Talk:Stuttering

Reorganization and Request for History
I have largely reorganized the section on 'mechanisms.' Because it all relates to neuroimaging, I've removed the 'neuroimaging' header. I've also put a lot into a new sections titled "Abnormal Lateralization," related to abnormal use and anatomy of the left and right sides of the brain in stutterers. I haven't removed any information, just moved it into better-defined categories.

Also, could we add a bit about the history of 20th-century treatments for stuttering? It might be appropriate to include some information about the 'diagnosogenic' theory and the approaches of behaviorist psychology and psychoanalysis to stuttering (though none of these are now considered good treatments, to my knowledge). -A

Removed
Removed text that is uncited, poorly sourced, or sounds like an essay rather than an encyclopedic entry. If this information can be cited and written in an encyclopedic tone, it may be possible to readd it, preferably to correct sections per WP:MEDMOS and avoiding use of words to avoid and weasle words. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Media publicity about stuttering "cures"
Reports about successful stuttering treatment are not rare in contemporary media, particularly in television news programs and talk shows, since stories about recovery from stuttering have a strong emotional appeal. Media reports have typically focused on dramatic treatments such as the fluency-shaping method of therapy and, more recently, electronic fluency aids. Although such treatments may increase fluency in some stutterers, media reports seldom examine either the long-term efficacy of these treatments or their effect on stutterers of differing severity. As a result, media reports usually imply that such therapies are miracle cures. (Significantly, licensed speech pathologists who provide these treatments routinely emphasize that they are not "cures".) Indeed, anecdotal evidence suggests that media attention to such treatments may actually have a negative effect on the public perception of stutterers: for example, after an uncritical media report incorrectly claims the existence of a newly available "cure", non-stuttering family members and workplace superiors may penalize or put pressure on a stutterer for not having his or her speech impediment "cured".

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur about the problems involved in media articles that simplify the possibility of a 'cure' to stammering. It's not that easy to quantify. There are also outside influences - the more pressure in social situations the worse the stammer sometimes. I used to find sibilants particularly hard to deal with and at times were distressed by them. Ironically enough putting on a Scottish accent removed my stammer almost completely. It sounds odd, but it worked - for me that is. Darkmind1970 15:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Anti-stuttering medications
Clinical trials are underway for what could be the first FDA-approved anti-stuttering medications. Pagoclone is a gamma amino butyric acid (GABA) selective receptor modulator. Dopamine and GABA are both neurotransmitters.14


 * Removed due to clear conflict of interest on dead link to reference (patent holder), no journal published research, and clear statements at pagoclone that this treatment is unlikely. If the text can be better cited to reliable sources, it can be added.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Other medications can increase stuttering, or even cause a person to start stuttering. Such medications include dopamine agonists such as Ritalin and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) such as Prozac and Zoloft.


 * Uncited, removed because there are PubMed studies indicating SSRIs are used to treat stuttering, this needs to be sorted out and cited. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Note 15

 * Note 15: Auditory feedback and stuttering:

Note 15 no longer in this article, cleaned up to better sources and use of cite journal, but removed. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Notes 16–18

 * Note 16: Ryan, B.P., Van Kirk, B. "The Establishment, Transfer and Maintenance of Fluent Speech in 50 Stutterers Using Delayed Auditory Feedback and Operant Procedures." Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 39:1, February, 1974. Ryan, Bruce and Barbara Van Kirk Ryan. "Programmed Stuttering Treatment for Children: Comparison of Two Establishment Programs Through Transfer, Maintenance, and Follow-Up," Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38:1, February 1995. Radford, N., Tanguma, J., Gonzalez, M., Nericcio, M.A., Newman, D. "A Case Study of Mediated Learning, Delayed Auditory Feedback, and Motor Repatterning to Reduce Stuttering," Perceptual and Motor Skills, 2005, 101, 63–71.
 * Note 17:
 * Note 18: Stuart, A., Kalinowski, J., Rastatter, M., Saltuklaroglu, T., Dayalu, V. "Investigations of the impact of altered auditory feedback in-the-ear devices on the speech of people who stutter: initial fitting and 4-month follow-up," International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 2004, 39:1, 93–113. Stuart, A., Kalinowski, J., Saltuklaroglu, T., Guntupalli, V. "Investigations of the impact of altered auditory feedback in-the-ear devices on the speech of people who stutter: One-year follow-up," Disability and Rehabilitation, 2006. 1–9.

Removed from Notes, no longer in this article, if used again, cleanup to cite journal format (including PMIDs) is still needed. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Notes 8 and 9

 * Note 8:
 * Note 9:

Removed; no longer in this article. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Note 42

 * Note 42:

Removed; no longer in this article. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Genetics
Stuttering has been correlated with certain genes;29 however, a genetic cause for stuttering has yet to be proven. Many studies have investigated stuttering in families, yet typically have yielded results that could be interpreted as either genetic or social environment ("nature" or "nurture").


 * Note 29: Comings, D., et al., "Polygenic Inheritance of Tourette Syndrome, Stuttering, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity, Conduct, and Oppositional Defiant Disorder," American Journal of Medical Genetics 67:264–288 (1996).

Comings work enjoys no widespread support by peers; too speculative, removed. If this text can be sourced without relying on Comings (ascertainment bias in Tourette syndrome samples), perhaps it could be added. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Phone companies
Along with disability legislation, many stutterer rights groups have formed to address these issues. One interesting example is the Turkish Association of Disabled Persons, which successfully appealed to the major Turkish telephone company Telsim, resulting in reduced rates for people with stutters or other speech disabilities because of the additional time it takes them to converse on the telephone.


 * Removed, not based on reliable source, self-reported. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

More removals
As requested, I have removed other sections that are unsourced or that I believe to be inaccurate. I have also done a small amount of editing of the existing text to remove commentary and other unencyclopedic content.Slp1 02:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Causes
No single, exclusive cause of stuttering is known. A variety of hypotheses and theories suggest multiple factors contributing to stuttering.

Head injuries and strokes can cause repetitions, prolongations, and blocks. Stuttering also can be induced by specific medications. Medications such as antidepressants, antihistamines, tranquilizers and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors have been known to affect speech in this way.

Rarely, traumatic experiences caused an adult to begin stuttering. Psychogenic stuttering typically involves rapid, effortless repetitions of initial sounds, without struggle behavior. Since stuttering may reappear at times of emotional strain, a psychogenesis has been proposed, but if there are any psychologic abnormalities in the stutterer, they are secondary rather than primary. It's observed that many stutterers, probably as a result of this impediment to free social interaction, do become increasingly fearful of talking and develop feelings of inferiority. By the time adolescence and adulthood are reached, emotional factors are so prominent that many physicians have mistaken stuttering for neurosis. Usually there is little or no evidence of any personality deviation before the onset of stuttering, and psychotherapy has not had a significant effect on the underlying defect. A strong family history in many cases and male dominance point to a genetic origin, but the inheritance does not follow a readily discernible pattern.

Another prominent view is that stuttering is caused by neural synchronization problems in the brain. Recent research indicates that stuttering may be correlated with disrupted fibers between the speech area and language planning area, both in the left hemisphere of the brain. Such a disruption could potentially be due to early brain damage or to a genetic defect.


 * No references and such an incomplete description of the topic that it is best removed until all theories (linguistic, motor control, learning theory etc) are described fullySlp1 02:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The dominant schools of thought should definitely be added with proper sourcing and scope. The one theory I have heard, for example, was that a dominant cause was over-correction by adults. It would be nice to see a discussion of the scientific status of this and other theories, if only to know that none have been proven, and if any have been disproven. -- Beland 19:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Stress-related changes
In certain situations, such as talking on the telephone, stuttering might increase, or it might decrease, depending on the anxiety level connected with that activity.

Under stress, people's voices change. They tense their speech-production muscles, increasing their vocal pitch. They try to talk faster. They repeat words or phrases. They add interjections, also known as "filler words", such as "uh." These are normal dysfluencies. A study found that under stress, non-stutterers went from 0% to 4% dysfluencies, for the simple task of saying colors. Stutterers went from 1% to 9%.

Stuttering reduces stress 10%, as measured by systolic blood pressure. Stuttering appears to reduce stress temporarily, but then cause stress, creating a cyclical pattern in which the stutterer stutters on the first syllable of the first word, then says the rest of the word and several more words fluently, then stutters again, then says a few more words fluently, and so on.

One study found that developmental stuttering and Tourette syndrome may be pathogenetically related. Tics are exacerbated by stress, and when the affected person tries harder to control the undesired movement, the conditions can become more pronounced.Slp1 18:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe this happens due to increased nervousness which in turn increases rate of speech which makes stuttering more severe. unfortunatley I don't have a source other than myselfKevin127 (talk)

Therapies for pre-school children
In the past, stuttering children received indirect therapy, which changed the parents' speech behaviors. Such indirect therapy has been proven ineffective. For example, popular websites advise that parents should "speak slowly and in a relaxed manner"; make positive statements such as praise, and refrain from negative statements such as criticism; "pause before responding to your child's questions or comments," etc. Yet more than a dozen studies found that such parental behavior had no effect on children's stuttering&mdash;or the effect was the opposite of what the parents intended. For example, when parents spoke slower, their children spoke faster and their stuttering increased.

Speech-language pathologists now recommend direct therapy with young children. The target speech behaviors are similar to fluency shaping therapy, but various toys and games are used. For example, a turtle hand puppet may be used to train the slow speech with stretched syllables goal. When the child speaks slowly, the turtle slowly walks along. But when the child talks too fast, the turtle retreats into his shell.
 * There are bits of this that are sourced, but it is not complete or accurate, I believe. For example there is at least one study  noted in Stuttering Treatment Research 1970–2005, Bothe et al American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology Vol.15 321-341 November 2006, that notes improvements in childhood stuttering following a parental program.  A Lidcombe type program is not described at all and this is a major omission given that this is the most common intervention in childhood and also has lots of positive research results (see Bothe et al again)--Slp1 02:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Therapies for school-age children
A study of 98 children, 9 to 14 years old, compared three types of stuttering therapy. One year after therapy, the percentage of children with disfluency rates under 2% were:

 48% of the children who were treated by a speech-language pathologist. 63% of the children whose parents were trained by a speech-language pathologist to do speech therapy at home (but the children weren't treated by the speech-language pathologists). 71% of the children who were treated by a computer-based anti-stuttering program, with minimal interaction from speech-language pathologists.</li> </ol>

The results for children with disfluency rates under 1% were even more striking:

<ol> <li>10% of the children from the clinician-based program.</li> <li>37% of the children from the "parent-based" program.</li> <li>44% of the children from the computer-based program.</li> </ol> In other words, the computers were most effective, the parents next most effective, and the speech-language pathologists were least effective. At the 1% disfluency level, the computers and the parents were about four times more effective than the speech-language pathologists.

Parents should realize that school speech-language pathologists are trained to treat a wide variety of speech and language disorders. Many don't have training or experience with stuttering, and few specialize in stuttering. Many school districts are underfunded and school speech-language pathologists have caseloads of 40 or more children, seeing each child for perhaps twenty minutes twice a week, or even doing group therapy with several children who have different communication disorders. Parents whose child's speech isn't improving may want to consider additional treatments beyond their school's speech-language pathologist:

<ul> <li>Seeing a board-certified Fluency Specialist.</li> <li>Asking the school speech-language pathologist to train the parents to do therapy at home, increasing therapy time to perhaps twenty minutes twice a day, every day. The speech-language pathologist may recommend using computer software or an electronic device to assist in home practice.</li> </ul>

Therapies for teenagers
One strategy for treating teenagers who stutter is to include peers in therapy. This is usually the teenager's best friend. This can improve the stuttering teenager's motivation in therapy, and also the friend can give reminders outside of therapy for the stuttering teenager to use his speech target behaviors.

Another strategy is to encourage a stuttering teenager to develop a passion for an activity requiring speech. This could be getting involved in the school's drama club, or doing a science project about stuttering. Bully programs have sometimes told kids not to beat up kids who stutter.


 * Large chunks are unsourced, and contains US-advice commentary and advice. One study is (unaccurately) described in much too much detail (it was EMG, not computers), while the many, many other studies and approaches are not described at all. --Slp1 02:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Fluency shaping therapy
A study followed 42 stutterers through the three-week fluency shaping program. The program also included psychological treatment to reduce fears and avoidances, discussing stuttering openly, and changing social habits to increase speaking. The therapy program reduced stuttering from about 15–20% stuttered syllables to 1–2% stuttered syllables. About 70% of the stutterers had satisfactory fluency 12 to 24 months after therapy. About 5% were marginally successful. About 25% had unsatisfactory fluency.
 * Removing study which is described in much too much detail. What we need is an overview of the many studies that have looked at the efficacy of this approach.Slp1 02:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Stuttering modification therapy
Only one long-term efficacy study of a stuttering modification therapy program has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. This study concluded that the program "appears to be ineffective in producing durable improvements in stuttering behaviors."


 * Removing study since there is more than one study (see Laiho, Auli, and Klippi, Anu from International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders. Vol 42(3), May-Jun 2007) and to be consistent with other sections. --Slp1 02:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Another section moved from article
It is important to note that stuttering does not affect intelligence and that stutterers are sometimes wrongly perceived as being less intelligent than non-stutterers. This is mainly due to the fact that stutterers often resort to a practice called word substitution, where words that are difficult for a stutterer to speak are replaced with less-suitable words with one or two syllables that are easier to pronounce. This often leads to simple, short, and awkward sentences which give an impression of feeble mindedness. A stutterer may take longer to answer a question or respond, because it takes them longer to get a word out. They have to think about every word they are going to say and how they might modify that word so that a stuttering moment won't occur or won't be as intense. Stutterers often feel great frustration because they know what they want to say, but can not translate it into spoken language using the same words they are thinking of or the way they would like to. They may also feel that non-stutters do not have the patience to wait and listen for the prolonged time it could take them to complete what they want to say. Stuttering is a communicative disorder that affects speech; it is not a language disorder&mdash;although a person's use of language is often affected or limited by a stutter. Slp1 01:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment
I am a stutterer, and find it almost offensive that blocks are referred to as an "abnormal hesitation or pausing before speech" in the opening section. That does not describe at all the tension which causes the pause, and makes it sound like blocks are controllable, or something psychological. Isn't there any better way to put it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.55.19 (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point. I can see how that can be offensive and it also doesn't sound very objective. How about something like, "Blocks are involuntary physical tension resulting in a tightening of the larnyx causing a pause or reflexive disruption of speech",  Fredsmith2 23:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a stutterer too. I don't have much to say about your comment other than stuttering takes different forms and can be classified many ways.  The line as it was (since changed) didn't offend me in the least.  Stuttering is an abnormality in the speech mechanism.  I really just wanted to remark that stuttering is one of those condtions that someone who doesn't stutter (short of a speech pathologist specializing in stuttering) almost has no right to really comment about.  It really is a condition (like many others) that someone without the problem really has no idea what it's like to live with.  That said, as long as a wikipedia article is unbiased and factually correct, I really can't take issue with it.  I think what I'm trying to find out is, how many people that edited and commented on this article are actually stutterers?Zerotta (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * One thing that I wondered if someone could clarify - This section says stuttering is not caused by anxiety, then just below it, says that stuttering on the telephone can be more or less severe, depending on the anxiety of the situation. Maybe I've misunderstood something, but this seems like a contradiction. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.147.75.236 (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As a lifelong stutterer (although it's lessened in later life, it's always lurking in the wings), in my experience it does work both ways. Anxiety or fatigue can trigger increased stuttering; however, anger or other forms of emotional stress can also produce unusually fluent speech.  When I was a teenager I was taken to a speech therapist for an evaluation and when unable to "stutter on cue," erroneously diagnosed as having no speech disorder. --Wi2g 02:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It wasn't just you. I can +1 the request for someone who knows something about this to clarify the top section. Wmdiem (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've stuttered significantly as a child but with a speech pathalogist managed to overcome it to a non-immediatly noticible level. My reading of the line was to interpret anxiety is not the original cause of the symptoms of stuttering to begin occurring; rather it is a reactive emotion brought about during stuttering.  Note that I do see the article lacking comments on stuttering really never cured (I'll still notice myself stuttering at small levels periodically and then have to consciously work to not do so). 71.70.229.134 (talk) 03:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi 71.70.229.134, and welcome to Wikipedia! Please, find some good and reliable sources, be bold and add some text on stuttering really never cured to the article!  Lova Falk     talk   08:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Stammering as a term
Are we certain that "stammering" is the more common term in the UK? Everyone I've said that to here has no idea what I mean. "Oh, you mean stuttering," they say. And, no, I don't generally stammer when I say "stammer," so it can't be that! - 79.73.145.143 13:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting question. It certainly used to be, and still appears to be the more 'official word' (British Stammering Association, The Michael Palin Centre for Stammering Children, and the Association for Research into Stammering in Childhood and more too).  I wouldn't be surprised if stuttering was gaining currency in daily conversation in the UK, though, as with many other words that have travelled across the Atlantic (in both directions!)--Slp1 12:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, AFAIK (at least in my native dialect of American) the term 'stammering' is a popular variant in the US. 4.242.147.25 (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I live in the US and as someone who stutters I believe that there is a difference between "stutter" and "stammer". To me, stutter is the actual psycological or physical problem of stuttering. Stammering to me is when people get nervous or "trip over their words". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irisfreamon (talk • contribs) 05:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Singing as a cure-all?
There's a lot of attention given to singing as a cure-all for stuttering. However, from what I can tell, singing as a stuttering cure isn't very well-documented. This article makes it seem like singing will help almost any stutterer. Is this true? Is it really documented anywhere that SLPs use singing therapy as a cure-all for stuttering? Fredsmith2 22:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It certainly isn't a technique that is commonly used as far as I am concerned (I've never heard of it) and there have been no efficacy studies about it to my knowledge. There is no cure-all for stuttering, though many people find they are fluent when they sing.  Of interest is that singing and talking come from different parts of the brain, and any kind of "distraction often works (at least to begin with) people who stutters.--Slp1 23:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This makes sense. Maybe we should remove the singing references that aren't well-documented, then. Fredsmith2 00:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The whole article is about to get a massive revamp as part of Featured Article Review. I hope to get start the process in the next few days.  Any help gratefully received. Slp1 00:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Even during my worst period of stammering when I was a teenager I never stammered whilst I sang. That said, I cannot recall it ever being mentioned as a therapy. My own experience of stammering saw it start to fade after I left a school that I hated and then finally went after some creative thinking and a change of accent in college, after persistent trouble with my sibilants that became worse when I worried about it. I think that talk of a 'cure' founders on the fact that stammering can be said to be unique to each individual. Darkmind1970 09:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It is impossible to stutter when singing that is why we don't really hear Carly Simon stutter. I do stutter and I learned that in speech therapy. AKenjiB —Preceding unsigned comment added by AKenjiB (talk • contribs) 01:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Reference to "Stuttering Treatment Research 1970-2005"
I removed the sentence "In a 2006 review of the efficacy of stuttering treatments, none of the studies on altered auditory feedback met the criteria for experimental quality, such as the presence of control groups." This sentence refered to the article (ref name =Bothe2006I> </ref). This article is a secondary review and Wikipedia policy says to reference primary sources whenever possible. The authors say they looked at 162 studies of stuttering treatments, but I counted the references (on page 327) and there are only 48 studies listed. Referencing a secondary source that doesn't reference its primary sources is a bad idea. Regarding altered auditory feedback anti-stuttering devices, the article looked at three studies of masking and three studies of the SpeechEasy device. The authors didn't look at 50+ other studies of altered auditory feedback anti-stuttering devices, in other words, they sampled about 10% of the published studies in this area. I'm curious what the three masking studies were. Did these studies look at the relatively ineffective white noise masking, or the more effective sine wave masking? When were these studies published? Were they high-stress (e.g., public speaking, telephone calls to local businesses) or low-stress (reading aloud in a speech clinic) speaking situations? I don't know, these three studies aren't referenced. I suggest not using this article for other references, due to other shortcomings. A criterion in this article was that the treatment had to result in less than 5% stuttering. A better measure would have been a statistically significant reduction in stuttering. For example, a severe stutterer who droped from 50% stuttered syllables to 10% stuttered syllables would be considered a failure in this article, but a mild stutterer who dropped from 6% stuttered words to 3% stuttered words would be considered a success. (And if an average word has three syllables, the resulting speech would be about the same.) Another criterion was that the study had to have a speaking task outside the speech clinic. A better criterion would have been to classify speaking tasks as low stress or high stress, regardless of where they took place. E.g., a public speaking task in the speech clinic is harder than reading aloud outside the speech clinic. Another criterion was that studies had to include a six-month follow-up. A follow-up study is desirable but not essential for all studies. The groupings of studies was debatable. For example, under the category of "response contingencies" was included a 1972 study of two boys (three and four years old), whose stuttering caused a puppet stage to go dark. I haven't read that study but I heard that other things were done in the darkness to scare the children. Lidcombe therapy is placed in the same category! I would have classified Lidcombe as parent-administered direct therapy, not as "response contingencies." I could go on but you get my point.--TDKehoe (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Thomas, I have reverted your removal if this sourced information. I think you are incorrect in your analysis that primary sources are to be preferred, quite the reverse in fact (see WP:RS WP:NOR) though in any case, a peer-reviewed journal article is not a primary source by WP definition. Your criticisms may be entirely appropriate but until they are published by a reliable source they remain  Original research.Since you also have a conflict of interest in this matter,[] you should follow the  conflict of interest guidelines and make suggestions on the talkpage of this article rather making edits yourself. --Slp1 (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Slp1] wrote: "you are incorrect in your analysis that primary sources are to be preferred, quite the reverse in fact..." However [[Citing_sources#Say_where_you_got_it says: "It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making it clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of the article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and the article itself must make that clear." This means that Wikipedia policy is to reference primary sources wherever possible instead of secondary sources.--TDKehoe (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * [[User:Slp1|Slp1] wrote: "peer-reviewed journal article is not a primary source by WP definition." [primary sources in various disciplines] says: "In scientific literature, a primary source is the original publication of a scientist's new data, results, and theories." That means that a study written by the scientist(s) who conducted the research and published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal is a primary source.--TDKehoe (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Slp1] wrote: "see [[WP:RS WP:NOR)" I don't see anything about this matter in either article, please quote specifically what you are referring to.--TDKehoe (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Slp1] wrote: "Your criticisms may be entirely appropriate but until they are published by a reliable source they remain [[WP:NOR| Original research." I don't see criticizing poor-quality sources listed as a form of original research in the WP:NOR. Please quote specifically what you are referring to.--TDKehoe (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * [[User:Slp1|Slp1] wrote: "Since you also have a conflict of interest in this matter,[] you should follow the conflict of interest guidelines and make suggestions on the talkpage of this article rather making edits yourself." WP:COI  says: "Merely participating in or having professional expertise in a subject is not, by itself, a conflict of interest. Editors who may have a conflict of interest are not barred from participating in articles and discussion of articles where they have a conflict of interest, but must be careful when editing in mainspace." Please let me know if I ever write anything that is biased.--67.173.255.60 (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Thomas, I am not able to respond in detail to your comments immediately, but will do so as soon as possible, hopefully tomorrow, but maybe not till Tuesday. My internet access is limited for the next 24 hours. I apologize.  Slp1 (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Reference to "Pseudoscience and the SpeechEasy"
I will also remove the material referencing (ref name="bothe2007"></ref). Again, this is a secondary source, and Wikipedia policy is to reference primary sources wherever possible. This article is particularly questionable because it's part of an exchange of letters debating another group of scientists (i.e., other material published in the same journal is directly opposed to the views expressed in this article). The first sentence I will remove says: "Altered auditory feedback, so that stutterers hears their voice differently, has been used for over 50 years in the treatment of stuttering." I had believed that the effect of DAF on stuttering was discovered by Israel Goldiamond at the University of Illinois in 1964. This article, however, references a 1982 paper by Charles Van Riper which references two papers published in 1961. In other words, this is a tertiary reference! I haven't read either 1961 paper but the title of one paper doesn't say anything about stuttering and it wasn't published in a speech pathology journal. The second study was published in a European journal that is difficult to find in the United States so I can't get the original study. The second sentence I will remove that references this paper is: "Studies of these techniques have had mixed results, with some stutterers showing substantial reductions in stuttering, while others improved only slightly or not at all." What the paper says is that Van Riper's 1982 survey of DAF research found mixed results. While I haven't read those studies, I suspect they weren't conducted according to current clinical standards. And, again, that's a tertiary reference. The authors don't cite the huge body of research with DAF and stuttering conducted since 1982. Regarding FAF, the authors say they read only two studies, ignoring dozens of other studies! And in one of these studies the data was later reanalyzed and it turned out that the study's concusions were the opposite of what the data found (there was an exchange of letters in the journal that published the original study).--TDKehoe (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The same points made above apply.Slp1 (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify: The sentences you object to are:

"“In a 2006 review of the efficacy of stuttering treatments, none of the studies on altered auditory feedback met the criteria for experimental quality, such as the presence of control groups.' (referenced from Bothe AK,Davidow JH, Bramlett RE, Ingham RJ (2006). 'Stuttering Treatment Research 1970-2005: I. Systematic Review Incorporating Trial Quality Assessment of Behavioral, Cognitive, and Related Approaches'. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 15: 321-341.. )"

"'Altered auditory feedback, so that stutterers hears their voice differently, has been used for over 50 years in the treatment of stuttering.' (referenced from Bothe AK, Finn P, Bramlett RE (2007) Pseudoscience and the SpeechEasy: Reply to Kalinowski, Saltuklaroglu, Stuart, and Guntupalli (2007)'. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 16: 77–83.)" "'Studies of these techniques have had mixed results, with some stutterers showing substantial reductions in stuttering, while others improved only slightly or not at all.' (also referenced from Bothe AK, Finn P, Bramlett RE (2007)."

The reasonings you give are that:

1. You consider the articles cited to be secondary sources (ie they are review articles, not the original research papers describing experimental studies), and that they are of “poor quality”. You use Citing_sources#Say_where_you_got_it to suggest that primary sources (ie original research articles) are preferred in WP articles.
 * Response: If you check WP:PSTS you will note that for the purposes of writing articles, WP official policy defines primary, secondary and tertiary sources somewhat differently the way you have done and actually require editors to use great caution in using primary sources, which would actually be the raw data of a study (or an eyewitness account of something, or an original historical document etc), without any analysis, interpretation etc. The articles in question were published in one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed journals in the field of speech –language pathology, and written by some of the leading experts in the field. They are secondary sources as described by WP:PSTS.  “A secondary source draws on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims”, and (along with tertiary sources)  are most  desirable sources for this article.
 * Citing_sources#Say_where_you_got_it indicates that one should not use intermediate sources to claim that a book or an article says one thing without either checking the source directly or without it clear that one has not done so in the citation. This does not apply in this case because the statements are actually the conclusions of the articles’ authors based on their research and analysis of the studies they have examined.  For example, it is Bothe et al who are claiming that AAF research has been going on for 50 years, and that an overview of the research suggests that AAF works for some but not all stutterers.

2.You do not agree with the accuracy of the statements and the studies: for example you disagree the criteria chosen for the systematic review in the 2006 paper, and you have different information about when AAF started to be used than that noted in the 2007 paper.


 * Response: You are certainly entitled to disagree with the authors and their methods, criteria etc but you need to take up your comments up with the authors and the journal and their reviewers. Your criticisms and suggestions are original research by WP definitions unless they have been published by reliable sources.   I personally disagree with your  criticisms regarding the 2007 article, as the authors refer to many more studies than just Van Riper’s in coming to their conclusions.  They also specifically mention the 50+ plus articles you allude to, but criticize these studies as being tangential, often published in journals outside the field,  and lacking in the social, ecological, and empirical grounds that you yourself note.  But these are moot points in any case.  The statement “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth” is a core of WP’s policy on  verifiability.   The statements you wish to remove are well-sourced from peer-reviewed journals.  However, we can certainly discuss changes if you can find reliable sources to back up the points you have made.

As noted above, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the sorts of sources that should be used in this article. Review articles play a very valuable role in providing an expert overview, analysis and synthesis of the various treatment and experimental studies. In fact, according to another, highly experienced editor, they are actually the preferred sources for an article of this type “… generally other FAs refer to the highest-quality peer-reviewed sources, usually recent reviews printed in the highest-quality journals.”

From I am disappointed to see that you have apparently retracted your agreement to stop editing articles in which you have a conflict of interest. Assuming 67.173.255.60 is you, that is! . Thomas, you have financial interest in promoting anti-stuttering devices. The Conflict of Interest guidelines for this are very clear: "“If….you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being the owner, officer or other stakeholder of a company or other organisation about which you are writing; then we very strongly encourage you to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that would make your edits non-neutral (biased). Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy states that all articles must represent views fairly and without bias, and conflicts of interest do significantly and negatively affect Wikipedia's ability to fulfill this requirement. If your financially-motivated edits would be non-neutral, do not post them.”" Your recent edits have been to try to remove sourced sentences which place your products (and those of others) in a less desirable light. This seems less than neutral editing to me, and comes on top of other, similar, editing patterns. I strongly advise you to stop editing this and other related articles, including Anti-stuttering devices and restrict your comments and suggestions to the talkpage. Please take a look at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard to see how seriously these issues are viewed by other editors. Slp1 (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Today's edits
I have reverted today's edits, starting with Stutterman's revert to a much older version of the article with incorrect formatting and much original research. I do not agree (obviously) that my edits and those of Sandy Georgia have "messed up the article." Slp1 (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If a stutterer reproduces, would his offspring be a stutterer too?
if so we should include this - hell, if not we should include this too. Radiohumor (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is already in the article: see . To summarize there is likely a genetic component, but it is nowhere as simple as your question implies.  So the answer is "No, it would be very unlikely, but slightly more likely than if the person wasn't a stutterer. --Slp1 (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In my experience, no. No one else in my entire family stutters.  My son is 2 years old so it's too early to tell with him.  I certainly hope not for his sake.Zerotta (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My experience echoes yours. I'm the only stutterer in my family, and none of my three grown children stutter.  Hope this puts your mind at ease! --Wi2g 02:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I've kind of come across that the more I'm around people that they begin to stutter or stammer more as time goes on. So even if stuttering is not a genetic trait your children might pick up on it just from being around you. This may sound stupid but its just in my case it seems this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.135.15.12 (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Confused
Quote from the article: "Other, rarer, patterns of stuttering development have been described, including sudden onset with the child being unable to speak, despite attempts to do so.[19] The child usually blocks silently of the first sound of a sentence, and shows high levels of awareness and frustration." This is a perfect description of Selective Mutism. Selective Mutism is mentioned earlier in the article as something resembling stuttering, but it isn't said how. I've never heard the two problems mentioned in connection to each other before, except that part of the criteria for S.M. is that the child must not be silent because of fear of stuttering. I admit that there seems to be a connection because blocks are part of stuttering, but nobody has mentioned this in anything else I've read. If this is left in the article, it should at least be said that this very closely resembles or is Selective Mutism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.242.189 (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for your comments and question.  I would have to disagree with you that the (very rare) sudden onset stuttering is "a perfect description" of selective mutism.  In this kind of stuttering, the child suddenly "can't" talk, and is aware of the struggle and blocks as s/he vainly tries to do so.  Whereas in selective mutism the child "won't" talk and does not even attempt to speak (in the environment causing problems). There are no stuttering-type 'blocks'.  Indeed, my view is that the selective mutism exclusion criteria that you refer to are required because stuttering and selective mutism are fundamentally so different.  Where they are similar is in the situational aspects: stutterers may avoid certain situations, remaining silent because of fear of stuttering, while those with selective mutism just avoid speaking in certain situations. Having said that, I too question some of the so-called 'similar' conditions.  One of these days I will try to get to weeding them out. --Slp1 (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is incorrect. Selective mutism was erroneously believed to be a condition where the child refuses to speak for decades; however, if you look at the current DSM, SM is now characterized as the INABILITY or FAILURE to speak. This is caused by severe anxiety tightening the muscles needed for speech - a block. Children are often quoted as saying that their throat was holding the words in or that their body was playing tricks on them, and they can become extremely frustrated. True, I'm sure many would stop trying, but wouldn't you stop trying to do something you consistently fail at? I suggest you visit selectivemutism.org, or even read the article here (not great, but it would give you an overview). This misunderstanding is obviously very common, considering the misinformation the DSM had been giving. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.242.189 (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you can provide some reliable sources to support your view? In my reading the DSM IV TR actually characterizes it as a "failure" to speak, not "inability" to speak. There is no mention of the tightening of the muscles and blocking that you describe. In fact, a specific exclusion criteria for selective mutism is that "The disturbance is not better accounted for by a Communication Disorder (e.g., Stuttering)".  In any case, for altering the article as you suggest above, we  need a reliable source that makes exactly the point that you would like to make about how similar the two conditions are or that they are the same.  --Slp1 (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm impressed that you replied so quickly! I have heard it paraphrased as inability, and 'failure' doesn't mean the child didn't try. (Admittedly, it might not mean the child did, either.) This is hopefully the type of thing you want. Pages 3, 7-11, and 16 might particularly help you, but you can read all of it if you have time. I am still looking for the place I saw that describes the block, which is, of course, the main issue here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.242.189 (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I've looked a lot, and it seems that this, which is hardly a reliable source, is what made me think my idea about tension had been confirmed. I read this many months ago and had forgotten exactly what it was. This is slightly better, considering that it was published, but it's still only a newspaper article. (It is also somewhat outdated; Dr. Shipon-Blum is currently considered the expert on Selective Mutism and runs the main therapy center.) Most people don't address the immediate cause of the mutism, just the general causes (anxiety, etc). I'll tell you if I find anything better.


 * Sorry for the delay in responding, and thanks for the links and information given above. I found them an interesting read, and certainly the first time that I have seen even anecdotal reports of "physical" causes being proposed, so I learned something for sure. However, as you seem to understand above, to included something in this article, we need to find a reliable source linking the sudden onset stuttering with SM, and that seems to be missing at present, though I understand that you are still looking.  And to me, even Shipon-Blum is still talking about more specific biological causes being a "theory" that they are looking into,. It needs to be a bit more a settled, published finding before it gets included anywhere on WP. Good luck and let us all know if you find anything further! --Slp1 (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

description of Risperidone trial
The section Stuttering says:
 * Of those that were, only one, not unflawed study,[42] showed a reduction in stuttering to less than 5%.

with a link to a NIH abstract that says:
 * After 6 weeks of treatment, decreases in all measures of stuttering severity were greater in the risperidone group than in the placebo group; the between-treatment difference was significant (p < 0.05) on the most important measure, the percentage of syllables stuttered.

The 5% figure expresses a confidence interval, i.e. there is 95% statistical confidence that the apparent observed difference between the treated and untreated populations is a real effect of the drug, and not an artifact of sampling error. The article phrasing instead makes it sound like the drug eliminated 95% of stuttering in patients who received it, which was surprising enough to make me check out the abstract. I'm reasonably sure that the article phrasing is just wrong, but can someone with access to the article fulltext check and make sure, and fix the article as appropriate? Thanks. 67.122.210.149 (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Good question. I have a review article describing the study.  This was the only study where the frequency of stuttering in speech was reduced to 5% of words/syllables spoken (a criterion measure of successful treatment and "fluent" speech.  I will try and clarify it in the article.--Slp1 (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

'Stammering' used in US as well
Neither Merriam-Webster nor the OED lists either word as a national variant. Maybe "stammering" is more common in BrE than in AmE, but I don't know. Mark Foskey (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Therefore, this article should be renamed stammering, surely? RyanPLB (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

epidemiology
the last sentence in this section seems to contradict the rest of the paragraph. what i took from the paragraph was the stammering rates are about the same worldwide, then cooper^2 says that isn't the case. but i couldn't quite follow what cooper^2 was saying as i thought that black, white and asian are US terms. so did they mean african? because i thought that black culture was sort of part of the american culture, however you define that.

my point is that this section doesn't make much sense as written, and i really don't know enough about it to offer corrections myself. but i think it is important to know which opinion is correct or if there is some controversy. because if stammering is more prevalent in some cultures, that might mean something, but most of the article says that while the causes are poorly understood (or at least debated), that stammering seems to be related to physiological rather than psychological forces, so it would make more sense if stammering rates were about the same globally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.89.215 (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The Proprioceptive Method

 * ''I have moved this here from the article as it seemed written in a fairly promotional way and the external link is to a website that does not meet WP:RS. I do not know enough about Stuttering to judge whether or not this should be included, but it needs better references at a minimum. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that, the editor who added this, was also responsible for an article on the method which was deleted as spam, see Articles for deletion/Proprioceptive Method. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Proprioceptive Method, also known as the Feedback Training Method, is a method of language learning which emphasizes simultaneous development of cognitive, motor, neurological, and hearing. It was initially developed for international students who have studied English grammar-based courses for years without learning to speak English.

The Proprioceptive Method is finding a new application in treatment for those who stutter. These three essential language components can only be developed while the stutterer is actually speaking in normal cadence in order to produce the feedback necessary for normal speech development. Limiting early language development to cognitive skills alone is sufficient for reading and writing proficiency, but it is not sufficient for spoken language fluency. While in school, a child may adapt to his or her stuttering by reading and writing while avoiding talking. In doing so, two of these three necessary components in speech are not developed normally. However, since the stuttering child is able to competently read and write, it is generally assumed that he or she speaks English, but merely has a stuttering impediment.

In reality, some who stutter may need spoken language training just as much as an international student who can read and write but cannot speak.

George VI
With the popularity of the film The King's Speech and Colin Firth's Golden Globe win for the role of George VI, perhaps an image of the British King would be a good addition to this article. I have no idea how to it, so will rely on the article's authors to consider my suggestion. Wordreader (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Of interest: An Academy Award-Winning Movie, Stuttering and Me by John Stossel. Asteriks (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Craig & Tran paper, "Epidemiology of Stuttering"
The PubMed link is wrong and the paper doesn't appear to be there at all. I did find it here, with a slightly different name given to the journal: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14417040500055060

I'm not au fait with the way we cite references to scientific papers so I'll leave this to someone else to fix. Barnabypage (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

stutter/stammer
The article opens by equating stuttering and stammering, but assigning them different scientific names: 'Stuttering (alalia syllabaris), also known as stammering (alalia literalis or anarthria literalis)'. Can this confusing beginning be fixed? Spicemix (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Can a professional please help us out here? Is stammering a synonym or does it carry other specific symptoms?P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction
In the introduction, it states that stuttering is NOT caused by anxiety, but then goes on to say that stuttering can be more or less severe over the phone, depending on the level of anxiety connected to it. Could somebody more experienced please fix this contradiction? 95.152.234.113 (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between a cause - proximate or ultimate - and a modifier. People who do not stutter don't start when they feel anxious. Stuttering (the condition, persistent developmental stuttering) is a pathology of the speech generating process, and is present throughout the lifetime of most stutterers. In individual stutterers, social cues may increase or decrease the rate and/or severity of stuttering behaviors. MarkinBoston (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed 'Metabolic' from Sub-types
There is no 'metabolic' sub-type of stuttering. In one study, a gene pointing to a lysosomal protein seems to be associated with stuttering. The role that the lysosome could play in causing developmental stuttering is entirely unknown. In any case, if a mutation in a lysosomal protein is found to be involved in stuttering, it will be expressed during speech skill acquisition, so it will fall under the developmental sub-type.

Since speech is acquired over time during childhood, it can only be either prevented from happening entirely, interfered with during development, or lost due to trauma or other brain insult.

It would be more accurate to call these 'types' of stuttering, which would allow for further division into sub-types if necessary. In the academic stuttering literature, developmental and neurogenic are the two categories you see. MarkinBoston (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That study found a lysosomal gene in one Pakistani family and many members of the family stuttered. The genes was found in a few other Pakistanis, and found in no persons not of south Asian ancestry. IMHO it doesn't explain anything about stuttering.--TDKehoe (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hope no one actually applies any of this quackery - or - The treatments section might be worth keeping, but only as a list of historical nonsence
I've stammered ever since I can remember myself. Relatives recall my incessant, horrible stammering, while aged 2 to ~10, but not since. I've worked with some success as a SIMULTANEOUS INTERPRETER, for focus groups no less (utter chaos on the floor common, unpredictable and incomplete syntax from multiple sources, and required burst rates that would put an auction announcer to shame) and have, after passing auditions successfully, turned down a NEWS ANCHOR JOB ON RADIO for unrelated personal reasons. Guess what? I still stammer, no less than before. Except that no one, outside a couple absolutely wildly emotional screaming matches from an imploding relationship with a difficult girlfriend, has ever heard me stammer, not since middle school. My own mother doesn't realize that I still stammer. BREATHING AND PACING, PEOPLE. Predict it, catch it, talk around, make it sound like a dramatic pause. Bend the words around it. Throw in last-second shorter or longer synonyms into your sentences, ones that shift the upcoming stammering beat off a word and into some piece of punctuation. Drop in some gesture, talk with your hands, shrug, smile - do whatever to recover from that moment of panic without a sound. If all else fails, light up a cigarette, take a sip of a beverage, or otherwise occupy your mouth for a few seconds. It'll pass. And once you know that it always passes, each recovery becomes almost instant, and you never really even think about it anymore. Neither will anyone else. At the worst, linguists and the like tend to catch some strange variations in speaking rates, and theatrical persons will blame you for over-dramatic pauses and gesticulations... but then, both tend to blame it on overexposure to some foreign language. Roll with it! It works. 208.127.80.135 (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It's great that that works for you, but it doesn't work for many people who stutter. It is important to recognise that every stutterer is different and that different approaches work for different people. One individual's experiences are interesting but they do not form the basis for a Wikipedia entry.78.144.34.216 (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The first paragraph of this section above is an almost textbook description of what is known as covert or interiorised stammering. I believe the current consensus is that this is a problem for most people rather than a solution. It was certainly a problem for me. I have no wish to knock the author, but this section needs a health warning. I would really hate for a young person with a stammer to read this and think that hiding their stammer from everyone in their life is a solution that will lead to happiness. For many people, covert stammering is associated with fear, shame and denial. Many experts (e.g. Ward, 2006) argue that a move towards confident exteriorised stammering is a necessary first step in the therapeutic process.213.205.196.31 (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. What works for one person doesn't for another, and what is acceptable and desired for one isn't for another. That description of using gestures, pauses, word changes, etc, to avoid a stutter/stammer is one of the things I hate most about stuttering. It is unacceptable to me to know what word I want to say but switch to a different word because I think I will get stuck on the word I mean to use. To me this kind of thing is not a solution at all but rather one of the most annoying symptoms! I have found other, very different ways to deal with it. Pfly (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of 200+ stuttering treatment studies
I looked up three literature reviews, four systematic reviews, and one meta-analysis, covering more than 200 studies, published in recent years in the speech-language pathology journals. I put this together as a short, easy-to-read e-book and I put the GNU General Public License "copyleft" on it so y'all are free to use it on Wikipedia. You can download my e-book free from [].

Looking over this article's treatment section, the "Fluency shaping therapy" paragraph is good except that Camperdown isn't fluency shaping. It's prolonged speech stuttering therapy. All other prolonged speech therapies are also fluency shaping but Camperdown is the exception. Camperdown doesn't have any exercises to breathe with your diaphragm, relax your vocal folds, etc. Instead it uses modeling, i.e., you watch a video of the developer speaking fluently and you try to imitate him.

The "Stuttering modification therapy" paragraph is good.

"Response contingencies therapies" (e.g., Lidcombe and "time out" therapies) and "GILCU" are missing. Generally it seems that the treatment section is about adult stuttering treatment. It needs some childhood stuttering treatments too!

"Electronic fluency device" is good except for the last two sentences. A 2006 literature review of 17 studies (Lincoln, Journal of Fluency Disorders, 31, 71-89) said, "From the above review of experimental studies we can confidently conclude that in the laboratory, clinic, or classroom AAF will result in reduced stuttering during oral reading for most people who stutter." The reference to the the Bothe 2006 systematic review is incorrect. The Bothe review says that 123 of the 162 studies examined failed to meet their trial quality standards. None of the 39 studies that met their trial quality standards were studies of AAF devices. But the authors also said that they excluded all studies of "Laboratory-bound investigations of fluency-inducing conditions." They only mention one AAF study that didn't meet their trial quality standard (a study of a SpeechEasy device). Presumably all the other studies were excluded because they were "Laboratory-bound investigations of fluency-inducing conditions." In any case, none of that matters because the Lincoln review covered the AAF studies excluded from the Bothe review.

"Anti-stuttering medications" is good except for the last sentence. Plagoclone testing was stopped last year due to the medication being ineffective.

The "Support groups and the self-help movement" paragraph is nonsense and should be removed or rewritten. Several "existing treatments" are highly effective, especially for pre-school children who stutter. The purpose of the stuttering self-help movement is the exact opposite of what is stated: "quality of living can be improved by not thinking about the stammer for prolonged periods". In my NSA chapter we thought about stuttering a lot! We talked about stuttering, and shared our challenges, and brainstormed solutions. I've been to many NSA and Friends conventions and I can assure you that hundreds of people think about stuttering during the conventions! The line "Psychoanalysis has claimed success in the treament of stuttering" is completely wrong. OK, it's true that psychoanalysts have claimed success, they just haven't ever proven to have reduced anyone's stuttering! "Mere acceptance of this so called "disorder", displays a complete lack of self-confidence and a "give-up" attitude." Huh? What does that sentence mean? The last line is nonsense. Stuttering hasn't been seen as a psychological disorder since about 1950. There are psychological disorders associated with stuttering, such as social phobia, but stuttering isn't a psychological disorder.

How about we replace the "support groups" paragraph with a paragraph about the psychological disorders associated with stuttering and how these are treated, e.g., cognitive-behavioral therapy? Then create a separate category for the self-help movement.

The first sentence of "Diaphragmatic breathing" is OK but the second sentence should be clarified that it refers to several singers who stutter, e.g., Mel Tillis and Carly Simon. The way the sentence is written now implies that learning to sing causes stuttering!--TDKehoe (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Use in comedy
Is it worth pointing out that stuttering is one of the few disabilities (maybe the only one) that it is still acceptable to make fun of? I am thinking of Shakespeare in Love, A Fish Called Wanda, Open All Hours and some plays that I have seen. PhilUK (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding to Feelings and Attitudes
I have a bit more information that could be added to the feelings and attitudes section of this page.

Adults seeking treatment for stuttering were twice as likely to meet criteria for the diagnosis of a mood disorder. The anxiety one feels in relation to their dysfluency may reach a level that warrants a diagnosis of social phobia. A lot of the anxiety and mood disturbances associated with stuttering are due to low self-esteem, social isolation, negative stereotypes, and a general lower quality of life. Even early diagnoses of stuttering, that are later ameliorated, are associated with a higher chance of emotional and anxiety disorders

(Ehealy92 (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC))

The Monster Experiment
This article called The Monster Experiment should have been mentioned before. It tells the story of a doctor who made people stutter and thus destroyed their lives. I stuttered for the first 30 years of my life and fully believe that family members made my stuttering worse. Perhaps for fun. It may be because of being ADD themselves. Arydberg (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

There's a Wikipedia page about the Monster Study.--TDKehoe (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph
The first sentence seems to be a close paraphrase of the source article, and I find it to be less informative than the original. Is there another definition we can integrate in order to provide a more clear definition? Reidh084 (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Treatment section
In this section there are citations that are from very old sources (e.g. article number 67) - are more recent articles available that provide a similar analysis or is this information simply out-of-date?Reidh084 (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.didistutter.org/index.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of section - Figures suffering from Stuttering disorder
Isaidnoway deleted the section Stuttering (diff). I am not necessarily opposed to the deletion. But I do think an explanation is in order when we delete an entire section. Isaidnoway's edit message was: "removed entire section of List of figures suffering from Stutter disorder, let's not do that". I speculate that the reason is something similar to this explanation: "Per the 2013 strong consensus on fundamentally the same topic, and the January consensus on a parallel issue. This entire concept is troubling from a BLP issue; medical diagnoses of living individuals cannot and must not be sourced to the media. As noted above, WP:EGRS provides an imperative to proceed with caution, and to restrict inclusion in lists of this nature to those people with the condition as a defining characteristic of their notability. I am hard pressed to argue that even for Howie Mandel, this diagnosis is defining in our sense of the term. And the wider we permit the net to be cast, the more problematic the list becomes. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)" that was part of this 2016 discussion: Articles for deletion/List of people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, which concluded with a decision to delete the list. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 16:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Citation needed: stuttering commonly worsens considerably as in the 70s and 80s.
I was very surprised to read that "It is common for individuals who suffer from a lifetime stuttering problem for their symptoms to worsen considerably as they reach their 70s and 80s." but the reference actually does not support that statement at all.

The paper in question is: Bricker-Katz, Geraldine; Lincoln, Michelle; McCabe, Patricia (2009). "The persistence of stuttering behaviours in older people". Disability and Rehabilitation. 31 (8): 646–658. doi:10.1080/09638280802306299. PMID 19105057. S2CID 25100914.

The abstract says:

> Results. Descriptive statistics showed that all participants in the persistent stuttering group evidenced stuttering with varying severity. In the group of four who reported recovery, one participant presented with measurable stuttering behaviours in the conversational and telephone sample. Participants, in the group who reported persistence of stuttering evidenced the full range of stuttering behaviours seen in younger adults.

> Conclusion. Stuttering is a disorder that may persist for some beyond 55 years of age. This result compels investigation to explore how stuttering impacts on activity and participation for this older group.

In other words, people who stutter (PWS) keep stuttering when they're old. One participant who reported having recovered from a stutter actually still stuttered.

Nothing about symptoms worsening, much less worsening considerably. Even if the paper did say that, it would be misleading to say it is "common". Given the study's sample size (12 PWS + 4 ex-PWS), it could only be reported as "some evidence that [...]". The age range also does not match at all.

Is there a better paper supporting the claim or is it plainly inacurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.79.162 (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Replace reference to Bothe (2006) with Lincoln (2006)
"In a 2006 review of the efficacy of stuttering treatments, none of the studies on altered auditory feedback met the criteria for experimental quality, such as the presence of control groups."

Bothe (2006) reviewed only three studies of AAF devices. Lincoln (2006) reviewed 17 studies of AAF devices and is considered to be the "gold standard" systematic review of AAF studies.

The Lincoln review concluded, "From the above review of experimental studies we can confidently conclude that in the laboratory, clinic, or classroom AAF will result in reduced stuttering during oral reading for most people who stutter."

I suggest replacing the former sentence with the latter sentence.

Michelle Lincoln, Ann Packman, Mark Onslow. "Altered auditory feedback and the treatment of stuttering: A review." Journal of Fluency Disorders 31 (2006) 71–89--TDKehoe (talk) 22:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

"Mobile applications" section needs work
First, the picture? What is this picture intended to communicate?

"The goal pursued by the applications of this kind is speech cycle restoration – I say –>I hear –>I build a phrase –>I say and so on, using various methods of stutter correction."

Drop this sentence? It sounds like there's an app that records your speech and then plays it back to you? I don't get how that will correct stuttering.

"'Electronic Devices, Software and Apps'. Stuttering Foundation: A Nonprofit Organization Helping Those Who Stutter. Retrieved 2019-11-21."

This SFA webpage isn't bad but it's not a reliable source.

"The user interacts with the application through altered auditory feedback: they say something into the headset's microphone and listen to their own voice in the headphones processed by a certain method."

This repeats what was just said in the previous section Electronic_fluency_device.

"The following stutter correction methods are typically used in applications:"

"Stutter corrections methods"? The first three are altered auditory feedback, which is described in the previous section.

"MAF (masking auditory feedback). It is basically masking by 'white noise'or sinus noises of the user's own speech."

"Sinus noises"? What are those?

MAF can be white noise masking (less effective) or sine wave masking (more effective, what the Edinburgh Masker does). This is in the article Electronic_fluency_device. Do we need to repeat info from Electronic_fluency_device in Stuttering?

What mobile apps provide MAF? I've never heard of any.

"Scientists believe that people who stutter can speak more smoothly when they do not hear their own speech. This method is considered old-fashioned and ineffective."

There's no support for these sentences.

"Jacks, Adam; Haley, Katarina L. (2015). 'Auditory Masking Effects on Speech Fluency in Apraxia of Speech and Aphasia: Comparison to Altered Auditory Feedback'. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 58 (6): 1670–1686. doi:10.1044/2015_JSLHR-S-14-0277. ISSN 1092-4388. PMC 4987030. PMID 26363508."

That study was of aphasia and apraxia, not stuttering.

"DAF (delayed auditory feedback). This method involves sending the user's voice from a microphone to headphones with a delay of fractions of a second. The goal of this method is to teach people who stutter to prolong vowels and reduce their speech rate. After speech correction with long delays, the application is adjusted at shorter delays which increase the speech rate until it becomes normal."

This paragraph is pretty good.

"FAF (frequency-shifted auditory feedback). This method involves shifting the user's voice tone frequency that they are listening to compared to their own voice. The shift range can be different: from several semitones to half an octave."

This paragraph is good too, except that the pitch shift range used in experiments is usually 0.25 to 1 octave.

"Using metronomes and tempo correctors. Rhythmic metronome strikes are used in this method. The effectiveness of the method is related to the fact that rhythm has positive effect on someone who stutters, especially when pronouncing slowly."

Metronomes were last used to treat stuttering around 1975. Are there really mobile apps available now that provide a metronome to reduce stuttering?

"Using visual feedback. This method determines the user's speech parameters (for instance, speech tempo) and their representation on screen as visual information. The principal goal of the method is allowing the user to effectively manage their voice through achieving the defined targeted parameters. It is supposed that the user sees visual representation of both current and targeted parameters (such as speech tempo) on the screen while pronouncing."

This paragraph should be expanded and improved. The Modifying Phonated Intervals (MPI) therapy app, for example, is based on excellent research and should be described. Perhaps include a picture of this app? I'm not familiar with any other mobile app showing visual representations of speech parameters related to stuttering but if there are such apps I'd like to know more.--TDKehoe (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Stuttering
New research suggests that stuttering could be an unconventional, uncommon speech pattern, yet another manifestation of human diversity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loriente Zamora (talk • contribs) 15:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Who is Paul Aston?
Hello.

In "Stuttering pride" section, there is a

Self portrait of Paul Aston stuttering. Aston wished to create a positive picture of himself stuttering to explore the visual side of his diverse and exciting speech patterns.

Ok, but... who is Paul Aston?

There is no other mention of him, in the entire article. EDIT: I think that this should be mentioned in the section text, and not only in the caption of the image... That way, the text would mention who Paul Aston is, and why this picture is here in the article.

Thanks, in advance, for any help in improving this. 192.44.63.169 (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The Stuttering section was added on 09:51, 19 October 2022 by an account which has made no other edit. It's advocacy that may or may not be warranted, depending on what independent reliable sources have to say. Johnuniq (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Stuttering#Stuttering pride section is not just advocacy, as it is also based on a growing body of scientific literature that adopts the social model of disability to understand stuttering (as opposed to the medical model, which practically covers the entire Stuttering article). It even quotes from papers and books that are well known not only in the stuttering community, but in the academic field too. I think it's healthy to have multiple perspectives on the same subject, don't you? Before 2022, this article was dominated by a single perspective, which I find problematic and I think contradicts Wikipedia's principles. G.fernandescdias (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

TMI - Over-cluttered page? Proposal of change.
I propose that a new page be created, "Causes and Treatments of Stuttering (History)" or "Research of Stuttering" that includes detailed information regarding the history and current research around stuttering causes and cures. There a lot of information on this page at present and it could be organized in an easier way. There's also a paragraph at the bottom of 'causes' that states stuttering may be caused by poor self-esteem, which has been disproven time and time again.

A lot of "mechanism" can also be moved to this page, as it discusses possible cause and treatment as well. The Stuttering therapy and Dopamine hypothesis of stuttering could be moved there, along with most of the Treatment section. Wikipedia is used to keep a simple view.

For an example of how this looks, see Stuttering in popular culture - this section is briefly summarized on the main Stuttering page, and then expanded upon in detail. Jehorak (talk) 08:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Why are stammering and stuttering conflated on Wikipedia?
The very first sentence of this article states "Stuttering, also known as stammering...". On what basis are the two terms conflated?

James Hunt, British Anthropologist and speech therapist, states on pages 6-7 of his 1861 book 'Stammering and Stuttering, their nature and treatment':

"Stammering (per se) is characterised by an inability or difficulty of properly enunciating some or many of the elementary speech sounds, either when they occur at the beginning or the middle of a word, accompanied or not, as the case may be, by a slow, hesitating, more or less indistinct delivery, but unattended with frequent repetitions of the initial sounds, and consequent convulsive efforts to surmount the difficulty.

Stuttering, on the other hand, is a vicious utterance, manifested by frequent repetitions of initial or other elementary sounds, and always more or less attended with muscular contortions."

As can be seen from the above quote from a book on these speech disorders, stammering is not attended by frequent repetitions of the initial sounds, whereas stuttering is.

Therefore on what basis is it asserted in the first sentence of this article that stuttering is also known as stammering, and why does the word "stammering" redirect to this article about "stuttering"? 182.239.140.2 (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * 1861 source vs a quick search to find it is common knowledge for these to be used interchangeably based on where in the world you are.
 * 3 government websites, and a health care company for good measure:
 * NHS.Uk "stammering, almost sometimes referred to as stuttering"
 * Mayoclinic.org "stuttering - also called stammering"
 * Betterhealth.vic.gov.au "stuttering, or stammering"
 * National Institutes of Health (nidcd.nih.gov) "stuttering is sometimes referred to as stammering" Jehorak (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If the authors of this article wish to conflate the terms, they ought to explain at what point or how they have been conflated, because as is clearly shown in James Hunt's 1861 book "Stammering and Stuttering, their nature and treatment", these words previously referred to two different phenomenon 203.158.50.190 (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please show me another instance from a reliable source that conflates these terms 2601:1C2:1901:730:818A:74DB:2D74:3C03 (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)