However, the lack of differences between AWS and AWNS across all N-back levels does not support deficits in AWS in aspects of working memory targeted through a visual N-back task but, these results are preliminary and additional research is warranted. Specifically, a phonological priming effect occurred in AWNS but not in AWS, potentially due to reduced spreading activation and organization in the mental lexicon of AWS. Results from this study suggest different processing mechanisms between AWS and AWNS for visually presented phonologically similar stimuli. Finally, AWNS demonstrated faster mRT in the phonological compared to neutral condition, whereas AWS did not. Furthermore, both groups were more accurate and significantly faster in 1- followed by 2- followed by 3-back trials. No difference was found between AWS and AWNS in accuracy. Accuracy and manual reaction time (mRT) were analyzed. Stimuli included images with phonologically similar (i.e., phonological condition) or phonologically dissimilar (i.e., neutral condition) names. ![]() Processes involved in an N-back task include encoding, storing, rehearsing, inhibition, temporal ordering, and matching.įifteen AWS (11 males, 4 females M = 23.27 years, SD = 5.68 years) and 15 AWNS (M = 23.47 years, SD = 6.21 years) were asked to monitor series of images and respond by pressing a “yes” button if the image they viewed was the same as the image one, two, or three trials back. The purpose of this study was to investigate working memory in adults who do (AWS) and do not (AWNS) stutter using a visual N-back task. Furthermore, better expressive vocabulary skills were associated with better letter fluency performance in both groups. AWS generated fewer items on the letter fluency tasks regardless of response mode, suggesting that they have weaker lexical access abilities. Expressive Vocabulary Test scores predicted letter fluency similarly in both AWS and AWNS.ĪWS were not penalized by oral task demands. Mode did not impact letter fluency results. ![]() Group predicted letter fluency such that AWS generated fewer items on both the oral and typed letter fluency tasks. Generalized linear mixed-effects models were evaluated to determine the effects of group (AWS/AWNS), mode (oral/typed), and expressive vocabulary on letter fluency performance. Conditions were counterbalanced across participants. Adults were asked to orally produce words that began with one of two letter targets and type words that began with one of two alternate letters. This study aimed to examine lexical access and retrieval abilities of AWS in oral and typed modes.įifteen AWS and 15 well-matched AWNS completed computer-administered letter fluency tasks. However, it is unknown whether modality affects language performance by AWS in time pressure situations. Language abilities have long been thought to be weaker in adults who stutter (AWS) compared to adults who do not stutter (AWNS).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |