ஐ.எஸ்.எஸ்.என்: 2472-5005

ஜர்னல் ஆஃப் ஸ்பீச் பேத்தாலஜி & தெரபி

திறந்த அணுகல்

எங்கள் குழு ஒவ்வொரு ஆண்டும் அமெரிக்கா, ஐரோப்பா மற்றும் ஆசியா முழுவதும் 1000 அறிவியல் சங்கங்களின் ஆதரவுடன் 3000+ உலகளாவிய மாநாட்டுத் தொடர் நிகழ்வுகளை ஏற்பாடு செய்து 700+ திறந்த அணுகல் இதழ்களை வெளியிடுகிறது, இதில் 50000 க்கும் மேற்பட்ட தலைசிறந்த ஆளுமைகள், புகழ்பெற்ற விஞ்ஞானிகள் ஆசிரியர் குழு உறுப்பினர்களாக உள்ளனர்.

அதிக வாசகர்கள் மற்றும் மேற்கோள்களைப் பெறும் திறந்த அணுகல் இதழ்கள்

700 இதழ்கள் மற்றும் 15,000,000 வாசகர்கள் ஒவ்வொரு பத்திரிகையும் 25,000+ வாசகர்களைப் பெறுகிறது

குறியிடப்பட்டது
  • கூகுள் ஸ்காலர்
  • ஜே கேட் திறக்கவும்
  • RefSeek
  • ஹம்டார்ட் பல்கலைக்கழகம்
  • EBSCO AZ
  • யூரோ பப்
  • ICMJE
இந்தப் பக்கத்தைப் பகிரவும்

சுருக்கம்

Opening and Closing Jaw Movements of Young Children who Stutter

Anthony P Buhr, Patricia Zebrowksi, Jerald Moon, Victoria Tumanova, Richard Arenas and Torrey Loucks

Objective: In this longitudinal study, we investigated the hypothesis that kinematic measures of jaw movement produced by children who stuttered (CWS) and children who did not stutter (CWNS) would differ between opening and closing speech gestures, across phonetic contexts, and across development.

Methods: Mean amplitude, velocity, and duration of jaw opening and closing gestures during repeated productions of bilabial syllables were analyzed longitudinally at 1-year intervals for 13 CWS and 7 children CWNS. The utterances ranged across four phonetic contexts: single-syllable, two-syllable, three-syllable, and six-syllable. For jaw movement transduction, a strain gauge was attached to a football helmet in a novel design to minimize head movement. All kinematic measures were made from jaw movement tracings in Windaq (Dataq Instruments, Inc.) software, based on a standard millimeter to voltage conversion.

Results: The main finding of the study was that opening gestures were produced by both CWS and CWNS with greater amplitude and duration compared to closing gestures. However, the kinematics associated with opening and closing jaw movements did not differ between CWS and CWNS, suggesting that the intrinsic articulatory dynamics of the two groups were similar. In addition, adapting the kinematics of opening and closing jaw movements across the four phonetic contexts did not differ between the groups for either movement amplitude or velocity. However, CWS produced the closing gesture with significantly greater duration compared to multi-syllable conditions, relative to CWNS. Finally, CWS and CWNS exhibited different longitudinal patterns for jaw amplitude and peak velocity.

Conclusion: The speech motor systems of CWS and CWNS exhibited broadly similar organization of intrinsic articulatory dynamics, but groups may differ in how underlying dynamics are adapted to changing phonetic contexts across development. It is possible that the speech fluency of CWS might benefit from greater articulatory constraints, as the main between-group difference was identified when degrees of freedom of movement were greatest. Implications of findings are discussed within the development of a hierarchically organized speech motor system.