Fundamentals of Mental Health

Fundamentals of Mental Health

Response inhibition in adults who stutter: A behavioral and event-related potential study during a visual stop signal task

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors
Ahmad Poormohammad 1
Shahrzad Mazhari 2
Mazyar Fathi 1
Sara Sardari 1
Alimohammad Pourrahimi 1
1 Neuroscience Research Center, Institute of Neuropharmacology, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.
2 Neuroscience Research Center, Institute of Neuropharmacology, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran. Department of Psychiatry, Medical School, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.
10.22038/jfmh.2022.21481
Abstract
Introduction: Stuttering is a neurodevelopmental disorder with structural and functional neurological bases characterized by involuntary prolongations, repetitions and blocks in sounds, syllables and words. Multiple factors are assumed to participate in etiology and severity of stuttering and response inhibition is considered to be an important phenomenon for having a fluent speech. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate response inhibition of Adults Who Stutter (AWS).
Materials and Methods: In a case-control study, response inhibition of twenty-eight AWS and fluently-matched control group was compared by a visual stop-signal task and its evoked potentials in the brain. Behavioral measurements of the task, including the Reaction Time (RT) and the response accuracy, were compared between the two groups. Peak amplitude and peak latency of P3 and N2 components in parietal and frontal areas were measured after cue, go and stop stimuli in different trials of the task.
Results: Although AWS reported more scores in anxiety level, they acted similarly to the control group in behavioral measurements. ERP findings, however, represented smaller N2 amplitude in the cues and earlier N2 latency for the Go trials in AWS than in the controls.
Conclusion: Our findings did not support the idea of less efficient inhibitory control in AWS; however, smaller N2 amplitude in the cues may indicated decreased attention resources allocated to the stimuli and different preparation for executing the response. Earlier N2 latency for Go trials in AWS also showed different timing of mental access to go stimuli and faster conflict monitoring in competing stimuli.
Keywords
Anxiety
Event-Related Potentials
Response inhibition
Stop signal task
Stuttering
  1. Yairi E, Ambrose N. Epidemiology of stuttering: 21st century advances. J Fluency Disord 2013; 38(2): 66-87.
  2. Mawson AR, Radford NT, Jacob B. Toward a theory of stuttering. Eur Neurol 2016; 76(5-6): 244-51.
  3. Junuzovic-Zunic L, Sinanovic O, Majic B. Neurogenic stuttering: Etiology, symptomatology, and treatment. Med Arch 2021; 75(6): 456-61.
  4. Ntourou K, Anderson JD, Wagovich SA. Executive function and childhood stuttering: Parent ratings and evidence from a behavioral task. J Fluency Disord 2018; 56: 18-32.
  5. Anderson JD, Ofoe LC. The role of executive function in developmental stuttering. Semin Speech Lang 2019; 40(4): 305-19.
  6. Aron AR. From reactive to proactive and selective control: Developing a richer model for stopping inappropriate responses. Biol Psychiatry 2011; 69(12): e55-e68.
  7. Chikazoe J, Jimura K, Hirose S, Yamashita KI, Miyashita Y, Konishi S. Preparation inhibit a response complements response inhibition during performance of a stop-signal task. J Neurosci 2009; 29(50): 15870-7.
  8. Meyer HC, Bucci DJ. Neural and behavioral mechanisms of proactive and reactive inhibition. Learn Mem 2016; 23(10): 504-14.
  9. Aron AR, Poldrack RA. Cortical and subcortical contributions to stop signal response inhibition: Role of the subthalamic nucleus. J Neurosci 2006; 26(9): 2424-33.
  10. Mink JW. The basal ganglia: Focused selection and inhibition of competing motor programs Jonathan. Pergamorr Prog Neurobiol 1996; 50: 26.
  11. Fathi M, Mazhari S, Pourrahimi AM, Poormohammad A, Sardari S. Proactive and reactive inhibitory control are differently affected by video game addiction: An event-related potential study. Brain Behav 2022; 12(6): 1-10.
  12. Hertrich I, Dietrich S, Blum C, Ackermann H. Dorsolateral prefrontal contributions to human working memory. Front Hum Neurosci 2021; 15: 1-16.
  13. Markett S, Bleek B, Reuter M, Prüss H, Richardt K, Müller T, et al. Impaired motor inhibition in adults who stutter- evidence from speech-free stop-signal reaction time tasks. Neuropsychologia 2016; 91: 444-50.
  14. Treleaven SB, Coalson GA. Verbal response inhibition in adults who stutter. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2021; 64(9): 3382-97.
  15. Piispala J, Määttä S, Pääkkönen A, Bloigu R, Kallio M, Jansson-Verkasalo E. Atypical brain activation in children who stutter in a visual Go/No go task: An ERP study. Clin Neurophysiol 2017; 128(1): 194-203.
  16. Piispala J, Kallio M, Bloigu R, Jansson-Verkasalo E. Delayed N2 response in Go condition in a visual Go/No go ERP study in children who stutter. J Fluency Disord 2016; 48: 16-26.
  17. Maxfield ND. Inhibitory control of lexical selection in adults who stutter. J Fluency Disord 2020; 66: 105780.
  18. Guan M, Liao Y, Ren H, Wang X, Yang Q, Liu X, et al. Impaired response inhibition in juvenile delinquents with antisocial personality characteristics: A preliminary ERP study in a Go/No go task. Neurosci Lett 2015; 603: 1-5.
  19. Folstein JR, Van Petten C. Influence of cognitive control and mismatch on the N2 component of the ERP: A review. Psychophysiology 2008; 45(1): 152-70.
  20. Karayanidis F, Mansfield EL, Galloway KL, Smith JL, Provost A, Heathcote A. Anticipatory reconfiguration elicited by fully and partially informative cues that validly predict a switch in task. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 2009; 9(2): 202-15.
  21. Spronk M, Jonkman LM, Kemner C. Response inhibition and attention processing in 5- to 7-year-old children with and without symptoms of ADHD: An ERP study. Clin Neurophysiol 2008; 119(12): 2738-52.
  22. Eggers K, De Nil LF, Van Den Bergh BRH. Inhibitory control in childhood stuttering. J Fluency Disord 2013; 38(1): 1-13.
  23. Eggers K, Jansson-Verkasalo E. Auditory attentional set-shifting and inhibition in children who stutter. J Speech, Lang Hear Res 2017; 60(11): 3159-70.
  24. Eggers K, De Nil LF, Van den Bergh BRH. Exogenously triggered response inhibition in developmental stuttering. J Fluency Disord 2018; 56: 33-44.
  25. Treleaven SB, Coalson GA. Verbal response inhibition in adults who stutter. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2021; 64(9): 3382-97. 
  26. Norman P, Spack Daniel E, Shumer NJN. Manual response inhibition and quality of life in adults who stutter. Physiol Behav 2017; 176(12): 139-48.
  27. Ofoe LC, Anderson JD, Ntourou K. Short-term memory, inhibition, and attention in developmental stuttering: A meta-Analysis. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2018; 61(7): 1626-48.
  28. Ekhtiari H, Safaei H, Esmaeeli Djavid G, Atefvahid MK, Edalati H, Mokri A. [Reliability and validity of Persian versions of Eysenck, Barratt, Dickman and Zuckerman Questionnaires in assessing risky and impulsive behaviors]. Iranian journal of psychiatry and clinical psychology 2008; 14(3): 326-36. (Persian)
  29. Patton JH, Stanford MS, Barratt ES. Factor structure of the Barratt impulsiveness scale. J Clin Psychol 1995; 51(6): 768-74.
  30. Ghassemzadeh H, Mojtabai R, Karamghadiri N, Ebrahimkhani N. Psychometric properties of a Persian-language version of the Beck Depression Inventory-second edition: BDI-II-Persian. Depress Anxiety 2005; 21(4): 185-92.
  31. Fydrich T, Dowdall D, Chambless DL. Reliability and validity of the beck anxiety inventory. J Anxiety Disord 1992; 6(1): 55-61.
  32. Kaviani H, Mousavi AS. [Psychometric properties of the Persian version of Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI)]. Tehran University medical journal 2008; 65(2): 136-40. (Persian)
  33. Raud L, Huster RJ. The temporal dynamics of response inhibition and their modulation by cognitive control. Brain Topogr 2017; 30(4): 486-501.
  34. Logan GD. On the ability to inhibit thought and action: A users’ guide to the stop signal paradigm. In: Inhibitory processes in attention, memory, and language. Academic Press; 1994: 189-239.
  35. Zolfaghari M, Shafiei B, Tahmasebi Garmatani N, Ashoorioon V. Reliability of the Persian version of the Stuttering Severity Instrument-(SSI-4) for preschool-age children. Middle East journal of disability studies 2014; 4(2): 20-25.
  36. Craig A, Blumgart E, Tran Y. The impact of stuttering on the quality of life in adults who stutter. J Fluency Disord 2009; 34(2): 61-71.
  37. Neef NE, Anwander A, Bütfering C, Schmidt-Samoa C, Friederici AD, Paulus W, et al. Structural connectivity of right frontal hyperactive areas scales with stuttering severity. Brain 2018; 141(1): 191-204.
  38. Donkers FCL, Van Boxtel GJM. The N2 in go/no-go tasks reflects conflict monitoring not response inhibition. Brain Cogn 2004; 56(2 special issue): 165-76.
  39. Eysenck MW, Derakshan N, Santos R, Calvo MG. Anxiety and cognitive performance: Attentional control theory. Emotion 2007; 7(2): 336-53.
  40. Nieuwenhuis S, Yeung N, van den Wildenberg W, Ridderinkhof KR. Electrophysiological correlates of anterior cingulate function in a go/no-go task: effects of response conflict and trial type frequency. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 2003; 3(1): 17-26. 
  41. Craig-McQuaide A, Akram H, Zrinzo L, Tripoliti E. A review of brain circuitries involved in stuttering. Front Hum Neurosci 2014; 8: 884.
  42. Sitek KR, Cai S, Beal DS, Perkell JS, Guenther FH, Ghosh SS. Decreased cerebellar-orbitofrontal connectivity correlates with stuttering severity: Whole-brain functional and structural connectivity associations with persistent developmental stuttering. Front Hum Neurosci 2016; 10: 1-11.
Fundamentals of Mental Health
Volume 24, Issue 6
November and December 2022
Pages 403-412