Executive function in preschool children who stutter: A behavioral assessment study

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4951394/v1

Download PDF

Article

Executive function in preschool children who stutter: A behavioral assessment study

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4951394/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Developmental stuttering is a speech disorder characterized by the repetition, prolongation, and blocking of speech sounds. It has been suggested that a decline in executive function is a background factor for preschool children who stutter. Executive function is defined as “goal-oriented thought, action, and emotion regulation.” At present, there are few previous studies that have comprehensively investigated the subcomponents of executive function in preschool children who stutter through behavioral experiments. We herein conducted age- and gender-matched case–control study to explore the characteristics of the subcomponents of executive function in preschool children who stutter compared with preschool children who do not. Consequently, we found declines in verbal and visual working memories in preschool children who stutter. The results of this study indicated that children who stutter show declines not only in verbal short-term memory performance, as has been pointed out in the past, but also in the performance of the entire working memory system, including central executive function.

Biological sciences/Psychology

Health sciences/Medical research

Stuttering

Preschool

Executive function

Developmental stuttering is a speech disorder characterized by the repetition, prolongation, and blocking of speech sounds. In the International Classification of Diseases 11th by the World Health Organization, it is coded as “6A01.1 Developmental speech fluency disorder.” Typically, the onset of stuttering occurs between 2 and 6 years old¹. The incidence of stuttering is estimated to be about 5–8%, but 70–80% of children spontaneously recover within 3 years of onset², leading to a prevalence of approximately 1%³.

The characteristics of preschool children who stutter (CWS) have been examined in terms of language developmental factors. A meta-analysis⁴ revealed that CWS exhibit delayed overall language development compared with preschool children who do not stutter (CWNS), although some studies have reported no significant differences⁵. Regarding phonological and articulatory development, numerous studies reported that CWS show delays, suggesting an association with recovery^{5, 6}. However, language developmental factors alone do not clearly distinguish CWS from CWNS.

The characteristics of CWS beyond language development have also been investigated, particularly concerning emotional and attentional features. CWS have been reported to have more difficulty controlling their emotional responses than CWNS^{7, 8}. In terms of attentional capacity, CWS have been reported to have difficulty with divided attention^{9, 10} and attention regulation¹¹. The accuracy and efficiency of CWS compared with CWNS have also been highlighted in these areas.

As described above, emotional regulation, along with behavioral regulation, is one of the core components of executive function¹². Divided attention, which is a function of higher-order attention, is associated with executive function and working memory¹³. Thus, the specificity of executive function can be inferred from the background of the emotional regulation and attentional performance characteristics noted in CWS. Executive function is defined as “goal-oriented thought, action, and emotion regulation” ¹⁴. Executive function development in early childhood has been reported to be a possible predictor of social success and health status¹⁵, and it has attracted attention in many fields related to child development. Miyake et al. (2000)¹⁶ reported that executive function consists of three factors: shifting, updating (working memory), and inhibition. Shifting refers to the flexible switching of tasks, updating (working memory) refers to a system that monitors and updates information held in working memory, and inhibition refers to the suppression of dominant behaviors and thoughts. In recent years, executive functions have also been categorized into “cool” and “hot”¹². Cool executive function refers to the ability to function in neutral, noncontextual situations, whereas hot executive function involves controlling instinctive demands and emotions to achieve goals in emotional situations. Furthermore, it is characterized by its rapid development in early childhood.

The behavioral and neuroscientific characteristics of CWS suggest the need for further investigation into the executive functioning characteristics of CWS. Behaviorally, several studies have reported that people who stutter have a higher rate of comorbid ADHD^{17, 18}. ADHD has been identified as one of the main factors contributing to poor executive functioning¹⁹, which may be another reason for the increased interest in executive functioning in CWS. Moreover, neurological findings support a relationship with executive function. Chang et al. (2018)²⁰ noted that in young children with persistent stuttering, the frontoparietal network, which is largely associated with executive function, has abnormal connections with the default mode network. The executive function and default mode networks are inversely correlated, suggesting that in CWS, weakness in executive function may lead to excessive interference of the default mode network²¹.

The association between stuttering and executive function has also been explored. Cognitive aspects of executive function have been suggested to influence speech fluency by affecting resource allocation during speech production planning and language production. For example, it has been reported that inhibition and weak working memory may reduce the stability of phonological and/or lexical representations of words in the mental lexicon. Consequently, insufficient attentional resources may be allocated for fluent language production, thereby affecting stuttering²². From the emotional aspect of executive function, the fact that CWS have higher emotional reactivity than CWNS and that stuttering are more severe during sympathetic hyperarousal²³ suggests that executive function affects difficulties in emotional regulation. It has also been suggested that stuttering symptoms may occur as a result of inadequate attention allocation to speech motor control due to insufficient working memory, a component of executive function²⁴. The demands and capacities model (DCM)²⁵, a theoretical account of childhood stuttering, and the multifactorial dynamic pathways theory (MDPT)²⁶, as well as the dual diathesis-stressor model of emotional and linguistic contributions to developmental stuttering²⁷, also address emotion as a factor influencing stuttering. Furthermore, in the RESTART-DCM method, an approach to treating CWS based on the DCM²⁵, language development and emotion are considered to be two of the four speech-related factors associated with the occurrence of stuttering. This approach encourages planning for the child’s fluency by considering the child’s language development and ensuring that language production is guided by the length and content of speech that is less stressful for the caregiver. The RESTART-DCM method has been demonstrated to be as effective as the Lidcombe Program, an approach with a high level of evidence in early childhood²⁸, suggesting that emotional regulation may influence stuttering.

The previous studies outlined above suggest a relationship between the characteristics of CWS, the occurrence of stuttering, and executive function. In the following sections, we will review studies that have measured the executive function of CWS and attempt to analyze their characteristics. Singer et al. (2020)²⁹ conducted a meta-analysis of the executive function of CWS, examining its subcomponents: shifting, verbal short-term memory, and inhibition. The results indicated that verbal short-term memory performance is lower in CWS. However, as this study included subjects aged 3 to 18 years old, it is necessary to separate the analysis into early childhood and later periods, as executive function rapidly develops in early childhood and the pathophysiology of stuttering may differ between these periods. Kakuta and Kawasaki (2024)³⁰ conducted a review focusing on the executive function of young CWS. The results indicated that despite some disagreements, several studies reported significantly lower working memory performance in CWS, and a few studies reported lower performance in other subcomponents of executive function. In addition, they found that previous studies often focused on individual subcomponents, such as working memory or inhibitory function, without an integrated examination of executive function. Moreover, studies that comprehensively examined executive function were based on parent reports, with no reports based on behavioral observation. Most reports on working memory examined only verbal short-term memory, with visual tasks being inadequately investigated. Future studies should determine which subcomponents of working memory are characterized by specific features.

Based on previous studies, we hypothesize that executive functions are involved in the derivation of fluent speech by interfering with speech motor control. We also propose that environmental factors may act as moderating variables. As a first step, we conducted an age- and gender-matched case–control study to comprehensively examine executive function through behavioral observation, with the aim of characterizing the overall executive function of CWS compared with CWNS. We hypothesize that the decline in executive function observed in previous studies cannot be explained solely by a decline in verbal working memory and that other components of working memory and other subcomponents of executive function may contribute to the observed decline in performance.

Descriptive Statistics and Histograms of Executive Function Tasks for Each Group

The descriptive statistics of the executive function tasks for each group are presented in Table 1. The histograms of the results of each group’s performance on the executive function tasks are shown in Fig. 1. We checked the histograms for the normality of the score distribution for each task. All executive function tasks were normally distributed. For equivariance, only Simon Says was rejected (P < 0.05).

Table 1

Mean Standard scores (Standard Deviation) on Executive Function Tasks tests for CWS and CWNS
	CWS		CWNS
Task	M(SD)	Range	M(SD)	Range
Digit span test	2.10(1.65)	0–6	3.55(1.95)	0–8
Visual counting span test	2.95(1.68)	2–9	4.00(1.19)	3–8
Black/White task	12.00(2.19)	7–16	12.70(2.56)	9–16
Simon Says	6.45(2.10)	3–10	6.90(2.52)	3–10

Differences in Performance on the Executive Function Task

The Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) results for the number of correct responses on the verbal working memory task indicated a significant main effect (F(1, 37) = 5.11, P = .03, partial η2 = .12) due to talkers (CWS: mean = 2.26, standard error [SE] = .34; CWNS: mean = 3.38, SE = 0.34). The choronological age covariate was also significant (F(1, 37) = 16.01, P < 0.01, partial η2 = 0.30). Meanwhile, the ANCOVA results for the number of correct responses in the visual working memory task showed a significant main effect (F(1, 37) = 4.60, P = .04, partial η2 = .11) with talkers (CWS: mean = 2.99, SE = .32; CWNS: mean = 3. 97, SE = 0.32). The choronological age covariate was also significant (F(1, 37) = 4.71, P = 0.04, partial η2 = 0.11). The number of correct responses on the black-and-white task was not significantly main effect (F(1, 37) = 0.15, P = 0.71, partial η2 = 0.004; CWS: adjusted mean = 12.34, SE = 0.60; CWNS: adjusted mean = 12.67, SE = 0.60). The chronological age covariate was also not significantly different (F(1, 37) = 0.24, P = 0.62, partial η2 = 0.007). The results of Welch’s t-test for the number of correct responses for Simon Says was not significantly different by talkers (t(33) = ˗0.59, P = 0.56, d = 0.19).

The present study comprehensively investigated the characteristics of executive function in CWS. The results indicated that as initially hypothesized, the CWS exhibited lower performance in verbal and visual working memories. In the following, we will discuss the association between executive function and the occurrence of stuttering symptoms based on the results of the working memory task, in which the CWS had significantly lower performance than the CWNS, and cognitive flexibility and inhibition, in which both groups showed no significant differences in terms of performance.

First, the low performance of the CWS in the working memory task will be discussed in terms of Baddeley’s working memory component model³¹. In this model, under the central executive function, which is responsible for the control of attention, there are three components: the phonological loop, which stores verbal information; the visuospatial sketchpad, which stores visual information; and the episodic buffer, which retrieves information from long-term memory. The central executive function and phonological loop are classified as verbal working memory and the visuospatial sketchpad together as visual working memory. In the present study, the CWS had significantly lower performance in the verbal and visual working memory tasks (P = .04, partial η2 = .11). Most of the studies that investigated the executive function of young CWS have examined verbal working memory through a number-singing or nonword-recitation task. As a result, many studies reported that the performance of the CWS was significantly lower than that of the CWNS. However, young CWS have also been found to have delayed phonological development. Delayed phonological development may lead to difficulties in performing linguistic tasks and, consequently, to smaller verbal short-term memory capacity. In other words, the low verbal working memory capacity of CWS may be a confounded result of slow phonological development⁶. In the present study, visual working memory, which is less affected by phonological development, was also measured, suggesting that the performance in the verbal and visual working memory tasks was low. This indicates that such a low performance is not due to problems with subcomponents, such as phonological development and working memory capacity, but rather to the central executive system, a factor essential for driving working memory and to the reduced attentional capacity to drive it smoothly The results of this study also indicate the possibility that the central execution system and the reduced attentional capacity to drive it smoothly may be affected by the working memory. The low working memory and attention allocation capacity to drive it, as reported in the present study, have also been demonstrated in a previous study of adults who stutter³². Kaganovich, Wray, and Weber-Fox (2010)⁹ showed a similar trend in young children, but they examined only electrophysiological measures, not behavioral ones. The present study showed that working memory and the ability to allocate attention may also be low in CWS based on behavioral measures. These results indicate that the low performance on working memory tasks shown in children and persons who stutter may be an inherent characteristic of those who stutter rather than an acquired characteristic caused by long-term stuttering. In light of this, it has been reported that a high percentage of CWS have learning disabilities (LD)³³, that both verbal and visual working memories are associated with LD^{34, 35}, and that working memory deficits may have influenced these associations.

No significant differences in inhibition and cognitive flexibility were observed between the CWS and CWNS. Regarding the results of inhibition, it is possible that the bimodal distribution of the black-and-white task performance of the stuttering group had influenced the results, and thus, caution should be taken in the interpretation of these results. The bimodal distribution was observed only in CWS, suggesting that there may be a group of CWS who are extremely poor at inhibition, even among CWS who are typically developing. Furthermore, it has been suggested that the task of inhibition may be compensated for by the use of self-talk³⁶ in late infancy due to the development of internalization of languages. The subjects in this study were also in late infancy and may have been affected by language. Anderson and Wagovich (2017)³⁷ found no significant difference in performance between stuttering and nonstuttering infants in the explicit task of suppressing explicit verbal stimuli (grass-snow) and the implicit task of suppressing implicit verbal stimuli (baa-meow). They also reported that the CWS had lower response accuracy on implicit verbal tasks. These results indicated that the performance was better with explicit verbal stimuli, which are more directly compensatory linguistically. The black-and-white task used in this study was included in the explicit verbal stimuli, and although there was no significant difference in the number of correct responses to the task compared between CWS and CWNS by Anderson and Wagovich (2017)³⁷, the possibility that the task was compensated for by other aspects, such as language, cannot be denied.

Hypotheses regarding the association between executive function and the occurrence of stuttering based on the results of this study will be discussed. DCM²⁵ and MDPT²⁶ are representative hypotheses regarding the occurrence of stuttering symptoms in early childhood. These hypotheses postulate that stuttering symptoms occur when the child’s capacities are unable to meet internal and external demands during the rapid development of speech-related factors in early childhood. Speech-related factors include speech motor, language, social–emotional, and cognitive abilities. Social–emotional abilities are assumed to correspond to executive functions. Among these factors are language (e.g., vocabulary³⁸, speech length³⁹) and executive function⁴⁰ are a period of rapid development. In this context, there is no significant difference in language development between CWS and CWNS⁵. The present study suggests that subcomponent performance may be significantly lower with respect to executive functioning, which is highly associated with social–emotional competence. Thus, it is possible that CWS have an imbalance between language development and executive function development in early childhood, which may be a factor in the occurrence of stuttering. Further discussion of the interaction of these factors suggests that speech motor development, which is considered to be necessary in DCM and MDPT, is slower in 4- and 5-year-old toddlers who stutter than in CWNS, indicating that they have difficulty with consistent speech motor development^{41, 42}. In addition, speech movements are influenced by linguistic and emotional factors. Regarding linguistic factors, speech movements are more unstable and are influenced by increased utterance length and word novelty⁴¹. Emotional factors also influence speech motor control⁴³, and the degree of variability is greater in young children with persistent stuttering⁴⁴. Based on these findings, it is possible that linguistic and emotional factors each influence speech motor control or are related to each other, which results in the development of stuttering symptoms. Moreover, executive function is the basis for the development of language and emotional control, which may indirectly affect these factors.

Finally, we discuss some issues to be addressed in this study.

The first is the method employed to measure executive function. The executive function tasks used in this study include those that require responses in speech. CWS may have felt anxious or stressed when responding with speech, which may have affected their performance on the task. In particular, the tasks used to measure verbal and visual working memories, which showed significant differences in this study, required responses in speech. In the future, it will be necessary to examine the performance in tasks that do not involve verbal responses. Furthermore, in this study, only the performance in the task was the dependent variable, and we were not able to assess the anxiety and effort required to perform the task, as described above. Even if the task performance does not change, an increase in the physiological indices of sympathetic activity that reflect anxiety and effortfulness may be observed. It would be desirable to examine executive function from the perspective of effortfulness in tasks without speech stress.

The second is the executive function model used in this study. In this study, we attempted to measure the executive function of CWS using Miyake’s model. There are other executive function models, such as that of Zelazo, Carter, Reznick, and Frye (1997)⁴⁵, which focuses on selective attention and planning. Miyake’s model¹⁶ was based on a model of children with normal development. Therefore, it is necessary to determine whether the model used in this study is suitable as a framework of executive function for children with neurodevelopmental disorders, such as stuttering and communicative disorders. Indeed, Cirino, Ahmed, Miciak, Taylor, Gerst, and Barnes (2018)⁴⁶ reported that Miyake’s model was not suitable for elementary school students with reading disabilities. Cirino et al. (2018)⁴⁶ conducted a factor analysis of the components of executive function and extracted five specific executive function factors: working memory span, manipulation and planning, working memory updating, generative fluency, self-regulated learning, and metacognition. The components of executive function may differ among CWS and those who have communication difficulties due to speech impediments. In this study, we have elucidated the characteristics of executive function in CWS compared with normal children. However, to examine the executive functions required in the lives of young CWS, we believe that it is necessary to reexamine the subcomponents necessary for “goal-directed control of thoughts, actions, and impulses” in young CWS in the future.

Participants

This study included 40 preschool children (20 CWS, 20 CWNS) aged 5:00 to 6:11 years. The demographic characteristics of the participants are shown in Table 2. All the participants were native monolingual speakers of Japanese, and none had any difficulties with hearing, development, or intellectual functions per parental report and well-child visits.

Table 2

Demographics characteristics of participants
	CWS N = 20	CWNS N = 20	Group comparison
Months of Age
Mean(SD)	67.30(2.94)	68.85(3.27)	t(38) = -1.07, p = .29
Range	63―72	63―73
Gender
Male	14 (70%)	14 (70%)
Female	6 (30%)	6 (30%)
Rate of stuttering core behaviours
Mean(SD)	21.15 (8.88)	0.9 (0.9)	t(19) = 10.31, p < 0.01

Talker Group Matching

The participants in the two talker groups were matched using the same criteria as those of Anderson, Wagovich, and Hall (2006)⁴⁷, ensuring that the age difference between the CWS and CWNS was within ± 4 months and that the gender distribution was identical. The mean age was 67.3 months (standard deviation [SD] = 2.94) for the CWS and 68.85 months (SD = 3.27) for the CWNS, with no significant difference between the groups (P > .05).

Group Classification Criteria

The rate of stuttering core behaviors during a free conversation with an examiner (involving 50 or more clauses) and during the picture description tasks of the Stuttering Test (preschooler version)⁴⁸ was calculated to classify the children into groups. The CWS group consisted of children with stuttering core behaviors occurring in 3% or more of their speech, whereas the CWNS group included children with < 3% stuttering core behaviors and no continuous stuttering symptoms reported by their parents. The Stuttering Inventory was developed to evaluate the stuttering core behaviors in Japanese speakers and is available in three versions: infant version, primary school version, and junior high school and above version. The preschool version includes free conversation with the examiner and sentence/picture description task as essential test items. Additional tests include free conversation with family members, question-answering, and word repetition. Stuttering core behaviors are defined as sound, mora, and syllable repetition, part-word repetition, prolongation, and blocking. The rate of stuttering core behaviors is calculated as the number of stuttering core behaviors divided by the total number of clauses uttered. The results of Welch’s t-test for the Stuttering Test indicated significant differences between the talker groups (P < .05).

Development and Language Criteria

The Kinder Infant Development Scale (KIDS) Type C⁴⁹ and the Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PVT-R)⁵⁰ were administered to confirm that the children were developing typically and that the tasks in this study were appropriate. The KIDS Type C is a parent-completed questionnaire that focuses on a child’s mental and physical development. It consists of 133 questions answered using a two-choice system (○ = clearly able, able in the past, never done but able if given the chance; × = clearly not able, not sure as never done). The scores are calculated for developmental age, developmental index, and specific domains. In this study, the scores of the subscales were matched to the developmental profile, and the developmental age was calculated. The PVT-R is a test that evaluates vocabulary development by asking the child to select from a set of four illustrations corresponding to a vocabulary word presented in an audio recording. Standard scores are calculated based on the number of correct and incorrect responses. A multivariate analysis of variance with age in months as a covariate for the aforementioned tests revealed no differences between the groups (P > .05) (Table 3).

Table 3

Mean Standard scores(Standard Deviation)on Development and language tests for CWS and CWNS
	CWS	CWNS	Group comparison
KIDS	66.90(4.84)	67.95(4.81)	F(1,37) = 0.02, p = .87
PVT-R	22.55(5.26)	23.90(7.79)	F(1,37) = 0.06, p = .80

Procedure

Data collection was performed as follows: the child was administered with the PVT-R by the examiner, followed by the Stuttering Test (preschooler version), and then child carried out the executive function tasks. The executive function tasks are described in more detail below. The KIDS scale was completed by the parents during the child’s performance of the tasks or the day before.

Materials

Executive Function Task

The executive function tasks measured three factors, namely, updating (working memory), inhibition, and cognitive flexibility, as outlined by Miyake et al. (2000)¹⁶. Working memory was measured separately for verbal and visual working memories. Verbal working memory was evaluated using a digit span test, visual working memory using a visual counting span task, inhibition using a black-and-white task, and cognitive flexibility using a Simon Says task.

a) Verbal Working Memory: Digit Span Test

The digits 1–9 were presented aurally at a rate of one per second, and the participants were required to orally repeat them in reverse order (e.g., stimulus “2 − 1,” correct response “1–2”). A practice trial with two digits was conducted, and the main trial began after two correct responses. The numbers presented ranged from 2 to 5 digits. For each digit length, three trials were conducted, and if the participant provided a correct response in at least one trial, the next digit length was administered. One point was awarded for each correct response, with a maximum score of 12.

b) Visual Working Memory: Visual Counting Span Test

This task was classified as a Counting Span Test⁵¹. The participants were presented with a sheet displaying two types of objects (e.g., a star and a sun) and were asked to count one type of object. The maximum number of objects to be counted was five. The experimenter then turned over the sheets one by one, and the participants were asked to recall the number of objects on the sheets in the correct order. In the practice trial, the participants practiced counting and remembering the objects on two sheets. This trial involved two to five digits. Three trials were conducted for each digit length, and if the participant correctly answered in at least one trial, the next digit length was administered. One point was awarded for each correct response, with a maximum score of 12.

c) Inhibition: Black-and-White Task

The experiment was conducted based on Moriguchi (2012)⁵². The participants were instructed to respond “white” when shown a black card and “black” when shown a white card. Two practice trials were given. If the participants answered both trials correctly, they proceeded to the main trial. If an incorrect response was given during the practice phase, the task instructions were repeated. The main trial consisted of 16 trials, during which the experimenter randomly presented the white and black cards once per second, and the participants were asked to respond as described. One point was awarded for each correct response, with a maximum of 16 points.

d) Cognitive Flexibility Task: Simon Says

The traditional “Simon Say” game was adapted⁵³. The participants were told they would play a game where they must touch different parts of their body. If the instruction began with “Simon says,” they were to touch the part as instructed; otherwise, they were to touch a different part. Two practice trials were conducted: “Simon says, touch your head” and “touch your foot.” If the participant correctly answered both trials, the test proceeded. If an incorrect response was given during the practice phase, the task instructions were repeated until two consecutive correct responses were obtained. The main trial involved 10 trials of “Simon says” (noninhibition) or not (inhibition), presented in a random order. One point was awarded for each correct response, with 5 points each for noninhibition and inhibition, with a maximum of 10 points.

Data Analysis

This study used the scores obtained from each task measuring executive function as the dependent variable to examine differences between the groups. The scores for verbal working memory, visual working memory, cognitive flexibility, and inhibition were included in the analysis. Before the data analysis, the scores from the executive function tasks were checked for normality to determine if they met the assumptions of parametric statistics. Normality was evaluated using histograms. Group differences were examined using the Mann–Whitney U test, a nonparametric method, for tasks where normality could not be confirmed. Levene’s test was employed to examine equal variances for tasks where normality was confirmed. ANCOVA was conducted to examine differences between the groups for tasks where equal variances were confirmed. As it has been reported that executive function performance tends to increase with age⁵⁴, “age in months” was used as a covariate. Welch’s t-test was conducted for tasks where equal variances were not confirmed. For statistical analysis, HAD⁵⁵ was used.

Ethical Statements

This study was conducted in full compliance with ethical standards. Approval was obtained from the Ethical Review Committee of the National Rehabilitation Center for Persons with Disabilities (2023-006). Informed Consent was obtained from the parents or guardians of the children participating in this study. We ensured that the children understood the tasks by providing examples during implementation. After confirming their willingness to participate, the trials were conducted.

Author contributions (CREDIT roles)

K.K.: Project administration; Data curation; Formal analysis; Funding acquisition; Writing—original draft; Writing—review & editing. A.K.: Supervision; Conceptualization; Formal analysis.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interest

Author Contribution

K.K. was responsible for project administration, data curation, formal analysis, fund raising, manuscript writing, review and editing. A.K. was responsible for supervision, conceptualization and formal analysis.

Data Availability

The datasets collected for this study are not publicly available due to ethical requirements. However, they are available from the corresponding author with permission from the ethical committee.

Bloodstein, O. & Ratner, B. N. A Handbook on Stuttering (Delmar Thomson Learning, Scarborough, 2008).
Yairi, E. & Ambrose, N. Early Childhood Stuttering (Pro-Ed, 2005).
Yairi, E. & Ambrose, N. Epidemiology of stuttering: 21st century advances. J. Fluen. Disord. 38, 66–87 (2013).
Ntourou, K., Conture, E. G. & Lipsey, M. W. Language abilities of children who stutter: a meta-analytical review. Am. J. Speech Lang. Pathol. 20, 163–179 (2011).
Spencer, C. & Weber-Fox, C. Preschool speech articulation and nonword repetition abilities may help predict eventual recovery or persistence of stuttering. J. Fluen. Disord. 41, 32–46 (2014).
Paden, E. P. & Yairi, E. Phonological characteristics of children whose stuttering persisted or recovered. J. Speech Hear. Res. 39, 981–990 (1996).
Karrass, J. et al. Relation of emotional reactivity and regulation to childhood stuttering. J. Commun. Disord. 39, 402–423 (2006).
Eggers, K. & Heselmans, I. Delay frustration in children who do and do not stutter: A preliminary study. J. Commun. Disord. 107, 106403 (2024).
Kaganovich, N., Wray, A. H. & Weber-Fox, C. Non-linguistic auditory processing and working memory update in pre-school children who stutter: an electrophysiological study. Dev. Neuropsychol. 35, 712–736 (2010).
Singer, C. M., Walden, T. A. & Jones, R. M. Attention, speech-language dissociations, and stuttering chronicity. Am. J. Speech Lang. Pathol. 29, 157–167 (2020).
Felsenfeld, S., van Beijsterveldt, C. E. & Boomsma, D. I. Attentional regulation in young twins with probable stuttering, high nonfluency, and typical fluency. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 53, 1147–1166 (2010).
Moriguchi, Y. & Phillips, S. Evaluating the distinction between cool and hot executive function during childhood. Brain Sci. 13, 313 (2023).
Baddeley, A. Exploring the central executive. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. A. 49, 5–28 (1996).
Moriguchi, Y. Early development of executive function, neural mechanisms, and support. Japanese Psychol. Rev. 58, 77–88 (2015). [in Japanese].
Moffitt, T. E. et al. A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 2693–2698 (2011).
Miyake, A. et al. The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex frontal lobe tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cogn. Psychol. 41, 49–100 (2000).
Briley, P. M. & Ellis, C. Jr. The coexistence of disabling conditions in children who stutter: evidence from the National Health Interview Survey. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 61, 2895–2905 (2018).
Francés, L. et al. Prevalence, comorbidities, and profiles of neurodevelopmental disorders according to the DSM-5-TR in children aged 6 years old in a European region. Front. Psychiatry. 14, 1260747 (2023).
Boonstra, A. M., Oosterlaan, J., Sergeant, J. A. & Buitelaar, J. K. Executive functioning in adult ADHD: a meta-analytic review. Psychol. Med. 35, 1097–1108 (2005).
Chang, S. E. et al. Anomalous network architecture of the resting brain in children who stutter. J. Fluen. Disord. 55, 46–67 (2018).
Chen, A. C. et al. Causal interactions between fronto-parietal central executive and default-mode networks in humans. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 19944–19949 (2013).
Anderson, J. D. & Ofoe, L. C. The role of executive function in developmental stuttering. Semin Speech Lang. 40, 305–319 (2019).
Tumanova, V., Woods, C. & Razza, R. The role of behavioral inhibition for conversational speech and language characteristics of preschool-age children who stutter. Am. J. Speech Lang. Pathol. 29, 638–651 (2020).
Jones, R., Choi, D., Conture, E. & Walden, T. Temperament, emotion, and childhood stuttering. Semin Speech Lang. 35, 114–131 (2014).
Starkweather, C. W. & Gottwald, S. R. The demands and capacities model: II. Clinical applications. J. Fluen. Disord. 15, 143–157 (1990).
Smith, A. & Weber, C. How stuttering develops: the multifactorial dynamic pathways theory. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 60, 2483–2505 (2017).
Walden, T. A. et al. Dual diathesis-stressor model of emotional and linguistic contributions to developmental stuttering. J. Abnorm. Child. Psychol. 40, 633–644 (2012).
de Sonneville-Koedoot, C., Stolk, E., Rietveld, T. & Franken, M. C. Direct versus indirect treatment for preschool children who stutter: the RESTART randomized trial. PLoS One. 10, e0133758 (2015).
Singer, C. M., Hessling, A., Kelly, E. M., Singer, L. & Jones, R. M. Clinical characteristics associated with stuttering persistence: a meta-analysis. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 63, 2995–3018 (2020).
Kakuta, K. & Kawasaki, A. A literature review on executive function in preschool children who stutter. Lang. Hear. Res. 21, 22–31 (2024).
Baddeley, A. Working memory: theories, models, and controversies. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 63, 1–29 (2012).
Hampton, A. & Weber-Fox, C. Non-linguistic auditory processing in stuttering: evidence from behavior and event-related brain potentials. J. Fluen. Disord. 33, 253–273 (2008).
Elsherif, M. M., Wheeldon, L. R. & Frisson, S. Do dyslexia and stuttering share a processing deficit? J. Fluen. Disord. 67, 105827 (2021).
Gathercole, S. E. & Baddeley, A. D. Phonological working memory: a critical building block for reading development and vocabulary acquisition? Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 8, 259–272 (1993).
Gathercole, S. E., Alloway, T. P., Willis, C. & Adams, A. M. Working memory in children with reading disabilities. J. Exp. Child. Psychol. 93, 265–281 (2006).
Müller, U., Jacques, S., Brocki, K. & Zelazo, P. D. The executive functions of language in preschool children. In Private Speech, Executive Functioning, and the Development of Verbal Self-Regulation (eds, A.,, C. &, I.) 53–68 (Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, (2009).
Anderson, J. D. & Wagovich, S. A. Explicit and implicit verbal response inhibition in preschool-age children who stutter. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 60, 836–852 (2017).
Rowe, M. L., Raudenbush, S. W. & Goldin-Meadow, S. The pace of vocabulary growth helps predict later vocabulary skill. Child. Dev. 83, 508–525 (2012).
Rice, M. L. et al. Mean length of utterance levels in 6-month intervals for children 3 to 9 years with and without language impairments. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 53, 333–349 (2010).
Carlson, S. M. Developmentally sensitive measures of executive function in preschool children. Dev. Neuropsychol. 28, 595–616 (2005).
MacPherson, M. K. & Smith, A. Influences of sentence length and syntactic complexity on the speech motor control of children who stutter. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 56, 89–102 (2013).
Smith, A., Goffman, L., Sasisekaran, J. & Weber-Fox, C. Language and motor abilities of preschool children who stutter: evidence from behavioral and kinematic indices of nonword repetition performance. J. Fluen. Disord. 37, 344–358 (2012).
Johnstone, T. & Scherer, K. R. Vocal communication of emotion. In Handbook of Emotions, 2nd edn (eds, M. &, J. M.) 220–235 (The Guilford Press, New York, NY, (2000).
Erdemir, A., Walden, T. A., Jefferson, C. M., Choi, D. & Jones, R. M. The effect of emotion on articulation rate in persistence and recovery of childhood stuttering. J. Fluen. Disord. 56, 1–17 (2018).
Zelazo, P. D., Carter, A., Reznick, J. S. & Frye, D. Early development of executive function: A problem-solving framework. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 1, 198–226 (1997).
Cirino, P. T. et al. A. A framework for executive function in the late elementary years. Neuropsychology. 32, 176–189 (2018).
Anderson, J. D., Wagovich, S. A. & Hall, N. E. Nonword repetition skills in young children who do and do not stutter. J. Fluen. Disord. 31, 177–199 (2006).
Ozawa, E. et al. Kitsuon kensa-hō kaisetsu dai 2-han [Explanation of the Stuttering Test, 2nd edition]Gakuensha,. [in Japanese]. (2016).
Miyake, K., Omura, M., Takashima, M., Yamauchi, S. & Hashimoto, Y. KIDS Kider Infant Development Scale (Center for Developmental Science and Education, 1991). [in Japanese].
Ueno, K., Nagshi, N. & Konuki, S. PVT-R: Manual for the Picture Vocabulary Test (Nihon Bunka Kagaku Sha, 2008). [in Japanese].
Case, R., Kurland, D. M. & Goldberg, J. Operational efficiency and the growth of short-term memory span. J. Exp. Child. Psychol. 33, 386–404 (1982).
Moriguchi, Y. The effect of social observation on children’s inhibitory control. J. Exp. Child. Psychol. 113, 248–258 (2012).
Strommen, E. A. Verbal self-regulation in a children's game: impulsive errors on Simon Says. Child. Dev. 44, 849–853 (1973).
Zelazo, P. D. & Müller, U. Executive function in typical and atypical development. In Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development (ed Goswami, U.) 445–469 (Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, (2002).
Shimizu, H. An introduction to the statistical free software HAD: Suggestions to improve teaching, learning and practice data analysis. J. Media Inf. Commun. 1, 59–73 (2016).

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Reviews received at journal
21 Oct, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
29 Sep, 2024
Reviewers invited by journal
12 Sep, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
12 Sep, 2024
Editor invited by journal
31 Aug, 2024
Submission checks completed at journal
30 Aug, 2024
First submitted to journal
21 Aug, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

Executive function in preschool children who stutter: A behavioral assessment study

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Histograms of Executive Function Tasks for Each Group

Differences in Performance on the Executive Function Task

Discussion

Methods

Participants

Talker Group Matching

Group Classification Criteria

Development and Language Criteria

Procedure

Materials

Data Analysis

Declarations

Ethical Statements

Author contributions (CREDIT roles)

Competing interests

Author Contribution

Data Availability

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1