical software program. A second collection of recordings was initiated at 39 dB HL, with stimulus degree descending in 2 dB steps till 35 dB HL or till the averaged VEMP hint summarising the sequence was akin to background noise, whichever got here soonest. The gathering process was defined to individuals, who might watch their averaged VEMP hint being calculated in actual time by the EP25 software program on a pc display. If the participant was prepared (e.g., if they’d no time constraints) and if individuals had proven a response at 34 dB HL, additional sequences had been recorded at stimulus ranges under 34 dB HL. Periods ended with repeat recording of a sequence utilizing the utmost 40 dB HL stimulus degree.
Knowledge Processing
Uncooked knowledge had been processed utilizing customized scripts in MATLAB 2019a (The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA, United States). Response amplitudes had been remodeled right into a dimensionless ratio by normalising per participant. For every participant, a pre-stimulus interval of 18 ms was extracted from a imply of the EMG waveforms from the primary six sequences of 300 displays recorded (i.e., it was a pre-stimulus imply of the primary 1800 displays recorded). The RMS of this per participant pre-stimulus imply was assigned as a background EMG stress per participant. Lastly, all waveforms for a participant had been normalised by dividing them by the background EMG stress per participant.
This normalisation process is in precept not needed, since background EMG stress is already tightly managed at a goal of fifty μV per participant utilizing the top bar. Nevertheless, the normalisation will account for any small per participant variation in background EMG stress. Normalisation makes use of the utmost pre-stimulus knowledge accessible for each participant (1800 displays), minimising the presence of random noise per participant within the pre-stimulus RMS background EMG stress. This process is preferable to, for instance, per sequence normalisation based mostly on pre-stimulus RMS for every sequence of 300 displays. Per sequence normalisation would introduce noise to knowledge as a result of random fluctuation in pre-stimulus RMS per sequence (i.e., random along with any precise change in sternocleidomastoid stress) would have an effect on VEMP amplitudes randomly on a per sequence foundation, thereby affecting inside participant comparisons. Between participant comparisons will use linear mixed-effects regression evaluation, which will depend on an correct inside participant measure of VEMP amplitude development with stimulus degree. As such, preserving inside participant comparisons as precisely as attainable – so, identically to the uncooked knowledge with the normalisation procedures used on this examine – is perfect for linear mixed-effects regression evaluation.
Determine 4 reveals VEMP grand averages for stutter and non-stutter teams on the most 40 dB HL stimulus degree. Peaks per sequence per participant had been recognized utilizing the “findpeaks” algorithm within the MATLAB Sign Processing Toolbox. Waveforms had been inverted to seek out troughs. Initially peaks and troughs had been appraised for the primary 40 dB HL sequence per participant. This was executed by first figuring out troughs for the whole 40 dB HL sequence, after which figuring out probably the most outstanding trough (prominence as outlined within the findpeaks algorithm) between 15 and 37 ms as n1. Subsequent, peaks had been recognized for the whole 40 dB HL hint. Peaks sooner than 8 ms, and later than n1, had been discarded. Remaining peaks had been ranked. Firstly, the three most outstanding peaks had been awarded 5, 4, and three factors so as of prominence. Secondly, the identical three most outstanding peaks had been weighted based mostly on their prominence in comparison with probably the most outstanding peak: 3 factors awarded for better than or equal to 2 thirds; 2 factors for better than one third and fewer than two thirds; and 1 level in any other case. Thirdly, the 5 peaks having the smallest time distinction from n1 had been awarded factors from 5 to 1 in a hierarchy with extra factors for smaller time distinction. Lastly, all the factors had been summed. The height with the best variety of factors was recognized as p1. Ties had been determined in favor of the height with smaller time distinction from n1.
Determine 4. Grand Common VEMP wave types on the most 40 dB HL stimulus degree. The horizontal axis reveals the time course of every epoch in milliseconds, with the stimulus all the time introduced at time zero throughout an epoch. The 8 ms interval instantly after stimulus presentation is adjusted to have an amplitude of zero for all recordings, to take away stimulus artefact from the bone conductor. The vertical axis reveals response amplitude. Wave types on this determine have been averaged per participant and per group. On a per participant foundation, the 300 epochs per stimulus degree per participant had been averaged collectively; these averages of 300 epochs (see the “Process” and “Knowledge Processing” sections) are known as a “sequence”. Normalisation was then carried out on a per participant foundation, and is along with the tight management of background electromyographic stress (goal of fifty μV for all individuals) utilizing a customized head bar and biofeedback. Within the normalisation routine, the VEMP amplitude of the wave kind in microvolts was divided by the foundation imply sq. VEMP amplitude in microvolts of an 18 ms pre-stimulus interval. VEMP amplitudes are thus offered in dimensionless items. Within the per group averaging to create the grand averages proven on this determine, all normalised sequences at 40 dB HL have been averaged collectively on a bunch foundation for both the stutter group or the non-stutter management group.
Peaks and troughs for different stimulus ranges had been recognized in the same method to the method simply described for the preliminary 40 dB HL sequence, besides that the trough from the preliminary 40 dB HL sequence was used as an anchor for trough detection for remaining sequences on a per participant foundation. Peaks and troughs had been rejected (the script returned an empty outcome) if the p1-n1 amplitude was lower than 1.65 instances the pre-stimulus RMS for the sequence of 300 repetitions being evaluated.
The script was checked by way of visible inspection of waveforms for the whole knowledge set collected. This was an iterative process, with the script run a number of instances utilizing changes to a few of the parameters described. Visible inspection confirmed that the ultimate script recognized peaks and troughs with a excessive diploma of constancy. Identification by the script was closing – no knowledge factors had been eliminated or adjusted manually.
Knowledge had been remodeled to a response degree (RL) scale by taking the log of p1-n1 amplitude as follows:
p1
–
n1
amp
(
dB
RL
)
=
20
×
log
10
(
p1
–
n1
amp
(
μ
V
)
prestimulus
RMS
(
μ
V
)
¯
)
–
20
Zero dB RL denotes a projected VEMP threshold (this isn’t the identical as VEMP thresholds in medical process; see word at Determine 11). The transformation is analogous to that for the dB SPL scale extensively used for sound stress ranges (and its frequency-adjusted HL variant), through which a ten dB enhance approximates a perceptual doubling.
Confounders in VEMP Measurement
This part describes precautions taken to minimise potential confounders in VEMP measurement. The precautions predominantly tackle measurement of VEMP p1-n1 amplitude, however will even enhance accuracy when measuring VEMP p1-n1 latency.
Stimulus Degree
VEMP p1-n1 amplitude is predicted to extend with stimulus degree (Todd et al., 2008). Linear mixed-effects regression evaluation takes benefit of this relationship, with between group comparisons based mostly on VEMP development fee.
Neck Stress
Stress within the SCM should be better than at resting state with a view to document a cervical VEMP. Nevertheless, VEMP p1-n1 amplitude will increase with SCM stress (Ochi et al., 2001). Accordingly, variation in SCM stress was restricted, to stop it appearing as a confounder. This was executed by asking individuals to take care of a relentless biofeedback goal while pushing in opposition to a padded head bar (Determine 3).
Extra measures had been taken to make sure that SCM stress didn’t act as a confounder. Pre-stimulus SCM stress was measured in order that it might, if needed, be included as a covariate throughout evaluation. To make sure that fatigue couldn’t be an element, period of testing was additionally assessed as a covariate.
Age
Contributors had been paired on age to manage for a lower in VEMP p1-n1 amplitude with age (Nguyen et al., 2010; Colebatch et al., 2013).
Crossed Response
Cervical VEMPs are predominantly ipsilateral, however could generally have a contralateral part (Colebatch and Rothwell, 2004; Ashford et al., 2016). Use of binaural stimuli restricted variation on account of any between participant distinction within the extent of contralateral exercise, as a result of ipsilateral and contralateral parts of the VEMP from every ear had been current at each SCM muscle tissue. The association is imperfect, as a result of the mastoid placement for the bone conductor introduces an asymmetry, with roughly 3–5 dB intracranial attenuation for the five hundred Hz tone burst used (Stenfelt, 2012). Nevertheless, this asymmetry in body-conducted stimulation is constant per participant.
Sternocleidomastoid Physiology
Sternocleidomastoid muscle measurement and subcutaneous fats are more likely to affect VEMP amplitude (Chang et al., 2007; Bartuzi et al., 2010). The impact was not appraised, though it was minimised by the normalisation process, the pairing on age and intercourse, and the usage of amplitude development parameters for between group comparisons.
Blood Circulation
Blood has electromagnetic properties (Beving et al., 1994; Abdalla, 2011) which means electromagnetic subject variations on account of blood circulate will add noise to EMG recordings. The lively electrode placement for cervical VEMPs, straight above the carotid artery, means that measurement of cervical VEMPs might be affected by blood circulate. That is mitigated by the massive measurement of the cervical VEMP response. Stimuli had been delivered at a fee of 5.1 per second, while resting state pulse charges are roughly one per second. Consequently, variations within the EMG recording on account of carotid artery blood circulate will largely cancel out over the roughly 1 min recording time, such that noise on account of blood circulate is minimal.
Statistical Mannequin
The preliminary statistical mannequin for VEMP p1-n1 amplitude is proven in Determine 5. Preliminary evaluation with knowledge from 48 management individuals (Gattie et al., in preparation) eradicated neck stress and period of testing as confounders for amplitude or latency measures. It additionally confirmed that VEMP p1-n1 latency is impartial of stimulus degree. This simplifies the latency mannequin, as a result of the one remaining predictor is whether or not or not a participant stutters.
Determine 5. Preliminary statistical mannequin for VEMP p1-n1 response amplitude. Neck stress was a root imply sq. of the pre-stimulus VEMP p1-n1 amplitude based mostly on every presentation sequence of 300 stimulus repetitions. Age was calculated in days on the time of testing. The dB RL items used for vestibular response are a log transformation of the VEMP p1-n1 amplitude, such that zero dB RL corresponds to vestibular threshold (though, see word in Determine 11). Attainable disturbances embrace neck measurement, pulse fee and crossed response.
For VEMP p1-n1 amplitudes, linear mixed-effects regression modelling (Winter, 2019) follows the shape:
VEMP
p1
–
n1
amplitude
=
β
0
j
+
β
1
×
stutter
+
ε
The place VEMP p1-n1 amplitude is conditioned on whether or not or not individuals stutter, with ß0 as intercept (varies with participant, j) and ß1 as a set slope of enhance in VEMP p1-n1 amplitude with stimulus degree. Various slope fashions had been additionally appraised (see Supplementary Materials). Statistical evaluation was performed with the lme4 package deal (Bates et al., 2015) in R (R Growth Core Crew, 2020). Impact measurement (Cohen’s d) was calculated from blended mannequin t statistics with the EMAtools package deal for R, model 0.1.3 (R Basis). Conditional R2 was calculated based on Nakagawa et al. (2017) utilizing the MuMIn package deal, model 1.43.17 (R Basis).
Outcomes
VEMP p1-n1 Amplitude
The histogram in Determine 6 reveals counts of VEMP p1-n1 amplitude measurements sorted into stutter or non-stutter teams. The histogram doesn’t present element of participant or stimulus degree. For the reason that histogram accommodates repeated measurements, it isn’t applicable for statistical comparisons. Nevertheless, presentation depend was roughly equal per participant, and over roughly the identical stimulus vary, which means that the histogram offers a sign of distribution for every group. Each the stutter and non-stutter teams seem to have a standard distribution, and there may be suggestion of a distinction between the technique of the distributions.
Determine 6. Histogram of VEMP p1-n1 amplitudes for stutter and management teams. The histogram doesn’t present element of participant or stimulus degree, and accommodates repeated measurements for the 2 teams of 15 individuals per group. As such, it suggests form of distribution and path of group distinction, however will not be applicable for statistical comparability (statistical comparability is by linear mixed-effects regression modelling).
The field plot in Determine 7 gives an alternate view of the information in Determine 6. It ought to be in contrast with Determine 8, which reveals per participant distributions of VEMP p1-n1 amplitude, with individuals who stutter and paired non-stutter controls organized adjacently so as of age. Field plots don’t present element of stimulus degree. Determine 8 reveals that for 10 of the 15 pairs, VEMP p1-n1 amplitudes are general markedly greater for the non-stutter than the stutter participant. In 3 of the 15 pairs, there’s a partial overlap, which might be evaluated by way of linear mixed-effects regression modelling. In two circumstances, VEMP p1-n1 amplitudes are general clearly greater for the stutter than the non-stutter participant. Nevertheless, stuttering in these two individuals differed from the others within the stutter group. One participant had each cluttering and stuttering, while stuttering within the different had a attainable psychogenic somewhat than developmental origin (see Supplementary Materials). Knowledge from each individuals and their pairs had been retained within the statistical evaluation.
Determine 7. Boxplot displaying VEMP p1-n1 amplitudes for stutter and non-stutter teams collapsed throughout stimulus degree (i.e., equivalent knowledge to Determine 6). Log transformation on the ordinate is such {that a} doubling of the VEMP p1-n1 amplitude in normalised microvolts (i.e., with unity RMS background) corresponds to a 6 dB enhance. The 2 barely bigger circles close to the medians denote means. The ratio of distinction between medians to general unfold (i.e., to the distinction between the decrease quartile for the stutter group and the higher quartile for the non-stutter group) is roughly 30%. Nevertheless, this knowledge presentation is for illustration functions solely. The info include repeat readings with asymmetries between teams. The precise statistical evaluation is through linear mixed-effects regression modelling, and is described within the sections “Statistical Mannequin” and “VEMP p1-n1 Amplitude”.
Determine 8. Field plots displaying distributions of VEMP p1-n1 amplitude, with individuals who stutter and paired non-stutter management individuals organized adjacently so as of age. The field plot doesn’t present element of stimulus degree (though, bigger VEMP p1-n1 amplitude virtually invariably corresponds to greater stimulus degree). Log transformation on the ordinate is such {that a} 6 dB enhance corresponds to a doubling of the VEMP p1-n1 amplitude in normalised microvolts (i.e., with unity RMS background). Arrows hyperlink the imply VEMP p1-n1 amplitudes of individuals who stutter with these of their paired controls. The management participant with out stuttering is all the time proven on the level of the arrow, while the participant with stuttering is the place fletching would seem. In 10 circumstances (arrows with gradients) VEMP p1-n1 amplitudes are general markedly greater for non-stutter than stutter individuals. In three circumstances (blue define arrows with horizontal stripes) there’s a partial overlap, which might be evaluated within the statistical evaluation. In two circumstances (purple define arrows with vertical stripes) VEMP p1-n1 amplitudes are general clearly greater for the stutter than the non-stutter individuals. These two individuals who stutter differed from the remaining 13 within the stutter group (one had a attainable psychogenic onset, the opposite had each cluttering and stuttering). All 15 individuals within the stutter group, together with the 15 management individuals within the non-stutter group, had been included within the linear mixed-effects regression evaluation.
Density plots in Determine 9 present a view of the information with out element of individuals, however with element of stimulus degree. As such, they’re complementary to the field plots in Determine 8. Uncorrected t-tests present group variations at or close to an alpha degree of 0.05 for 5 of the 9 stimulus ranges proven. Nevertheless, such t-tests don’t precisely summarise the information. Repeated measures on the identical stimulus degree are excluded from Determine 9 and from t-tests, as are knowledge at stimulus ranges under 32 dB HL, and no account is fabricated from developments in particular person individuals throughout stimulus ranges.
Determine 9. Density plots at stimulus ranges between 40 dB HL and 32 dB HL. Histograms are proven within the background. Uncorrected t-tests present group variations at p ≤ 0.05 for 38, 36, and 32 dB HL, and p = 0.06 for 40 and 37 dB HL. Group sizes are unbalanced at 35 and 33 dB HL. This view of knowledge with uncorrected t-tests is for illustration functions solely. Repeated measures on the identical stimulus degree are excluded, as are knowledge at stimulus ranges under 32 dB HL, and no account is fabricated from developments in individuals throughout stimulus ranges. The precise statistical evaluation is by linear mixed-effects regression modelling, and is described within the sections “Statistical Mannequin” and “VEMP p1-n1 Amplitude.”
Pre-registration specified use of linear mixed-effects regression evaluation. A random intercepts mannequin offers the statistically vital outcome that the stutter group has a VEMP p1-n1 amplitude 8.5 dB smaller than the non-stutter group for the vary of stimulus ranges examined (p = 0.035, 95% CI [−0.9, −16.1], Chi-Squared (1) = 4.44, d = −0.8, conditional R2 = 0.88).
In linear mixed-effects regression modelling, there’s a trade-off between better chance of sort I error when knowledge from all individuals are assigned the identical slope however can have totally different intercepts, versus decrease statistical energy when each slope and intercept can fluctuate with knowledge per participant (Barr et al., 2013; Matuschek et al., 2017). Evaluation of a wider vary of fashions, together with random slopes, is detailed within the Supplementary Materials, together with an evaluation of pre-stimulus RMS background EMG stress. A convergence warning with various slopes will be eliminated by eradicating outlying knowledge. All mounted and ranging slope fashions evaluated give the outcome that VEMP p1-n1 amplitude is between 7.9 and eight.7 dB RL smaller within the stutter group than the non-stutter group, with p-values between 0.021 and 0.049. Slopes per participant are proven in Determine 10. It was as a result of the slopes in Determine 10 are roughly parallel that the mounted slope, random intercepts mannequin was most well-liked. The ultimate mannequin for VEMP amplitude is proven in Determine 11.
Determine 10. Per participant slopes of stimulus degree (dB HL) versus VEMP p1-n1 amplitude (dB RL). Log transformation on the ordinate is such {that a} 6 dB enhance corresponds to a doubling of the VEMP p1-n1 amplitude in normalised microvolts (i.e., with unity RMS background). A hard and fast slope, various intercept mannequin is supported if the least squares match traces proven on this diagram are thought-about roughly parallel. Analyses of various slope linear blended fashions for these knowledge can be found within the Supplementary Materials.
Determine 11. Last mannequin for VEMP amplitude. The disturbance represents influences aside from these measured within the mannequin, and is the sq. root of (1 – R2), the place the conditional R2 is calculated based on Nakagawa et al. (2017) utilizing the MuMIn package deal (model 1.43.17). For the management group, utilizing the calibrations and knowledge transformations on this report, the y-axis intercept is −24.9 dB RL (95% CI [−32.6, −17.2]). The suggestion is of VEMP thresholds at 20.3 dB HL for the stutter group and 11.8 dB HL for the non-stutter group. Nevertheless, VEMP thresholds projected on this approach (extrapolation to 0 dB RL) assume a linear relationship between stimulus degree and VEMP amplitude over a wider vary of stimulus ranges than was examined on this examine. Such projections are dissimilar to VEMP thresholds evaluated by medical search procedures (e.g., as per British Society of Audiology, 2012). Medical VEMP thresholds confer with the smallest VEMP p1-n1 amplitudes which will be recorded in opposition to electromyographic background in a selected laboratory, and are used for differential analysis as a part of a check battery (Rosengren et al., 2019).
The examine had a pilot, which was reanalyzed utilizing the scripts developed for this predominant report. Comparability of 5 individuals who stutter with matched controls offers a outcome much like the principle report, with VEMP p1-n1 amplitude 10.1 dB smaller within the stutter than the non-stutter group (p = 0.044, 95% CI [−1.3, −18.9]). The pilot examine is described in additional element within the Supplementary Materials.
VEMP p1-n1 Latency
No statistically vital group variations had been discovered for VEMP p1-n1 latency. Determine 12 reveals latencies collected throughout all individuals and all stimulus ranges, together with repeat measurements. Knowledge seem usually distributed, with no indication of a bunch distinction. Variation throughout individuals with stimulus degree is proven in Determine 13. There isn’t a statistically vital interplay. Pearson’s correlation coefficient between VEMP p1-n1 latency and stimulus degree is r (165) = 0.13, p = 0.10, 95% CI [−0.03, 0.27] for the stutter group, and r(165) = 0.06, p = 0.46, 95% CI [−0.10, 0.21] for the non-stutter group.
Determine 12. Histogram of VEMP p1-n1 latencies for stutter and management teams. The histogram doesn’t present element of participant or stimulus degree, and accommodates repeated measurements for the 2 teams of 15 individuals per group. As such, it suggests form of distribution and path of group distinction, however will not be applicable for statistical comparability (statistical comparability is by linear mixed-effects regression modelling).
Determine 13. Variation of VEMP p1-n1 latency with stimulus degree. There isn’t a statistically vital interplay, and no indication of a bunch distinction.
Group comparisons had been evaluated by way of linear mixed-effects regression modelling, with p-values generated by chance ratio comparisons between the next fashions:
model_null: latency ∼ 1 + (1| participant)
model_diff: latency ∼ 1 + group + (1| participant)
There isn’t a statistically vital distinction between teams [chi squared (1) 0.07, p = 0.8].
This examine had a pilot, described in additional element within the Supplementary Materials. Related evaluation on pilot knowledge reveals no statistically vital distinction between teams [chi squared (1) 2.6, p = 0.10].
Dialogue
Medical presentation of stuttering will not be accompanied by reviews of issue with steadiness or dizziness (Bloodstein et al., 2021). As such, it’s to be anticipated that medical appraisal of the vestibular system in stutter and non-stutter teams ought to give broadly comparable outcomes. This expectation is borne out within the field plots of Figures 7 and eight, and thru the scaling of VEMP p1-n1 amplitude with stimulus degree proven in Determine 10. On the premise of the present examine, the vestibular clinician want make no specific allowance for stuttering when assessing purchasers who current with steadiness or dizziness complaints.
However, there’s a statistically vital discovering that VEMP p1-n1 amplitude is 8.5 dB smaller within the stutter than the non-stutter group (p = 0.035, 95% CI [−0.9, −16.1], t = −2.1, d = −0.8). While not of medical significance for gravitoinertial perform, the group distinction might be interpreted in what follows based on its implications for speech-motor perform in stuttering.
It’ll first be needed to think about precisely what the group distinction represents. The linear mixed-effects regression evaluation compares two variables, each of which have been normalised relative to a background reference and remodeled logarithmically (see “Knowledge Processing”). It’s the relationship between the remodeled variables which is linear. With out the normalisation and transformation, the connection between VEMP p1-n1 amplitude in volts and sound stress in pascals could be described by an influence legislation perform. When seen graphically, the logarithmic transformation will visually scale back variations between teams. The visible transformation will be tough to interpret. This case impacts the field plots of Figures 7 and eight, and the linear plot of Determine 10. In all of those, a VEMP p1-n1 enhance of 6 dB RL would correspond to a doubling of VEMP p1-n1 amplitude in microvolts (or extra exactly, normalised microvolts – VEMPs are scaled per participant such that background is unity, as described in “Knowledge processing,” so amplitudes are technically dimensionless ratios). When seen with out the logarithmic transformation, as within the VEMP wave type of Determine 4, the VEMP p1-n1 amplitude within the non-stutter group is twice as large as that within the stutter group.
As already remarked, a smaller VEMP p1-n1 amplitude within the stutter group than the non-stutter group needn’t be indicative of a distinction in gravitoinertial perform between stutter and non-stutter teams. However, a smaller VEMP p1-n1 amplitude has implications for the way in which that personal voice is perceived. With the logarithmic transformations on this report, an increment of 1 dB in stimulus degree utilized to the cochlea corresponds to a 2.1 dB enhance in VEMP p1-n1 amplitude (see Determine 11 and the part “Electromyography”). Thus, the 8.5 dB group distinction measured in VEMP p1-n1 amplitude signifies that stimulus ranges for the stutter group have to be 4 dB greater than the non-stutter group (i.e., 8.5 ÷ 2.1) with a view to produce an identically sized VEMP p1-n1 response. Nevertheless, stimuli on this experiment had been delivered by way of physique conduction solely. Stimuli throughout vocalisation include an air performed part of roughly equal magnitude to the physique performed part (Békésy, 1949; Reinfeldt et al., 2010). Thus, throughout vocalisation the stimulus degree on the cochlea must be 8 dB greater within the stutter than the non-stutter group (i.e., 4 dB physique conduction + 4 dB air conduction) with a view to produce an identically sized VEMP p1-n1 response. When decoding sound stress degree dB scales utilized to the cochlea, a ten dB enhance corresponds to an approximate perceptual doubling (Stevens, 1972; Warren, 1973; Florentine et al., 2010). Provided that spectral traits of the transient period stimuli used on this investigation are throughout the human voice frequency vary, the indication is that, for the stutter group, personal voice perceived through the cochlea should be roughly twice as loud as for the non-stutter group with a view to produce an identically sized VEMP p1-n1 response.
The rest of this dialogue will appraise three candidate explanations for the discovering. The primary two concern the potential for the smaller VEMP p1-n1 response within the stutter group than the non-stutter group co-occuring with, or being a consequence of, variations between stutter and non-stutter teams in corticofugal exercise or motor threshold subtentorially. The third chance is that the smaller VEMP p1-n1 response within the stutter than the non-stutter group is indicative of a distinction between stutter and non-stutter teams in an ascending neural stream comparable to personal voice, and that such a distinction contributes to stuttering.
Clarification 1: VEMP Response Modified by Variations in Corticofugal Exercise Between Stutter and Non-Stutter Teams
Cortical analysis has indicated a motor threshold distinction between stutter and non-stutter teams (Alm et al., 2013; Neef et al., 2015b; Busan et al., 2020). If a motor threshold distinction between stutter and non-stutter teams impacts brainstem reflexes, it could be attainable to develop an evidence of why VEMP p1-n1 amplitude is smaller within the stutter group than the non-stutter group.
Within the part “Background,” literature was summarised indicating that the VEMP ought to be thought-about as a brief latency fragment of the vestibulo-collic reflex. A characteristic of this kind of brainstem reflex (i.e., a reflex with no cortical involvement) is the rapidity of motor response in comparison with that which may very well be anticipated if cortical involvement was needed. Capabilities reminiscent of steadiness and stability of gaze rely on such rapidity. Provided that presentation of stuttering will not be accompanied by reviews of issue with gravitoinertial perform, and that cerebral exercise will not be thought-about a part of vestibular reflexes, the proposal that corticofugal exercise impacts VEMP response in individuals who stutter doesn’t seem promising.
However, corticofugal exercise or the absence thereof can affect vestibular reflexes. McCall et al. (2017) evaluation research through which decerebration in animals, or strokes interrupting corticobulbar projections in people, alter the achieve of vestibulospinal reflexes and the response of neurons in vestibular nuclei. Nevertheless, even in circumstances of power supratentorial stroke with spastic hypertonia unilaterally, asymmetry ratio in VEMP p1-n1 amplitude is one half or much less between unaffected and affected sides (Miller et al., 2014). That is akin to or lower than the VEMP p1-n1 amplitude distinction discovered between stutter and non-stutter teams within the present examine (Determine 4). It furthermore has the wrong way of match to that which could be anticipated. Alteration of corticofugal exercise following a wide range of supratentorial insults was discovered to extend VEMP p1-n1 amplitude, with the scale of the rise comparable to the quantity of spasticity. Whereas within the stutter group for the present examine, VEMP p1-n1 amplitude was decreased relative to the non-stutter group.
If variations in supratentorial construction or perform between stutter and non-stutter teams contribute to variations in VEMP p1-n1 amplitude then, on the mannequin of power stroke with spastic hypertonia, a rise in VEMP p1-n1 amplitude within the stutter group relative to the non-stutter group could be anticipated. But the alternative is discovered: VEMP p1-n1 amplitude is smaller within the stutter group than the non-stutter group.
Because of this, together with the aforementioned understanding (see part “Background”) that the vestibulo-collic reflex corresponds to exercise within the vestibular brainstem and periphery, a cortical motor threshold distinction between stutter and non-stutter teams doesn’t seem workable as the premise for an evidence of group distinction in VEMP p1-n1 amplitude. Following these concerns, an account of present findings which includes corticofugal exercise appears unlikely to be compelling.
Clarification 2: VEMP Response Modified by a Decrease Subtentorial Motor Threshold within the Stutter Than the Non-stutter Group
An alternate rationalization for the smaller VEMP response within the stutter group than the non-stutter group is that it’s an artefact of a distinction from the non-stutter group in motor threshold subtentorially. This could observe the suggestion of Zimmermann (1980) {that a} greater achieve in brainstem reflexes contributes to stuttering.
Brainstem reflexes will be assessed by way of the startle response (Fetcho and McLean, 2009), an entire physique flexor response to abrupt and intense stimulation. The startle response will be elicited by acoustic stimuli (e.g., bursts of white noise at 100 dBA) with measurement by way of the orbicularis oculi muscle which causes eye blink (Gómez-Nieto et al., 2020). When the startle stimulus is preceded by a smaller stimulus, known as a pre-pulse, the startle response is diminished. Experiments manipulating pre-pulse inhibition are used to appraise sensory gating (Cromwell and Atchley, 2015), a course of through which stimuli are proposed to be filtered by way of ascending neural pathways such that cognitive processes will function over a restricted vary of environmentally related percepts. Discount in sensory gating would have an effect on dopaminergic pathways and the striatum (Kaji et al., 2005), and could also be accompanied by extreme attribution of salience to environmental stimuli. Such alterations to sensory gating could also be current in neuropsychiatric diagnoses reminiscent of schizophrenia (Geyer, 2006). There can also be relevance to stuttering. Stuttering is considered accompanied by alterations in dopaminergic pathways (Alm, 2004; Alm and Risberg, 2007) and a distinction between stutter and non-stutter teams in auditory sensory gating might probably clarify why altering audition throughout ongoing speech reduces the quantity of stuttering (Cherry et al., 1956; Yates, 1963; Howell et al., 1987).
The startle response is modulated by the amygdala and stria terminalis (Davis et al., 1997) and will be altered by emotional context (Lang et al., 1990; Grillon and Baas, 2003). Alterations to the scale of startle response can accompany post-traumatic stress dysfunction, temper and nervousness problems, and traits associated to nervousness and despair. Nevertheless, the path of change will not be constant (Vaidyanathan et al., 2009). Elevated startle response is present in people having social nervousness (Pause et al., 2009). A number of research recommend elevated nervousness in individuals who stutter (Craig, 1990; Craig et al., 2003; Ezrati-Vinacour and Levin, 2004) with overlap between the conduct of people that stutter and standards for a analysis of social nervousness (Iverach et al., 2017). Though it’s unclear whether or not nervousness in individuals who stutter is causative of stuttering, or is a results of the expertise of stuttering, there may be incentive to analyze acoustic startle response in individuals who stutter.
For the explanations already described, acoustic startle has been in contrast a number of instances between stutter and non-stutter teams. Guitar (2003) discovered a bigger eye blink response in a stutter group than a non-stutter group, together with the next rating on the “nervous” subscale of the Taylor–Johnson Temperament Evaluation (Taylor and Morrison, 1996). Pre-pulse inhibition was not examined. Alm (2006) and Alm and Risberg (2007) didn’t discover a distinction in eye blink response between stutter and non-stutter teams, together with in checks of pre-pulse inhibition. Ellis et al. (2008) and Selman and Gregg (2020) additionally didn’t discover a distinction in acoustic startle between stutter and non-stutter teams. Alm and Risberg (2007) and Selman and Gregg (2020) additionally assessed temperament of individuals utilizing standardised devices, and didn’t discover group variations. On steadiness, the indication is that acoustic startle response doesn’t differ between stutter and non-stutter teams.
An issue in assessing acoustic startle response in individuals who stutter is that uncomfortable loudness ranges have been discovered as decrease in stutter teams than in non-stutter teams (MacCulloch and Eaton, 1971; Brown et al., 1975). In a examine of non-stutter teams with and with out tinnitus, acoustic startle response was discovered to extend as uncomfortable loudness degree decreased (Knudson and Melcher, 2016). This was present in each tinnitus and non-tinnitus teams. The examine additionally included nervousness and despair check batteries, discovering no distinction between teams and no correlation with both acoustic startle response or uncomfortable loudness degree. Exams of acoustic startle response in individuals who stutter haven’t evaluated uncomfortable loudness degree, which is able to act as a confounder. Based mostly on uncomfortable loudness degree alone, a rise in acoustic startle response could be anticipated in stutter teams. Nevertheless, such a discovering wouldn’t essentially inform understanding of tension, dopaminergic pathways or sensory gating in stuttering; it could merely be a facet impact of a decrease uncomfortable loudness degree. In any occasion, elevated acoustic startle response has solely been present in one examine involving a stutter group (Guitar, 2003), with 4 research discovering no group distinction from a non-stutter group (Alm, 2006; Alm and Risberg, 2007; Ellis et al., 2008; Selman and Gregg, 2020).
Along with the concerns already described, the vestibulo-collic reflex evaluated within the present examine will not be thought to have substantial overlap with the acoustic startle response. Firstly, the VEMP p1 latency of 10–15 ms is shorter than the 50 ms latency typical of the acoustic startle response (Bickford et al., 1964). Secondly, VEMPs will be pushed at excessive charges of repetition (5.1 per second within the present examine), in contrast to startle responses which, by definition, habituate quickly (Landis and Hunt, 1939). A closing level is that the five hundred Hz body-conducted tone burst stimulus used within the present examine had a most degree of 40 dB HL. It thus contained vitality effectively under the 100 dBA broadband stimuli utilized in acoustic startle research, and wouldn’t be anticipated to generate a startle response.
In abstract, there may be not a compelling argument that the vestibulo-collic reflex evaluated within the present examine is a part of the acoustic startle response, neither is there a convincing case that acoustic startle differs between stutter and non-stutter teams.
Clarification 3: Corticopetal Exercise within the Stutter Group Modified by a Smaller Vestibular Sensory Enter Throughout Vocalisation Than within the Non-stutter Group
Relatively than a typically greater achieve in brainstem reflexes, as thought-about in rationalization two, subtentorial variations between the stutter and non-stutter teams could centre round personal voice identification. Gattie et al. (in preparation) proposes that personal voice is recognized by way of coincidence detection between ascending neural streams of cochlear and vestibular origin. The proposal overlaps with rationalization two, offering a foundation for greater brainstem achieve and decreased sensory gating. Nevertheless, the proposal is restricted to personal voice stimuli, and doesn’t require involvement of the acoustic startle response.
From this angle, delicate variations between stutter and non-stutter teams in auditory perform could be unwanted side effects or neurodevelopmental penalties of a distinction in personal voice identification. On the brainstem or periphery these embrace auditory brainstem response (described later on this part), sound supply localisation (Rousey et al., 1959), interaural section disparity (Stromsta, 1972) and uncomfortable loudness ranges (Brown et al., 1975). See Rosenfield and Jerger (1984) for additional evaluation. Literature describing how the quantity of stuttering will be decreased with alterations to audition throughout ongoing speech can also be germane (see Lincoln et al., 2006 or Foundas et al., 2013 for appraisal of medical software, in addition to citations within the introduction to this text). Variations between stutter and non-stutter teams are additionally present in auditory features having cortical involvement. These embrace masking degree (Liebetrau and Daly, 1981), backward masking (Howell et al., 2000; Lotfi et al., 2020) and dichotic listening checks (Sommers et al., 1975; Cimorell-Robust et al., 1983; Blood, 1985; Blood et al., 1987; Dmitrieva et al., 2000; Foundas et al., 2004). Blood oxygen degree dependent checks of auditory perform present variations in purposeful lateralisation between stutter and non-stutter teams (Sato et al., 2011; Halag-Milo et al., 2016). Electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography present variations between stutter and non-stutter teams in auditory oddball (P300; Morgan et al., 1997; Kaganovich et al., 2010; Jerônimo et al., 2020); auditory sensory gating (P1/P50m; Kikuchi et al., 2011); mismatch negativity (Corbera et al., 2005; Jansson-Verkasalo et al., 2014; Jerônimo et al., 2020); and alterations to timing and/or amplitude of the N1/M100 throughout listening duties (Ismail et al., 2017; Kikuchi et al., 2017) and speech duties (Salmelin et al., 1998; Beal et al., 2010, 2011; Liotti et al., 2010). Conflicting outcomes are generally reported (e.g., Blood and Blood, 1984; Anderson et al., 1988; Khedr et al., 2000; Hampton and Weber-Fox, 2008; Özcan et al., 2009).
Aside from the present examine, there is just one investigation of the vestibular system in individuals who stutter. Rotary chair testing confirmed no distinction between stutter and non-stutter teams in a non-speech situation. Nevertheless, throughout a talking process, evoked horizontal nystagmus was discovered to be considerably extra pronounced in a stutter group than a non-stutter group (Langová et al., 1975) exhibiting a sample according to stellar nystagmus (Langová et al., 1983). Modern accounts in neuro-ophthalmology localise stellar nystagmus to the midbrain (Liu et al., 2018). Along with the present examine, the suggestion is that in vocalisation there’s a distinction within the nature of subtentorial ascending exercise, and/or conduction alongside the VIII cranial nerve, between stutter and non-stutter teams.
Determine 14 reveals neural pathways connecting with the VIII cranial nerve within the brainstem and cerebellum. Vestibular fibres within the VIII cranial nerve predominantly terminate in vestibular nuclei. Nevertheless, vestibular fibres additionally innervate cerebellar vermis, and generally flocculus (see evaluation of amniotes in Newlands and Perachio, 2003). Govender et al. (2020) describe vestibular cerebellar evoked potentials in a non-stutter group utilizing air- and body-conducted tone bursts (a stutter group was not examined). The evoked potentials have latencies between 10 and 20 ms and are more likely to replicate climbing fibre responses through crossed otolith-cerebellar pathways. Climbing fibres enter the cerebellum by way of the inferior cerebellar peduncle, forming synapses with Purkinje cells. Vestibular nuclei are bidirectionally linked to the cerebellum, with investigation of pathways ongoing (Grüsser-Cornehls and Bäurle, 2001; Büttner-Ennever and Gerrits, 2004). Cerebellar vermis has repeatedly been recognized as having differing activations in between participant comparisons of stutter and non-stutter teams throughout fluent speech, and in inside participant comparisons of stutter teams throughout fluent and dysfluent episodes (Budde et al., 2014; Belyk et al., 2015).
Vestibular fibres additionally innervate the cochlear nucleus, both straight (Newlands and Perachio, 2003; Newlands et al., 2003) or through vestibular nuclei (Smith, 2012). The cochlear nucleus is the preliminary relay in a subcortical chain known as the ascending auditory pathway (Irvine, 1992). Electroencephalographic (EEG) exercise within the ascending auditory pathway, following sound and vibration stimuli, is often assessed by way of the auditory brainstem response (ABR). Stutter teams present better variations in ABR from non-stutter teams when stimuli resemble speech (Tahaei et al., 2014; Crivellaro Goncalves et al., 2015; Mozaffarilegha et al., 2019) than when stimuli are clicks (Stager, 1990; Suchodoletz and Wolfram, 1996). Nevertheless, all testing thus far has been under medical vestibular threshold, whereas medical vestibular threshold might be exceeded throughout vocalisation (Todd et al., 2008; Curthoys et al., 2019). When sound stimuli are above vestibular threshold an extra part, N3, is current within the ABR (Mason et al., 1996; Nong et al., 2000, 2002; Papathanasiou et al., 2003, 2004, 2006; Murofushi et al., 2005). The character of N3 has not been appraised in ABR checks of stutter teams.
Change in EEG morphology when stimuli exceed medical vestibular threshold is seen cortically in addition to within the auditory brainstem. When sound stimuli exceed medical vestibular threshold, cortical EEG recordings present an extra part, the N42/P52, instantly previous to N1 (Todd et al., 2014b). The seemingly origin of N42/P52 is temporal or cingulate cortex (Todd et al., 2014a). As with the N3 in ABR, the character of N42/P52 has not been investigated in stutter teams. Nevertheless, the N1 has been essential in investigations of stutter teams. The N1 (or its M100 equal in magnetoencephalography) is continuously used to judge speech-induced suppression (Houde and Nagarajan, 2016), through which temporal cortex exercise throughout vocalisation is hypothesised to be moderated by speech-motor exercise. A number of authors have proposed {that a} distinction in such moderation, or in auditory-motor mapping, between stutter and non-stutter teams underlies stuttering conduct (Max et al., 2004; Brown et al., 2005; Hickok et al., 2011; Cai et al., 2012). Such proposals haven’t been supported in direct checks evaluating N1/M100 amplitude (Beal et al., 2010, 2011; Liotti et al., 2010). Nevertheless, all checks thus far have used stimuli under medical vestibular threshold. EEG morphology comparisons with stimuli above medical vestibular threshold haven’t been made between stutter and non-stutter teams utilizing both brainstem or cortical checks.
Determine 15 overlays cortical areas recognized by way of examine of the vestibular system and cortical areas discovered to be essential for speech and language. Overlap is clear in a number of areas. Based mostly on the literature reviewed on this part, there may be substantial motivation for a extra detailed appraisal of the vestibular system in individuals who stutter.
Determine 15. Cortical areas essential for speech and language (tailored from the dual-stream mannequin of Hickok and Poeppel, 2007) proven with vestibular cortical areas recognized in cats, monkeys and people (tailored from Ventre-Dominey, 2014; see additionally Frank and Greenlee, 2018). Cortical exercise following vestibular enter has vast interpretation (e.g., see opinions of cognition in Hitier et al., 2014, and audition/rhythm/timing in Todd and Lee, 2015). A number of the vestibular areas recognized might be predominantly associated to gravitoinertial perform (see dialogue in Ferrè and Haggard, 2020). Numbers are Brodmann areas – see main literature for extra precise location element. Spt is the Sylvian temporo-parietal area proposed by Hickok and Poeppel (2007) as a sensorimotor integration space. Vestibular websites in people have been recognized as such when direct electrical stimulation of the cortex offers rise to gravitoinertial phantasm. When vestibular websites are recognized inside BA 21 (lateral temporal lobe) or BA 22 (Wernicke’s space), auditory phantasm is discovered to accompany gravitoinertial phantasm (Kahane et al., 2003; Fenoy et al., 2006). © Parts of this illustration had been tailored from Servier Medical Artwork, https://sensible.servier.com. Inventive Commons 3.0 license.
Different Diagnoses in Which VEMP Exams Present a Distinction From Management Contributors
VEMPs are sometimes used as a part of a diagnostic check battery following steadiness and dizziness complaints (Rosengren et al., 2019). A distinction from controls in VEMP testing can moreover be used to help diagnoses which maybe don’t have any apparent relation to steadiness and dizziness, or to one another. These embrace brainstem lesions (Oh et al., 2013), a number of scleroris (Escorihuela García et al., 2013; Gabelić et al., 2013; Ivanković et al., 2013; Güven et al., 2014), dementia (Harun et al., 2016), Parkinson’s illness (Shalash et al., 2017) and a spotlight deficit and hyperactivity dysfunction (Isaac et al., 2017). See Oh et al. (2016) or Deriu et al. (2019) for additional evaluation and dialogue. Gattie et al. (in preparation) discusses how mind areas recognized as having structural or purposeful significance in individuals who stutter could also be frequent with mind areas recognized in diagnoses which have the next than likelihood overlap with stuttering.
Limitations of the Present Research
This report would profit from replication with the next participant depend. Nevertheless, the statistical evaluation is extra compelling than may sometimes be the case for a pre-registered case management examine of this measurement (15 stutter, 15 non-stutter). For instance, if two individuals with a stuttering presentation and/or historical past differing from others within the stutter group had not been included within the evaluation, a bigger group distinction of 11.2 dB (p = 0.007, 95% CI [−3.6, −18.9]) would have been reported. Moreover, 7 of the 15 controls had been consultant of a normative pattern of 48; and the pilot examine (5 individuals who stutter, 5 non-stutter controls) had near-identical outcomes to the principle examine (10.1 dB group distinction, p = 0.044, 95% CI [−1.3, −18.9]). The discovering of a distinction in vestibular perform between stutter and non-stutter teams is in settlement with the one prior analysis on the vestibular system with individuals who stutter (Langová et al., 1975).
Conclusion
Vestibular-evoked myogenic potential was discovered to have a considerably smaller p1-n1 amplitude in a stutter group than a non-stutter group. Though not of medical significance with regard to gravitoinertial perform, the group distinction could have significance for understanding of speech-motor perform in individuals who stutter. The discovering of a distinction in vestibular perform between a stutter and a non-stutter group is according to prior analysis on the vestibular system in stuttering (Langová et al., 1975). Overview of vestibular pathways, and specifically the response of the vestibular system to sound and vibration, motivates additional investigation of the vestibular system in individuals who stutter. There may be overlap between mind areas receiving vestibular innervation, and mind areas recognized as essential in research of stuttering. These embrace the auditory brainstem, the cerebellum and the temporo-parietal junction.
This examine was pre-registered as predicting a distinction in VEMP between stutter and non-stutter teams. The pre-registration offers the disruptive rhythm speculation (Howell et al., 1983; Howell, 2004) as a rationale. The disruptive rhythm speculation proposes that sensory inputs further to personal speech audition might be maximally fluency-enhancing after they coordinate with ongoing speech. The disruptive rhythm speculation is supported by this examine. Vestibular enter which coordinates with ongoing speech is fluency enhancing in ordinarily fluent controls, whereas the smaller vestibular enter in individuals who stutter leads to much less fluency enhancement, accounting for the noticed stuttering conduct.
The examine was motivated by a speculation which is appropriate with, and provides element to, the disruptive rhythm speculation (Gattie et al., in preparation). The idea of the speculation is that coincidence detection between deflection of cochlear and vestibular mechanoreceptors throughout vocalisation is key to personal voice identification, and that personal voice identification differs between stutter and non-stutter teams.
Knowledge Availability Assertion
The uncooked knowledge supporting the conclusions of this text might be made accessible by the authors, with out undue reservation.
Ethics Assertion
The research involving human individuals had been reviewed and authorized by the College of Manchester Ethics Committee. Written knowledgeable consent to take part on this examine was offered by the individuals. All individuals had been adults. They offered written knowledgeable consent themselves, somewhat than by way of guardians or subsequent of kin.
Creator Contributions
MG: conceptualisation (concepts and formulation of the overarching analysis objectives and goals), software program (programming, software program growth, designing laptop applications, implementation of laptop code or algorithms, and testing code parts), investigation (conducting the analysis and investigation course of, particularly performing the experiments, or knowledge assortment), knowledge curation [annotation, scrubbing, or maintenance of research data (including software code, where it is necessary for interpreting the data itself)], writing—authentic draft (preparation, creation and/or presentation of the revealed work, particularly writing the preliminary draft), visualisation (preparation, creation and/or presentation of the revealed work, particularly knowledge presentation or visualisation). MG, KK, and EL: methodology (growth or design of methodology or creation of fashions), validation (verification of the replication and reproducibility of outcomes, experiments, or different analysis outputs), formal evaluation (software of statistical, mathematical, computational, or different methods to analyse, or synthesise knowledge), assets (provision of examine supplies, supplies, instrumentation, computing assets, or evaluation instruments), writing—evaluation and enhancing (vital evaluation, commentary, or revision), venture administration (coordination of the analysis exercise planning and execution), and funding acquisition (acquisition of economic help). KK and EL: supervision (oversight and management tasks and together with mentorship). All authors contributed to the article and authorized the submitted model.
Funding
This work was supported by a United Kingdom Financial and Social Analysis Council (ESRC) Collaborative Award in Science and Engineering (CASE) to MG (award reference 1790984). The CASE associate was Interacoustics A/S, Middelfart, Denmark. Participant bills had been partly coated by the ESRC, and partly coated by a Terence Barry Grant Award from the Stammer Belief, Oxford, United Kingdom. KK was supported by Nationwide Institute for Well being Analysis (NIHR) Manchester Biomedical Analysis Centre (IS-BRC-1215-20007). EL was supported by the Worldwide Centre for Language and Communicative Growth (LuCiD). The help of the Financial and Social Analysis Council (ES/S007113/ES/L008955/1) is gratefully acknowledged.
Battle of Curiosity
The authors declare that the analysis was performed within the absence of any industrial or monetary relationships that may very well be construed as a possible battle of curiosity.
Writer’s Word
All claims expressed on this article are solely these of the authors and don’t essentially symbolize these of their affiliated organizations, or these of the writer, the editors and the reviewers. Any product which may be evaluated on this article, or declare which may be made by its producer, will not be assured or endorsed by the writer.
Acknowledgments
Thanks are on account of Peter Howell and Neil Todd for feedback on examine design, to Antonia Marsden for feedback on statistical evaluation, to Emanuele Perugia for recommendation on MATLAB and R, to Debbie Cane for recommendation on medical facets of VEMP, and to James Harte for help with the Eclipse. Any shortcomings within the completed article are solely the duty of the article’s authors.
Supplementary Materials
The Supplementary Materials for this text will be discovered on-line at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnint.2021.662127/full#supplementary-material
References
Alm, P. A., Karlsson, R., Sundberg, M., and Axelson, H. W. (2013). Hemispheric lateralization of motor thresholds in relation to stuttering. PLoS One 8:e76824. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0076824
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Alm, P. A., and Risberg, J. (2007). Stuttering in adults: the acoustic startle response, temperamental traits, and organic elements. J. Commun. Disord. 40, 1–41. doi: 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2006.04.001
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Anderson, J. M., Hood, S. B., and Sellers, D. E. (1988). Central auditory processing talents of adolescent and preadolescent stuttering and nonstuttering youngsters. J. Fluen. Disord. 13, 199–214. doi: 10.1016/0094-730x(88)90047-2
CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Ashford, A., Huang, J., Zhang, C., Wei, W., Mustain, W., Eby, T., et al. (2016). The cervical vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials (cVEMPs) recorded alongside the sternocleidomastoid muscle tissue throughout head rotation and flexion in regular human topics. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 17, 303–311. doi: 10.1007/s10162-016-0566-8
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Barber, V. B. (1939). Research within the psychology of stuttering: XV. Refrain studying as a distraction in stuttering. J. Speech Disord. 4, 371–383. doi: 10.1044/jshd.0404.371
CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Barber, V. B. (1940). Research within the psychology of stuttering: rhythm as a distraction in stuttering. J. Speech Disord. 5, 29–42. doi: 10.1044/jshd.0501.29
CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., and Tily, H. J. (2013). Random results construction for confirmatory speculation testing: maintain it maximal. J. Mem. Lang. 68, 255–278. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Bartuzi, P., Tokarski, T., and Roman-Liu, D. (2010). The impact of the fatty tissue on EMG sign in younger ladies. Acta Bioeng. Biomech. 12, 87–92.
Google Scholar
Bates, D., and Maechler, M. (2009). lme4: Linear Combined-Results Fashions Utilizing S4 Lessons.
Google Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., and Walker, S. (2015). Becoming linear mixed-effects fashions utilizing lme4. J. Statist. Softw. 67:1. doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Beal, D. S., Cheyne, D. O., Gracco, V. L., Quraan, M. A., Taylor, M. J., and De Nil, L. F. (2010). Auditory evoked fields to vocalization throughout passive listening and lively technology in adults who stutter. NeuroImage 52, 1645–1653. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.04.277
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Beal, D. S., Quraan, M. A., Cheyne, D. O., Taylor, M. J., Gracco, V. L., and De Nil, L. F. (2011). Speech-induced suppression of evoked auditory fields in youngsters who stutter. NeuroImage 54, 2994–3003. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.026
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Békésy, G. V. (1949). The construction of the center ear and the listening to of 1’s personal voice by bone conduction. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 21, 217–232. doi: 10.1121/1.1906501
CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Belyk, M., Kraft, S. J., and Brown, S. (2015). Stuttering as a trait or state – an ALE meta-analysis of neuroimaging research. Eur. J. Neurosci. 41, 275–284. doi: 10.1111/ejn.12765
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Beraneck, M., Lambert, F. M., and Sadeghi, S. G. (2014). Purposeful growth of the vestibular system: sensorimotor pathways for stabilization of gaze and posture. Dev. Audit. Vestibular Syst. 15, 449–487. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-408088-1.00015-4
CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Beving, H., Eriksson, L. E., Davey, C. L., and Kell, D. B. (1994). Dielectric properties of human blood and erythrocytes at radio frequencies (0.2-10 MHz); dependence on cell quantity fraction and medium composition. Eur. Biophys. J. 23, 207–215. doi: 10.1007/BF01007612
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Bickford, R. G., Jacobson, J. L., and Cody, D. T. R. (1964). Nature of averaged evoked potentials to sound and different stimuli in man. Ann. NY. Acad. Sci. 112, 204–223. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1964.tb26749.x
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Blood, G. W. (1985). Laterality variations in youngster stutterers: heterogeneity, severity ranges, and statistical therapies. J. Speech Listening to Disord. 50, 66–72. doi: 10.1044/jshd.5001.66
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Blood, G. W., Blood, I. M., and Hood, S. B. (1987). The event of ear preferences in stuttering and nonstuttering youngsters: a longitudinal examine. J. Fluency Disord. 12, 119–131. doi: 10.1016/0094-730x(87)90018-0
CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Bloodstein, O., Bernstein Ratner, N., and Brundage, S. B. (2021). A Handbook on Stuttering, seventh Edn. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing, Inc.
Google Scholar
British Society of Audiology (2012). Really helpful Process: Cervical and Ocular Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potentials. Blackburn: British Society of Audiology.
Google Scholar
Brown, S., Ingham, R. J., Ingham, J. C., Laird, A. R., and Fox, P. T. (2005). Stuttered and fluent speech manufacturing: An ALE meta-analysis of purposeful neuroimaging research. Hum. Mind Mapping 25, 105–117. doi: 10.1002/hbm.20140
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Brown, T., Sambrooks, J. E., and MacCulloch, M. J. (1975). Auditory thresholds and the impact of decreased auditory suggestions of suttering. Acta Psychiatr. Scand. 51, 297–311. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1975.tb00009.x
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Budde, Ok. S., Barron, D. S., and Fox, P. T. (2014). Stuttering, induced fluency, and pure fluency: a hierarchical collection of activation chance estimation meta-analyses. Mind Lang. 139, 99–107. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2014.10.002
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Busan, P., Del Ben, G., Tantone, A., Halaj, L., Bernardini, S., Natarelli, G., et al. (2020). Impact of muscular activation on surrounding motor networks in developmental stuttering: A TMS examine. Mind Lang. 205:104774. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2020.104774
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Büttner-Ennever, J. A., and Gerrits, N. M. (2004). “Vestibular system,” in The Human Nervous System, 2nd Edn, eds G. Paxinos and J. Ok. Mai (London: Elsevier Tutorial Press), 1212–1240.
Google Scholar
Cai, S., Beal, D. S., Ghosh, S. S., Tiede, M. Ok., Guenther, F. H., and Perkell, J. S. (2012). Weak responses to auditory suggestions perturbation throughout articulation in individuals who stutter: proof for irregular auditory-motor transformation. PLoS One 7:e41830. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0041830
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Chang, C.-H., T-L, Yang, Wang, C.-T., and Younger, Y.-H. (2007). Measuring neck buildings in relation to vestibular evoked myogenic potentials. Clin. Neurophysiol. 118, 1105–1109. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2007.01.020
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Cherry, C., Sayers, B. M., and Marland, P. M. (1956). Experiments upon the entire inhibition of stammering by exterior management, and a few medical outcomes. J. Psychosom. Res. 1, 233–246. doi: 10.1016/0022-3999(56)90001-0
CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Cimorell-Robust, J. M., Gilbert, H. R., and Frick, J. V. (1983). Dichotic speech notion: a comparability between stuttering and nonstuttering youngsters. J. Fluency Disord. 8, 77–91. doi: 10.1016/0094-730x(83)90022-0
CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Colebatch, J. G., and Rothwell, J. C. (2004). Motor unit excitability modifications mediating vestibulocollic reflexes within the sternocleidomastoid muscle. Clin. Neurophysiol. 115, 2567–2573. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2004.06.012
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Corbera, S., Corral, M.-J., Escera, C., and Idiazábal, M. A. (2005). Irregular speech sound illustration in persistent developmental stuttering. Neurology 65, 1246–1252. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000180969.03719.81
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Craig, A., Hancock, Ok., Tran, Y., and Craig, M. (2003). Anxiousness ranges in individuals who stutter: a randomized inhabitants examine. J. Speech Lang. Listening to Res. 46, 1197–1206. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2003/093)
CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Crivellaro Goncalves, I., Furquim de Andrade, C. R., and Gentile Matas, C. (2015). Auditory processing of speech and non-speech stimuli in youngsters who stutter: electrophysiological evidences. Mind Disord. Ther. 04, 1–5. doi: 10.4172/2168-975X.1000199
CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Cromwell, H. C., and Atchley, R. M. (2015). Affect of emotional states on inhibitory gating: animals fashions to medical neurophysiology. Behav. Mind Res. 276, 67–75. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2014.05.028
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Curthoys, I. S. (2017). The brand new vestibular stimuli: sound and vibration-anatomical, physiological and medical proof. Exp. Mind Res. 235, 957–972. doi: 10.1007/s00221-017-4874-y
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Curthoys, I. S., Grant, J. W., Pastras, C. J., Brown, D. J., Burgess, A. M., Brichta, A. M., et al. (2019). A evaluation of mechanical and synaptic processes in otolith transduction of sound and vibration for medical VEMP testing. J. Neurophysiol. 122, 259–276. doi: 10.1152/jn.00031.2019
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Davis, M., Walker, D. L., and Lee, Y. (1997). Roles of the amygdala and mattress nucleus of the stria terminalis in worry and nervousness measured with the acoustic startle reflex. Attainable relevance to PTSD. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 821, 305–331. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1997.tb48289.x
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Deriu, F., Ginatempo, F., and Manca, A. (2019). Enhancing analysis high quality of research on VEMPs in central neurological problems: a scoping evaluation. J. Neurophysiol. 122, 1186–1206. doi: 10.1152/jn.00197.2019
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Dmitrieva, E. S., Gel’man, V. I., and Zaźtseva, Ok. A. (2000). Notion of the emotional part of speech by stuttering youngsters in opposition to the background of noise: I. evaluation of the effectivity of the identification of varied feelings. Hum. Physiol. 26, 258–264. doi: 10.1007/bf02760185
CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Ellis, J. B., Finan, D. S., and Ramig, P. R. (2008). The affect of stuttering severity on acoustic startle responses. J. Speech Lang. Listening to Res. 51, 836–850. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2008/061)
CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Ezrati-Vinacour, R., and Levin, I. (2004). The connection between nervousness and stuttering: a multidimensional method. J. Fluenc. Disord. 29, 135–148.
Google Scholar
Escorihuela García, V., Llópez Carratalá, I., Orts Alborch, M., and Marco Algarra, J. (2013). Vestibular evoked myogenic potential findings in a number of sclerosis. Acta Otorrinolaringol. Espanola 64, 352–358. doi: 10.1016/j.otorri.2013.05.006
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Etchell, A. C., Civier, O., Ballard, Ok. J., and Sowman, P. F. (2017). A scientific literature evaluation of neuroimaging analysis on developmental stuttering between 1995 and 2016. J. Fluency Disord. 55, 6–45. doi: 10.1016/j.jfludis.2017.03.007
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Fenoy, A. J., Severson, M. A., Volkov, I. O., Brugge, J. F., and Howard, M. A. (2006). Listening to suppression induced by electrical stimulation of human auditory cortex. Mind Res. 1118, 75–83. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.08.013
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Fetcho, J. R., and McLean, D. L. (2009). “Startle response,” in Encyclopedia of Neuroscience, ed. L. R. Squire (Amsterdam: Elsevier Ltd), 375–379.
Google Scholar
Florentine, M., Popper, A., and Fay, R. (eds) (2010). “Loudness,” in Springer Handbook of Auditory Analysis, Vol. 37, (New York, NY: Springer).
Google Scholar
Forbes, P. A., Dakin, C. J., Vardy, A. N., Happee, R., Siegmund, G. P., Schouten, A. C., et al. (2013). Frequency response of vestibular reflexes in neck, again, and decrease limb muscle tissue. J. Neurophysiol. 110, 1869–1881. doi: 10.1152/jn.00196.2013
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Forbes, P. A., Fice, J. B., Siegmund, G. P., and Blouin, J.-S. (2018). Electrical vestibular stimuli evoke strong muscle exercise in deep and superficial neck muscle tissue in people. Entrance. Neurol. 9:535. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2018.00535
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Forbes, P. A., Kwan, A., Rasman, B. G., Mitchell, D. E., Cullen, Ok. E., and Blouin, J.-S. (2020). Neural mechanisms underlying high-frequency vestibulocollic reflexes in people and monkeys. J. Neurosci. 40, 1874–1887. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1463-19.2020
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Foundas, A. L., Corey, D. M., Hurley, M. M., and Heilman, Ok. M. (2004). Verbal dichotic listening in developmental stuttering: subgroups with atypical auditory processing. Cogn. Behav. Neurol. 17, 224–232.
Google Scholar
Foundas, A. L., Mock, J. R., Corey, D. M., Golob, E. J., and Conture, E. G. (2013). The speech straightforward gadget in stuttering and nonstuttering adults: fluency results whereas talking and studying. Mind Lang. 126, 141–150. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2013.04.004
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Fransella, F., and Beech, H. R. (1965). An experimental evaluation of the impact of rhythm on the speech of stutterers. Behav. Res. Ther. 1965, 195–201. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(65)90005-7
CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Gabelić, T., Krbot, M., Šefer, A. B., Išgum, V., Adamec, I., and Habek, M. (2013). Ocular and cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potentials in sufferers with a number of sclerosis. J. Clin. Neurophysiol. 30, 86–91. doi: 10.1097/WNP.0b013e31827eda0c
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Gattie, M. C. D., Howell, P., Kluk, Ok., and Lieven, E. (2019). Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potentials in Persistent Developmental Stuttering. Obtainable on-line at: osf.io/9mukg (accessed June 28, 2021).
Google Scholar
Goldberg, J. M., and Cullen, Ok. E. (2011). Vestibular management of the top: attainable features of the vestibulocollic reflex. Exp. Mind Res. 210, 331–345. doi: 10.1007/s00221-011-2611-5
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Goldberg J. M. (ed.) (2012). The Vestibular System: a Sixth Sense. (2012). Oxford: Oxford College Press Inc.
Google Scholar
Gómez-Nieto, R., Hormigo, S., and López, D. E. (2020). Prepulse inhibition of the auditory startle reflex evaluation as a trademark of brainstem sensorimotor gating mechanisms. Mind Sci. 10:639. doi: 10.3390/brainsci10090639
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Govender, S., Todd, N. P. M., and Colebatch, J. G. (2020). Mapping the vestibular cerebellar evoked potential (VsCEP) following air- and bone-conducted vestibular stimulation. Exp. Mind Res. 238, 601–620. doi: 10.1007/s00221-020-05733-x
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Grillon, C., and Baas, J. (2003). A evaluation of the modulation of the startle reflex by affective states and its software in psychiatry. Clin. Neurophysiol. 114, 1557–1579. doi: 10.1016/s1388-2457(03)00202-5
CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Grüsser-Cornehls, U., and Bäurle, J. (2001). Mutant mice as a mannequin for cerebellar ataxia. Prog. Neurobiol. 63, 489–540. doi: 10.1016/S0301-0082(00)00024-1
CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Guitar, B. (2003). Acoustic startle responses and temperament in people who stutter. J. Speech Lang. Listening to Res. 46, 233–240. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2003/018)
CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Güven, H., Bayır, O., Aytaç, E., Ozdek, A., Comoǧlu, S. S., and Korkmaz, H. (2014). Vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials, medical analysis, and imaging findings in a number of sclerosis. Neurol. Sci. 35, 221–226. doi: 10.1007/s10072-013-1483-9
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Halag-Milo, T., Stoppelman, N., Kronfeld-Duenias, V., Civier, O., Amir, O., Ezrati-Vinacour, R., et al. (2016). Past manufacturing: mind responses throughout speech notion in adults who stutter. NeuroImage Clin. 11, 328–338. doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2016.02.017
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Hampton, A., and Weber-Fox, C. (2008). Non-linguistic auditory processing in stuttering: proof from conduct and event-related mind potentials. J. Fluency Disord. 33, 253–273. doi: 10.1016/j.jfludis.2008.08.001
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Harun, A., Oh, E. S., Bigelow, R. T., Studenski, S., and Agrawal, Y. (2016). Vestibular impairment in dementia. Otol. Neurotol. 37, 1137–1142. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001157
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Hickok, G., Houde, J., and Rong, F. (2011). Sensorimotor integration in speech processing: computational foundation and neural group. Neuron 69, 407–422. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.01.019
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Houde, J. F., and Nagarajan, S. S. (2016). Speech motor management from a contemporary management principle perspective. Neurobiol. Lang. 2016, 221–238. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-407794-2.00019-5
CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Howell, P. (2004). Results of delayed auditory suggestions and frequency-shifted suggestions on speech management and a few potentials for future growth of prosthetic aids for stammering. Stammering Res. 1, 31–46.
Google Scholar
Howell, P., El-Yaniv, N., and Powell, D. J. (1987). “Elements affecting fluency in stutterers when talking underneath altered auditory suggestions,” in Speech Motor Dynamics in Stuttering, eds H. Peters and W. Hulstijn (Vienna: Springer), 361–369. doi: 10.1007/978-3-7091-6969-8_28
CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Howell, P., Powell, D. J., and Khan, I. (1983). Amplitude contour of the delayed sign and interference in delayed auditory suggestions duties. J. Exp. Psychol. 9, 772–784. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.9.5.772
CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Howell, P., Rosen, S., Hannigan, G., and Rustin, L. (2000). Auditory backward-masking efficiency by youngsters who stutter and its relation to dysfluency fee. Percept. Motor Expertise 90, 355–363. doi: 10.2466/pms.2000.90.2.355
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Irvine, D. R. F. (1992). “Physiology of the Auditory Brainstem,” in The Mammalian Auditory Pathway: Neurophysiology. Springer Handbook of Auditory Analysis, Vol. 2, eds A. N. Popper and R. R. Fay (New York, NY: Springer).
Google Scholar
Isaac, V., Olmedo, D., Aboitiz, F., and Delano, P. H. (2017). Altered cervical vestibular-evoked myogenic potential in youngsters with consideration deficit and hyperactivity dysfunction. Entrance. Neurol. 8:90. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2017.00090
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Ismail, N., Sallam, Y., Behery, R., and Al Boghdady, A. (2017). Cortical auditory evoked potentials in youngsters who stutter. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 97, 93–101. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2017.03.030
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Ivanković, A., Nesek Maǧarić, V., Starčević, Ok., Krbot Skorić, M., Gabelić, T., Adamec, I., et al. (2013). Auditory evoked potentials and vestibular evoked myogenic potentials in analysis of brainstem lesions in a number of sclerosis. J. Neurol. Sci. 328, 24–27. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2013.02.005
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Iverach, L., Rapee, R. M., Wong, Q. J. J., and Lowe, R. (2017). Upkeep of social nervousness in stuttering: a cognitive-behavioral mannequin. Am. J. Speech Lang. Pathol. 26, 540–556. doi: 10.1044/2016_AJSLP-16-0033
CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Jansson-Verkasalo, E., Eggers, Ok., Järvenpää, A., Suominen, Ok., Van den Bergh, B., De Nil, L., et al. (2014). Atypical central auditory speech-sound discrimination in youngsters who stutter as listed by the mismatch negativity. J. Fluency Disord. 41, 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.jfludis.2014.07.001
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Jerônimo, G. M., Scherer, A., and Sleifer, P. (2020). Lengthy-latency auditory evoked potential in youngsters with stuttering. Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) 18, eAO5225.
Google Scholar
Kaganovich, N., Wray, A. H., and Weber-Fox, C. (2010). Non-linguistic auditory processing and dealing reminiscence replace in pre-school youngsters who stutter: an electrophysiological examine. Dev. Neuropsychol. 35, 712–736. doi: 10.1080/87565641.2010.508549
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Kahane, P., Hoffmann, D., Minotti, L., and Berthoz, A. (2003). Reappraisal of the human vestibular cortex by cortical electrical stimulation examine. Ann. Neurol. 54, 615–624. doi: 10.1002/ana.10726
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Kaji, R., Urushihara, R., Murase, N., Shimazu, H., and Goto, S. (2005). Irregular sensory gating in basal ganglia problems. J. Neurol. 252 Suppl 4, IV13–IV16. doi: 10.1007/s00415-005-4004-9
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Kern (1932). Der einflusz des hiirens auf das stottern. Arch. Psychiat. 97:429449.
Google Scholar
Khedr, E., El-Nasser, W. A., Abdel Haleem, E. Ok., Bakr, S., and Trakhan, M. N. (2000). Evoked potentials and electroencephalography in stuttering. Folia Phoniatr. Logopaed. 52, 178–186.
Google Scholar
Kikuchi, Y., Ogata, Ok., Umesaki, T., Yoshiura, T., Kenjo, M., Hirano, Y., et al. (2011). Spatiotemporal signatures of an irregular auditory system in stuttering. NeuroImage 55, 891–899. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.12.083
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Kikuchi, Y., Okamoto, T., Ogata, Ok., Hagiwara, Ok., Umezaki, T., Kenjo, M., et al. (2017). Irregular auditory synchronization in stuttering: a magnetoencephalographic examine. Listening to Res. 344, 82–89. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2016.10.027
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Knudson, I. M., and Melcher, J. R. (2016). Elevated acoustic startle responses in people: relationship to decreased loudness discomfort degree, however not self-report of hyperacusis. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 17, 223–235. doi: 10.1007/s10162-016-0555-y
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Landis, C., and Hunt, W. A. (1939). The Startle Sample. New York, NY: Farrar and Rinehart.
Google Scholar
Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., and Cuthbert, B. N. (1990). Emotion, consideration, and the startle reflex. Psychol. Rev. 97, 377–395. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.97.3.377
CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Langová, J., Morávek, M., Širokı, A., and Sváb, L. (1975). Impact of talking on evoked vestibular nystagmus in stutterers. Folia Phoniatr. 27, 287–291.
Google Scholar
Langová, J., Široký, A., and Sváb, L. (1983). Experimental differentiation between stuttering and cluttering: perform of the vestibular equipment. Československá Otolaryngol. 32, 97–101.
Google Scholar
Liebetrau, R. M., and Daly, D. A. (1981). Auditory processing and perceptual talents of “natural” and ‘purposeful’ stutterers. J. Fluency Disord. 6, 219–231. doi: 10.1016/0094-730x(81)90003-6
CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Lincoln, M., Packman, A., and Onslow, M. (2006). Altered auditory suggestions and the remedy of stuttering: a evaluation. J. Fluency Disord. 31, 71–89. doi: 10.1016/j.jfludis.2006.04.001
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Liotti, M., Ingham, J. C., Takai, O., Paskos, D. Ok., Perez, R., and Ingham, R. J. (2010). Spatiotemporal dynamics of speech sound notion in power developmental stuttering. Mind Lang. 115, 141–147. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2010.07.007
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Liu, G. T., Volpe, N. J., and Galetta, S. L. (2018). Liu, Volpe, and Galetta’s Neuro-Ophthalmology: Analysis and Administration, third Edn. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Google Scholar
Lotfi, Y., Dastgerdi, Z. H., Farazi, M., Moossavi, A., and Bakhshi, E. (2020). Auditory temporal processing evaluation in youngsters with developmental stuttering. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 132:109935. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2020.109935
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Mason, S., Garnham, C., and Hudson, B. (1996). Electrical response audiometry in younger youngsters earlier than cochlear implantation: a brief latency part. Ear Hear. 17, 537–543. doi: 10.1097/00003446-199612000-00009
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Matuschek, H., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., Baayen, H., and Bates, D. (2017). Balancing sort I error and energy in linear blended fashions. J. Mem. Lang. 94, 305–315. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.001
CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Max, L., Guenther, F. H., Gracco, V. L., Ghash, S. S., and Wallace, M. E. (2004). Unstable or insufficiently activated inner fashions and suggestions biased motor management as sources of dysfluency: a theoretical mannequin of stuttering. CICSD 31, 105–122. doi: 10.1044/cicsd_31_s_105
CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
McCall, A. A., Miller, D. M., and Yates, B. J. (2017). Descending influences on vestibulospinal and vestibulosympathetic reflexes. Entrance. Neurol. 8:112. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2017.00112
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
McNerney, Ok. M., and Burkard, R. F. (2011). The vestibular evoked myogenic potential (VEMP): air – versus bone-conducted stimuli. Ear Listening to 32, e6–e15. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3182280299
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Miller, D. M., Klein, C. S., Suresh, N. L., and Rymer, W. Z. (2014). Asymmetries in vestibular evoked myogenic potentials in power stroke survivors with spastic hypertonia: proof for a vestibulospinal position. Clin. Neurophysiol. 125, 2070–2078. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2014.01.035
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Morgan, M. D., Cranford, J. L., and Burk, Ok. (1997). P300 event-related potentials in stutterers and nonstutterers. J. Speech Lang. Listening to Res. 40, 1334–1340. doi: 10.1044/jslhr.4006.1334
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Mozaffarilegha, M., Namazi, H., Tahaei, A. A., and Jafari, S. (2019). Complexity-based evaluation of the distinction between regular topics and topics with stuttering in speech evoked auditory brainstem response. J. Med. Biol. Eng. 39, 490–497. doi: 10.1007/s40846-018-0430-x
CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Murofushi, T., Iwasaki, S., Takai, Y., and Takegoshi, H. (2005). Sound-evoked neurogenic responses with brief latency of vestibular origin. Clin. Neurophysiol. 116, 401–405. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2004.09.005
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Nakagawa, S., Johnson, P. C. D., and Schielzeth, H. (2017). The coefficient of dedication r2 and intra-class correlation coefficient from generalized linear mixed-effects fashions revisited and expanded. J. R. Soc. Interface 14:20170213. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2017.0213
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Neef, N. E., Anwander, A., and Friederici, A. D. (2015a). The neurobiological grounding of persistent stuttering: from construction to perform. Curr. Neurol. Neurosci. Rep. 15:63. doi: 10.1007/s11910-015-0579-4
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Neef, N. E., Hoang, T. N. L., Neef, A., Paulus, W., and Sommer, M. (2015b). Speech dynamics are coded within the left motor cortex in fluent audio system however not in adults who stutter. Mind 138(Pt 3), 712–725. doi: 10.1093/mind/awu390
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Neelly, J. M. (1961). A examine of the speech behaviour of stutterers and nonstutterers underneath regular and delayed auditory suggestions. J. Speech hear. Disord. monogr. Suppl. 7, 63–82.
Google Scholar
Newlands, S. D., and Perachio, A. A. (2003). Central projections of the vestibular nerve: a evaluation and single fiber examine within the Mongolian gerbil. Mind Res. Bull. 60, 475–495. doi: 10.1016/S0361-9230(03)00051-0
CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Newlands, S. D., Vrabec, J. T., Purcell, I. M., Stewart, C. M., Zimmerman, B. E., and Perachio, A. A. (2003). Central projections of the saccular and utricular nerves in macaques. J. Comp. Neurol. 466, 31–47. doi: 10.1002/cne.10876
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Nguyen, Ok. D., Welgampola, M. S., and Carey, J. P. (2010). Check-retest reliability and age-related traits of the ocular and cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential checks. Otol. Neurotol. 31, 793–802. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181e3d60e
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Nong, D. X., Ura, M., Kyuna, A., Owa, T., and Noda, Y. (2002). Saccular origin of acoustically evoked brief latency unfavourable response. Otol. Neurotol. 23, 953–957. doi: 10.1097/00129492-200211000-00024
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Nong, D. X., Ura, M., Owa, T., and Noda, Y. (2000). An acoustically evoked brief latency unfavourable response in profound listening to loss sufferers. Acta Oto-Laryngol. 120, 960–966. doi: 10.1080/00016480050218708
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Oh, S.-Y., Kim, J. S., Lee, J.-M., Shin, B.-S., Hwang, S.-B., Kwak, Ok.-C., et al. (2013). Ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potentials induced by air-conducted sound in sufferers with acute brainstem lesions. Clin. Neurophysiol. 124, 770–778. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2012.09.026
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Özcan, Ö., Altınayar, S., Özcan, C., Ünal, S., and Karlıdaǧ, R. (2009). P50 sensory gating in youngsters and adolescents with developmental stuttering. Bull. Clin. Psychopharmacol. 19, 241–246.
Google Scholar
Papathanasiou, E., Zamba-Papanicolaou, E., Pantziaris, M., Kyriakides, T., Papacostas, S., Myrianthopoulou, P., et al. (2003). Click on evoked neurogenic vestibular potentials (NVESTEPs): a technique of assessing the perform of the vestibular system. Electromyogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 43, 399–408.
Google Scholar
Papathanasiou, E. S., Murofushi, T., Akin, F. W., and Colebatch, J. G. (2014). Worldwide tips for the medical software of cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potentials: an skilled consensus report. Clin. Neurophysiol. 125, 658–666. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2013.11.042
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Papathanasiou, E. S., Theocharidou, E. Ok., and Papacostas, S. S. (2006). Parallel auditory vestibular evoked neurogenic and myogenic potential leads to a case of peripheral vestibular dysfunction, displaying that the previous originates from the vestibular system. Electromyogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 46, 105–111.
Google Scholar
Papathanasiou, E. S., Zamba-Papanicolaou, E., Pantziaris, M., Kleopas, Ok., Kyriakides, T., Papacostas, S., et al. (2004). Neurogenic vestibular evoked potentials utilizing a tone pip auditory stimulus. Electromyogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 44, 167–173.
Google Scholar
Pause, B. M., Adolph, D., Prehn-Kristensen, A., and Ferstl, R. (2009). Startle response potentiation to chemosensory nervousness alerts in socially anxious people. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 74, 88–92. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2009.07.008
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Pierrot-Deseilligny, C., and Tilikete, C. (2008). New insights into the upward vestibulo-oculomotor pathways within the human brainstem. Prog. Mind Res. 171, 509–518. doi: 10.1016/S0079-6123(08)00673-0
CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
R Growth Core Crew (2020). R: A Language and Atmosphere for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Basis for Statistical Computing. Obtainable on-line at: http://www.R-project.org/
Google Scholar
Reinfeldt, S., Östli, P., Håkansson, B., and Stenfelt, S. (2010). Listening to one’s personal voice throughout phoneme vocalization—Transmission by air and bone conduction. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 128, 751–762. doi: 10.1121/1.3458855
CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Riley, G. D. (2009). SSI-4: Stuttering severity instrument – Fourth version; examiners’ Guide, 4th Edn. Austin, TX: Professional-Ed.
Google Scholar
Rosenfield, D. B., and Jerger, J. (1984). “Stuttering and auditory perform,” in Nature and Remedy of Stuttering: New Instructions, eds R. F. Curlee and W. H. Perkins (San Diego, CA: School-Hill Press), 73–87.
Google Scholar
Rosengren, S. M., and Colebatch, J. G. (2018). The contributions of vestibular evoked myogenic potentials and acoustic vestibular stimulation to our understanding of the vestibular system. Entrance. Neurol. 9:481. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2018.00481
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Rosengren, S. M., Colebatch, J. G., Younger, A. S., Govender, S., and Welgampola, M. S. (2019). Vestibular evoked myogenic potentials in apply: strategies, pitfalls and medical purposes. Clin. Neurophysiol. Pract. 4, 47–68. doi: 10.1016/j.cnp.2019.01.005
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Rosengren, S. M., Welgampola, M. S., and Colebatch, J. G. (2010). Vestibular evoked myogenic potentials: previous, current and future. Clin. Neurophysiol. 121, 636–651. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2009.10.016
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Rousey, C. L., Goetzinger, C. P., and Dirks, D. (1959). Sound localization potential of regular, stuttering, neurotic, and hemiplegic topics. AMA Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 1, 640–645. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1959.03590060102011
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Salmelin, R., Schnitzler, A., Schmitz, F., Jäncke, L., Witte, O. W., and Freund, H. J. (1998). Purposeful group of the auditory cortex is totally different in stutterers and fluent audio system. Neuroreport 9, 2225–2229. doi: 10.1097/00001756-199807130-00014
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Sato, Y., Mori, Ok., Koizumi, T., Minagawa-Kawai, Y., Tanaka, A., Ozawa, E., et al. (2011). Purposeful lateralization of speech processing in adults and youngsters who stutter. Entrance. Psychol. 2:70. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00070
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Selman, M. Ok., and Gregg, B. A. (2020). A preliminary investigation of variations in acoustic startle responses between school-age youngsters who do and don’t stutter. Clin. Arch. Commun. Disord. 5, 106–127. doi: 10.21849/cacd.2020.00227
CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Shalash, A. S., Hassan, D. M., Elrassas, H. H., Salama, M. M., Méndez-Hernández, E., Salas-Pacheco, J. M., et al. (2017). Auditory- and vestibular-evoked potentials correlate with motor and non-motor options of Parkinson’s illness. Entrance. Neurol. 8:55. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2017.00055
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Smith, P. F. (2012). Interactions between the vestibular nucleus and the dorsal cochlear nucleus: implications for tinnitus. Listening to Res. 292, 80–82. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2012.08.006
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Sommers, R. Ok., Brady, W. A., and Moore, W. H. (1975). Dichotic ear preferences of stuttering youngsters and adults. Percept. Motor Expertise 41, 931–938. doi: 10.2466/pms.1975.41.3.931
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Stenfelt, S. (2012). Transcranial attenuation of bone-conducted sound when stimulation is on the mastoid and on the bone conduction listening to help place. Otol. Neurotol. 33, 105–114. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e31823e28ab
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Stevens, S. S. (1972). Perceived degree of noise by mark VII and decibels (E). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 51, 575–601. doi: 10.1121/1.1912880
CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Suchodoletz, W., and Wolfram, I. (1996). Brainstem auditory evoked potentials (BAEP) in youngsters with developmental language problems. Klinische Pädiatr. 208, 290–293. doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1046485
CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Taylor, R. M., and Morrison, L. P. (1996). Taylor–Johnson Temperament Evaluation Guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Psychological Publications.
Google Scholar
Todd, N. P. M., and Lee, C. S. (2015). The sensory-motor principle of rhythm and beat induction 20 years on: a brand new synthesis and future views. Entrance. Hum. Neurosci. 9:444. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00444
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Todd, N. P. M., Paillard, A. C., Kluk, Ok., Whittle, E., and Colebatch, J. G. (2014a). Supply evaluation of brief and lengthy latency vestibular-evoked potentials (VsEPs) produced by left vs. proper ear air-conducted 500 Hz tone pips. Listening to Res. 312, 91–102. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2014.03.006
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Todd, N. P. M., Paillard, A. C., Kluk, Ok., Whittle, E., and Colebatch, J. G. (2014b). Vestibular receptors contribute to cortical auditory evoked potentials. Listening to Res. 309, 63–74. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2013.11.008
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Todd, N. P. M., Rosengren, S. M., and Colebatch, J. G. (2008). A supply evaluation of short- latency vestibular evoked potentials produced by air- and bone-conducted sound. Neurophysiol. Clin. 119, 1881–1894. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2008.03.027
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Vaidyanathan, U., Patrick, C. J., and Cuthbert, B. N. (2009). Linking dimensional fashions of internalizing psychopathology to neurobiological methods: affect-modulated startle as an indicator of worry and misery problems and affiliated traits. Psychol. Bull. 135, 909–942. doi: 10.1037/a0017222
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Ventre-Dominey, J. (2014). Vestibular perform within the temporal and parietal cortex: distinct velocity and inertial processing pathways. Entrance. Integr. Neurosci. 8:53. doi: 10.3389/fnint.2014.00053
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Welgampola, M. S., Rosengren, S. M., Halmagyi, G. M., and Colebatch, J. G. (2003). Vestibular activation by bone performed sound. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 74, 771–778. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.74.6.771
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Winter (2019). Statistics for Linguists: An Introduction Utilizing R. Abingdon: Routledge.
Google Scholar
Wit, H. P., and Kingma, C. M. (2006). A easy mannequin for the technology of the vestibular evoked myogenic potential (VEMP). Clin. Neurophysiol. 117, 1354–1358. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2006.03.014
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Yates, A. J. (1963). Current empirical and theoretical approaches to the experimental manipulation of speech in regular topics and in stammerers. Behav. Res. Ther. 1, 95–119. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(63)90013-5
CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Zwergal, A., Strupp, M., Brandt, T., and Büttner-Ennever, J. A. (2009). Parallel ascending vestibular pathways: anatomical localization and purposeful specialization. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1164, 51–59. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04461.x
PubMed Summary | CrossRef Full Textual content | Google Scholar
Adblock check (Why?)