Dr Schwartz has kindly provided an updated version of his presentation "The trigger for stuttering", and I have great pleasure in placing it:
THE TRIGGER FOR STUTTERING
A presentation by
Martin F. Schwartz,
Ph.D.
Stuttering is often defined in terms of its overt
symptoms. Typically these
are described as repetitions, prolongations and blocks - although a great many
other behaviors have been described as well. In concert with this definition, most
people tend to think of stuttering as a disorder of speech. As a result, cognitive issues, more
specifically, the thoughts of people who stutter, tend to receive much less
attention.
One important cognitive issue for people who stutter
is their ability to look ahead and ‘see’ feared sounds, words, and speaking
situations approaching. This anticipatory mental activity, which I
here call scanning, leads to a
variety of behaviors, one of which is the avoidance of feared words and feared
speaking situations. Clinical experience
indicates that scanning and avoiding are not present at the onset of stuttering
but develop over time to become habits.
Scanning and avoiding, however, are not the only
habits. A number of studies have shown that most, if not all, of the
overt struggles that typically characterize stuttering are also learned. Part of this understanding comes from
learning-theory models of stuttering and part as a result of the
successful use of behavior modification techniques in treatment.
If stuttering is composed of learned
struggle, scanning and avoidance behaviors, an adequate definition must include
all three. For purposes of this presentation, let us operationally define
stuttering as:
All the
things people who stutter do when they get ‘stuck’ in their speech and/or all
the things people who stutter do to avoid getting ‘stuck’ in their speech.
Now this definition might appear
simplistic, but notice what it accomplishes. First, it tends to
acknowledge and embrace the point of view of the person who stutters, not
merely the point of view of an observer.
Second, it takes an exclusive orientation away from a catalog of overt
struggle behaviors and provides for the very real possibility of important
cognitive components. Finally, it strongly emphasizes that overt stuttering,
scanning and avoidance behaviors are responses to something else - the ‘getting
stuck’ or, what will be hypothesized here to be, an event, that both initiates
and perpetuates what is called: the
trigger for stuttering.
To begin our quest for the trigger,
let us start with a rewording of a
number of questions that have been asked repeatedly about overt stuttering. In
these questions, the concept of a ‘trigger’ is used in place of the traditional
focus upon overt behavioral signs. So,
for example, why does the trigger for
stuttering occur more often among males than females, why does it tend to run
in families, why is it absent or markedly reduced when a person who stutters
talks to themselves out loud alone, or when they sing, or whisper, or speak to
the rhythm of a metronome, or speak chorally, or against a masking noise, or
when using a foreign accent or when talking to pets? And why does the trigger typically not occur
when, in the course of speech development, a child is using single words to
express himself - only to appear suddenly when the child begins using
sentences? And when it does appear, why
does it typically manifest itself only at the beginning of sentences or phrases
rather than being evenly distributed throughout?
And then there are interesting
questions relating to the trigger raised by the cognitive component. For example, a child who recently started
using sentences suddenly begins to stutter.
In response, he reverts to using single words to convey his ideas. This child is, by the definition given
earlier, still stuttering because he is responding to the awareness of his
stuttering by electing to avoid using sentences. How are we to react to this child?
And, later in life, if this child, as an adult,
masters word substitution and situation avoidance to the point where he never
stutters overtly but still lives in constant fear of inadvertently stuttering -
are we not to call him a person who stutters?
These last two questions illustrate some of the
issues that arise when a traditional overt-symptom-response-only approach is
taken with respect to the understanding and treatment of stuttering.
Given the above, one is lead to an
inevitable conclusion, herein offered as a question:
If overt
stuttering, scanning and avoiding are learned responses to the occurrence or
anticipation of a trigger, wouldn’t it be better to ignore these learned
responses and deal with the trigger or the event causing the trigger instead?
The following example illustrates this
alternative way of thinking. Let us relate overt stuttering to the
knee-jerk reflex. In the knee-jerk
reflex, striking the patellar tendon affects the quadriceps muscle. Muscle spindles in the quadriceps muscle are
stretched and send an afferent signal to the brain. The afferent signal is the trigger. The striking of the patellar tendon is the
event that produces the trigger. The spinal
cord responds to the trigger reflexively by sending an efferent signal to
contract the quadriceps muscle and to relax its antagonists, the hamstring
muscles. The foot flies up. The foot flying movement is equivalent to the
stutter.
Imagine, however, that the patellar
tendon cannot be seen. All that can be seen is the foot, and its flying
movements are inappropriate, unwanted and cause considerable stress whenever
they occur. Attempts to hold the foot down or to modify its movements
(so-called traditional speech therapy) often fail. One day someone
discovers the patellar tendon and observes the temporal relationship between it
being struck and the foot-flying event. Knowledge of this relationship quickly
leads to a solution.
Now one might argue about the validity
of this example, since I am attempting to equate a reflex with a learned
behavior, but the example still retains its power to explain what is here
contended to be a common mistake in therapy (attempting to treat stuttering
instead of its trigger and/or the event initiating the trigger). It also
explains a similar and common mistake made by researchers who try to uncover
the core brain mechanisms underlying stuttering by exhaustively mapping
neuro-physiological correlates of learned behavior, rather than the event that
is triggering that behavior.
There is another common mistake that
is often made. People who stutter often
believe ‘stress‘ to be the trigger for their stuttering. To them, it is a
simple stimulus-response event. For
example, a feared speaking situation, such as talking on the telephone, elicits
a high degree of anticipatory stress (a cognitive response conditioned by prior
experience) that, in turn, elicits a stutter. The logical assumption,
derived from this experience, is that anticipatory stress causes
stuttering. A closed loop cycle is
proposed, with anticipatory stress triggering stuttering which, in turn,
reinforces the anticipatory stress. In other words, a self-fulfilling
prophecy.
But both psychotherapy and traditional
speech therapy have long histories of not being very successful in the
treatment of chronic stuttering. Both disciplines often rationalize their
relative lack of success by saying that since stuttering is a complex,
multi-factorial problem, starting early in life and of long-standing duration,
it is highly resistant to permanent extinction.
Rarely, if ever, is there mention made of the possibility of an
intervening step, such as a triggering event, that might be going
unaddressed.
It is
the contention of this presentation that there is a trigger for stuttering and
that it always occurs during the time between the occurrence of stress and an
overt stutter or, in the case of an avoidance response, it is a cognitive
event, the perceived threat of a trigger, which occurs in response to stress,
that evokes the avoidance behavior.
The
origin of the trigger
In our quest for the origin of the
trigger, we examine the beginnings of stuttering. We do so for one
reason: unencumbered by the overlay of years of conditioning, important clues
to the trigger reveal themselves more readily at this early stage.
We begin with general observations about the onset
of stuttering. The first is that most
stuttering begins between the ages of two and five, with a major peak of onset
of occurrence between two and a half and three and a half years of age. The second is that most children who stutter
have been speaking fluently for a period of time before their stuttering
begins. The average length of time the
child has been speaking fluently before the onset of stuttering is seventeen
months, but it can vary widely. Third,
many children who stutter can have periods when they are totally fluent. These periods, sometimes called remissions,
can last for days, weeks, months, years or, in the case of outgrowth, forever.
Fourth, at the onset, most
stuttering appears at the beginnings of phrases or sentences. And fifth, by far, the most common
initial expressions of stuttering are repetitions.
Given these observations, it is obvious that the
trigger, whatever it is, is not occurring all or even most of the time. And if the trigger is a response to stress,
then the stress apparently comes and goes quickly, and often without apparent
rhyme or reason. It is strange to think,
for example, that a stress and its associated trigger could be present on the
first word of a sentence and not on the rest of the sentence, or that Johnny
could be overheard talking fluently with his action figures when playing alone
in the family room, only to stutter instantly when someone comes into the room
and asks him a question.
If we think for a
moment about the concept of a trigger we see that for one to occur, a threshold
of some sort must be crossed. Whether it be the response of a thermostat to a
certain temperature, triggering the turning on of a furnace or an air
conditioner, or an ion channel in a cell's membrane, shut when the potential is
near its resting level, only to open suddenly when the potential increases to a
precisely defined level, the concept of a trigger always implies the concept of
a threshold.
For the purposes of the presentation today, the
threshold for the trigger for stuttering is here defined as:
A level of
physiological activity capable of eliciting an overt stutter or of provoking an
avoidance response.
When the magnitude of the physiological activity crosses the threshold, an overt stutter
occurs; when it approaches the threshold,
its threat potential, as a result of
prior conditioning, can initiate an avoidance response - but only in
children and adults who have learned to scan.
At the onset of stuttering, as indicated earlier,
there is no scanning. Anticipatory
stress, as a learned response, takes time to develop. This means that at the onset of stuttering
there is no attempt to avoid supra-threshold trigger events. And since, without scanning, the trigger events
are essentially all unanticipated, they evoke what are probably the most basic
of responses.
It is a contention of
this presentation that the most basic of responses are ones that occur whenever
there is a sudden, unanticipated stoppage of a learned and generally smoothly
functioning forward progression of preprogrammed neuromuscular events.
So, for example, both speech and walking are
preprogrammed forward-movement processes.
Both have beginnings, midpoints, and endings. Walking and speaking are both learned
activities and both have central nervous system mechanisms that plan, execute
and monitor the respective behaviors.
Once learned, both behaviors appear to be automatic and the users of
such behaviors fully expect the ongoing nature of the behaviors to proceed
smoothly and without interruption.
Interesting things happen when an unanticipated
interruption occurs to a normally smoothly functioning ongoing neuromuscular
activity. Let me give you a personal
example:
A number of years ago I was traveling by train from
New York to Washington, DC. I was
sitting in a coach next to the dining car.
As people passed through the coach on their way to the dining car, they
were required to press a bar on the door at the end of the coach that would cause
the door to slide open. Sitting near
that door, I noticed that something was wrong with the bar’s actuating
mechanism, for when the bar was pressed, the door did not open immediately, as
expected, but only after a delay of several seconds. I watched how people reacted to this sudden,
unexpected stoppage of a normal-ongoing-forward-movement process (the
progression of walking to the door, pressing the bar, expecting the door to
open immediately and then continuing to walk).
There were generally two types of responses. First, and by far the most frequent, were
those individuals who repeatedly pressed the bar in an effort to get the door
to open. Call these actions repetitions. The second, much less numerous than the
first, were those who applied pressure continuously to the bar in the effort to
open the door. Call these actions
prolongations. Both actions were in
response to the sudden stoppage of movement cause by the temporarily stuck
door. Call this sudden stoppage a block.
Here, I thought, was an obvious and efficient
explanation for the beginning of developmental stuttering. As indicated earlier, children had been
speaking for a while prior to the onset of stuttering. The learning process had progressed without
undue incident. Speech was becoming
smoother and more automatic each day.
Suddenly, in the midst of this ongoing movement process, the progress
was abruptly and unexpectedly halted.
(The equivalent to the ‘getting stuck’ part of the definition – in other
words, the block.) The block, for
purposes of this presentation is here defined as the core behavior of
stuttering.
The reaction to this event was as non-thinking,
automatic and similar as the behaviors exhibited by my fellow travelers on the
train that day: mostly repetitions with occasional prolongations or simply the
core behavior itself, the blocks.
Interestingly, research on the earliest stuttering signs show this to be
precisely the case, with the onset typically being mostly repetitions, with
occasional prolongations or, in the absence of those, the block itself.
One final point to the story. One of my fellow travelers that day, a young
man in his late teens, dressed in what I would call ‘Elvis’ attire, had
occasion to go to the dining car a second time. He was hard to miss. I noticed that as he approached the bar,
almost without breaking stride, he lifted his foot and gave the bar a forceful
kick. One may conclude from this that on
the basis of apparently just a single prior experience (one-trial learning),
this young man had devised a strategy for dealing with his anticipation of a
block. Here, I thought, was the analog for quickly-learned severe, preemptive
(anticipatory) stuttering.
Early responses to
repetitions
We shall now examine some of the early behaviors
developed by children to deal with repetitions since repetitions are, by far,
the most common initial expressions of stuttering. Note that repetitions can persist for
variable periods of time (from a day to years) in unmodified form. This is due to the fact that since they often
work to release the ‘stuck’ condition, the block, they are rewarded and thus
learned.
Eventually, however, a child might react to the
repetitions, find them unacceptable, and seek to eliminate them. A number of options are available. He can, if he scans, choose to eliminate the
repetitions by looking ahead and changing feared words and avoiding feared
speaking situations. Or he might
confront the ‘getting stuck’ head on with forceful struggles - as ‘Elvis’ did
on the train. Or he might replace the
repetitions with other, seemingly less obvious struggle behaviors. It is this
last group that interests us as we again look to certain behaviors that appear
early on in the development of stuttering but may not persist into the adult
form of the disorder.
There are three of note. The first is swallowing. Children who stutter will sometimes swallow
just before speaking. It is as if the process of swallowing somehow facilitates
the onset of speech. If one asks a
bright 7 year-old who has been exhibiting this behavior for a while the
following question: “Does swallowing always work?” They will sometimes smile, revealing that
they fully understand the question and usually answer: “not always”. To which, if one asks, “Does it sometimes
take 2 or 3 swallows to get things going?”
They will often say “yes”. So
swallowing, when it occurs, is usually a conscious anticipatory behavior
designed to either disable or prevent a block from occurring.
A second behavior is the use of inspiratory
gestures. Brief, deep, rapid
inhalations just before the onset of speech.
Sometimes these behaviors occur as a series of sniffs, sometimes as deep
oral inhalations. Again, they appear
just before the beginnings of sentences and appear to facilitate speech
onsets. They are less prominent than
swallowing and are often seemingly employed without conscious awareness.
The third behavior is speaking on expiratory reserve
volume or what is commonly called: supplemental air. The child will appear to exhale almost
completely and then, on the minimum amount of air left in the lungs, produce as
many words as he can. Again, this is
apparently used to initiate speech.
Owing to the forceful nature of this respiratory maneuver, the child is
often aware of using it.
Notice that since swallowing, rapid, deep
inspirations, and speaking on supplemental air are techniques employed by these
children in the silence before speech
begins, it would appear they are being used to prevent or disable a block. This interpretation gains credence by the
fact that when these behaviors are employed stuttering symptoms do not
generally appear.
The silence before
speech
Since the trigger occurs in response to stress and
both apparently occur in the silence before speech, it would seem reasonable to
consider what events might be taking place during this time period that could
be interpreted as stressful. There are
several obvious candidates. To begin, if
the child is speaking in sentences, as they typically are when stuttering
begins, there are a number of choices that have to be made before speech can
begin. The vocabulary, grammar, syntax,
intonation and linguistic stress of the entire sentence have to be selected,
integrated and sequenced. And these activities, and the neurological
processes that sub-serve them, have to be made in the fractions of a second and
in a brain that, on average, is two and a half to three and a half years
old.
It is a contention of
this presentation that these complex and diverse activities, occurring quickly
and simultaneously in a relatively immature central nervous system, constitute multiple
stresses that express themselves as heightened levels of muscle tension in
the vocal tract during the silence before speech begins.
In predisposed individuals, these heightened levels
of muscle tension can cross a threshold yielding a potentially speech-arresting
condition. The repetitions that then typically ensue are not ‘problems’ saying
the first word or syllable; they are, instead, the normal responses to a
sudden, unanticipated stoppage of a learned and relatively smoothly functioning
forward progression of preprogrammed neuromuscular activities. They
are the repeated pressing of the bar required to open the ‘stuck door’ at the
end of the railway car.
Other sources of
‘stress’ in the silence before speech
There are
three other less obvious sources of ‘stress’ that occur during the silence
before speech. The first is called: coarticulation. Co-articulation, as you probably well
know, is the influence one sound has upon another during ongoing speech. For example, in the word ‘queen’ [kwin],
notice that before the [k] is spoken, the lips are already rounded for the
[w]. This occurs because the [k]
requires no lip involvement and so the lip rounding for the [w] is free to move
forward in time to facilitate the smooth transition from the [k] to the
[w]. This happens continuously and is a
normal feature of speech production.
But co-articulation can be more extensive. It has been shown, for example, that given
the correct phonetic environment, the effect of the articulatory requirements
for the last word of a sentence can sometimes be detected on or before the first
word of that sentence. This
means that continuous speech is not merely a concatenation of one word
independently following another in time, but instead, prior to the onset of the
sentence, that is, during the silence that precedes it, portions of the
articulatory organization for the entire sentence can take place.
The second not-so-obvious event occurring in the
silence before speech is the ‘stress’ associated with speaking too rapidly. More specifically, it is the speed of the
first word. It is called speed stress and it manifests itself in
the following manner: As the length of a sentence is increased, the
duration of each of the syllables in the sentence decreases. This means, as the sentence gets longer, the
speaker talks more rapidly. And although
this is true throughout the sentence, nowhere is it apparently more prominent
than on the first word of the sentence.
So the speed of the first word is particularly sensitive to the
number of words in the sentence.
Let us consider what happens as the sentence is
lengthened and the first word is spoken more rapidly. To understand this, imagine we are in a
physiology lab and are going to study the behavior of the triceps muscle as it
functions in an arm-extension maneuver.
Surface electrodes have been attached to the muscle to record its
electrical activity. The three conditions
to be studied are a slow-speed extension of the arm, a moderate-speed
extension, and a rapid one. The activity
to be examined in detail is the behavior of the triceps muscle a fifth of a
second before the movement
begins.
The test is completed and the data collected and
analyzed. Not surprisingly, one finds
the greatest degree of electrical activity, that is, the most tension on the
triceps, occurs before the rapid extension, a lesser degree of tension before
the moderate-speed extension, and the least before the slowest-speed extension.
The basic principle of physiology demonstrated is
that in order to have progressively greater initial velocities, one must
recruit progressively more muscle fibers before
the movement begins and that this recruitment is reflected in the greater
average tensions recorded prior to
the onset of the faster extensions.
The same is true during the silence before a
sentence versus the silence before a word spoken in isolation. The tension is always greater before the sentence
and, within limits, the longer the sentence, the greater the pre-speech
tension. Research shows that the longer
the sentence the greater the amount of stuttering and that most early onset stuttering
occurs on the first word of phrases or sentences.
Stocker developed a treatment for young children
based on this understanding. Her
approach was to have children return to using single word utterances to express
what formerly had been expressed as stuttered sentences. This elemental form of speech, relieved of a
great deal of its pre-speech linguistic programming and most of its speed
stress, was fluent. Then, gradually, as
fluency became more firmly established, she proceeded to two-word utterances,
three-word utterances and so on - guiding the child through to progressively
greater levels of linguistic complexity and speed stress.
The third event of importance is called the pre-phonatory tuning of the larynx.
There are two types. In one type, if speech is to start with the
correct pitch and loudness, the vocal folds must assume specific postures and
tensions before speech. Were
pre-phonatory tuning of the larynx not present, speech onsets would be marked
by rapid shifts of vocal fold activity, as cortical control of the larynx,
making use of auditory feedback, hunted
to find the right initial pitch and loudness.
A moment’s reflection indicates this is not the case and a simple
example convincingly makes the point: If
a person is asked to speak in falsetto, they know, a priori, using various proprioceptors, they can do it. There is no need for the person to hunt for
falsetto voice after phonation has begun.
The second type is the position required of the
vocal cords for the first sound in an utterance. As is well known, it is obviously not always
the case that the vocal cords come together and touch one another just before
speech. Quite often the opposite is
true. A little less than half of the
consonants in English are voiceless, that is, they require the vocal cords to
be apart. So, for example, as we all
know, the voiceless ‘p’, ‘t’, and ‘k’ sounds are produced with the vocal cords
apart, while their voiced articulatory counterparts, ‘b’, ‘d’ and ‘g’, are
produced with the vocal cords together.
The base level tension
All of the above
tensions are superimposed upon a fluctuating ‘base level tension.’ The
‘base level tension’ is defined as the tension on the vocal cords when a person
is not speaking and not intending to speak.
The sources of this tension are both systemic and psychological. Some of the systemic ones are: fatigue,
nutritional deficiencies, allergies, illnesses, drugs, alcohol, hormone
fluctuations (body and brain) and individual reactions to environmental
conditions (temperature, humidity, positive ions, pollutants, etc.). The psychological ones can be a ‘mean’
teacher, a bully, a divorce, loss of a grandparent, a job or a pet – a whole
host of events.
The combined
strength of the various systemic and psychological sources, at each moment in
time, contributes to the ‘base level tension’.
The sources can be in phase with each other or mostly negative and thus
add to one another (producing what are called ‘bad’ speaking days, weeks,
months, etc) or out of phase with each other and cancelling one another or
mostly positive (producing what are called ‘good’ speaking days, weeks, months,
etc). Thus the variability in the severity of disorder, which is well
documented, has to do with shifting base level tensions.
Marshaling the
evidence in support of the site of the trigger
There are thus at least ten separate events taking
place simultaneously in the silence before phrases or sentences. They are: the selection of vocabulary,
grammar, syntax, intonation and linguistic stress, the effects: of
co-articulation, speed of the first word, and the two forms of pre-phonatory
tuning of the larynx: correct pitch and loudness at onset and correct
voiced/voiceless distinction at onset - and all superimposed upon a fluctuating
base level tension.
Managing these events correctly represents a
substantial undertaking when viewed within the constraints of the time
available and the immaturity of the nervous system at the typical age of the
onset of stuttering. Clearly this
creates a multiple-stress situation and, as indicated earlier, the most common
expression of this stress is an increase in muscle tension.
The question remains, where is the most likely site
of the tension? The purpose of this presentation is to suggest that the answer lies at
the narrowest aperture along the vocal tract from lungs to lips: the space
between the two vocal cords. A small
increase in muscle tension at this location can, given its crucial role in so
many of these activities, create more difficulty in speech than an increase in
muscle tension at any other location. If
the critical source of tension were elsewhere, let us say, the lips, the
tongue, or the soft palate, the primary initial signs of stuttering,
repetitions, would show articulation and/or resonance defects indicative of
struggle at these areas, but they do not.
On the contrary, most clinicians often describe the very early onset
repetitions as seemingly ‘effortless.’
It is thus the
contention of this talk that the pre-speech focus of stress-induced muscle
tension is likely at the larynx. When the tension level at the larynx reaches a
threshold, the vocal cords become essentially immobilized in either an open or
closed position, depending upon whether the intended first sound is voiced or
voiceless. To repeat, this state of
vocal-cord immobilization, commonly called a block, is felt to be the core of
stuttering.
Swallowing, rapid, deep inspirations, and speaking
on supplemental air - all prevent repetitions and prolongations and other
learned manifestations of stuttering because they interfere with the buildup of
tension leading to the threshold of laryngeal blocks - but they do so in
different ways. For example, in the case
of an abrupt, deep, inspiratory gesture, a rapid and large laryngeal opening is
produced by a reflexive response of two muscles: the posterior cricoarytenoid
and cricothyroid which contract forcefully to accommodate the greater inflow of
air. This command from the brain to
these muscles supersedes the intent to speak, with the result that most of the
sources of pre-speech tension are temporarily suspended.
Speaking on supplemental air
(just the opposite of the previous approach) also accomplishes the same thing,
but in a more involved way. On the one
hand, sensory receptors in the lungs, diaphragm, muscles between the ribs and
the muscles that line the abdominal wall detect the amount of air left in the
lungs, sense that it is dropping dramatically below the levels required for
normal breathing and begin to prepare the person for an imminent corrective
inhalation by initiating a major opening of the vocal folds. At the same time, muscles that close the vocal
cords are at work trying to get sound going. This conflicting activity interferes
with the intent to speak by temporarily suspending most of the normally present
pre-speech laryngeal tensions.
Finally, at the end of the swallow reflex, after
transport of the bolus of food to the esophagus has taken place, with its
concomitant transient deglutition apnea, the voice box drops abruptly and the
vocal folds mechanically open widely to enable resumption of respiration. This behavior, as part of the swallow
reflex, like the others, interferes with the preparations that must be made to
get ready to speak.
Swallowing, rapid inspirations, and speaking on
supplemental air all engender alterations of the tensions within and around the
larynx just prior to the onset of speech that are both independent of and, to a
certain extent, incompatible with the speech that follows. The three behaviors
are not struggles in speech; they are, instead, activities before speech that
temporarily substitute basic, reflexive mechanisms for
neurologically higher-order speech commands to the larynx. Said somewhat differently, they all temporarily suspend the intent to
speak and, in so doing, alter most of the pre-speech tensions on the vocal
cords.
Further evidence in
support of the larynx as the site of the trigger
There are a whole host of other observations that
further implicate the larynx as the site of the trigger. Here are just a few: Occasionally, in the
effort to speak without stuttering, a child will resort to whispering. The altered physiology of the vocal cords
during whispering to a more open state would support the role of the larynx as
the site of the trigger. The use of the electro larynx (a device used by
laryngectomees, people who have lost their voice boxes to cancer, to produce
voice when they cannot produce esophageal speech) has elicited fluent speech
when used by non-laryngectomized individuals who stutter. Changing the
pitch of the voice, and thus the internal and external laryngeal tensions and
postures, has produced similar effects. Mouthing words fluently with no attempt at
phonation further supports the contention. Fluent esophageal speech following total
laryngectomy with individuals who had stuttered preoperatively has been
reported. The
therapeutic use of gentle onsets of phonation to ease into vocal fold vibration
also is corroborative. And
the research that shows that individuals who stutter have longer Voice Onset
Times (VOT’s) than people who don’t suggests an inherent state of neural-based
inertia at the vocal folds. All of this, admittedly circumstantial, but
all, nevertheless, suggestive of a laryngeal involvement.
There is yet a further intriguing piece of evidence
that points to the larynx as the site for the trigger. One of the most common activities for
lessening or interfering with the pre-phonatory tensions in and around the
larynx is the use of verbal starters. A
starter may be a sound, a syllable, a word or words (real or nonsense) or a
phrase that has no contextual linguistic
function and is used before the onset of speech to get the vocal cords
vibrating in the expectation that they will continue to vibrate directly into
and through the feared utterance. Verbal
starters have a reputation for working initially and then failing. The reason this happens is that after a
while, the starter becomes so automatic it becomes incorporated into the
overall plan for the sentence. Said
somewhat differently, verbal starters stop working when they begin to
assume the role of the first word and start to co-articulate with the rest of
the sentence. It is at this point that
the starter becomes part of the intent to speak and thus acquires many of the
sources of pre-speech tension that lead to a block.
The trigger for
stuttering
It is the contention
of this presentation that the trigger for stuttering is a unique pattern of
afferent impulses that arise from receptors within and around the larynx
that signal the central nervous system that a threshold level for a specific
concordance of speech-arresting laryngeal tensions has been reached or soon
will be reached. It is this unique
afferent array, or its threatened occurrence, that constitutes the trigger
for the learned anticipatory or extricatory behaviors called stuttering.
Change the afferent array and the conditioned
stutter responses cease. The most
efficient way for making changes to the array is to subtract laryngeal tensions
or to create new ones, ones that have no cue value. So, for example, singing, whispering,
speaking to the rhythm of a metronome, shouting, swallowing, rapidly inspiring,
speaking on residual air, head jerks, coughing (throat clearing),
stress-reduction techniques, starters, changing words, etc. all have the
capability of changing the afferent array, as do all activities that distract
attention away from speech, have no conditioned anticipatory stresses
associated with them (like speaking alone or with a foreign accent), and any or
all of the activities that reduce linguistic and/or speed demands.
The Basal Ganglia
Recent research suggests that children who do not
stutter are subject to the same linguistic and speech stresses as children who
do, but that what separates the two groups may be a genetically-based
predisposition for excessive tension to be developed at the larynx in
stuttering children. Current
findings implicate the basal ganglia, and its tendency to respond
inappropriately when under conditions of stress - as the source of this
predisposition. The reasons
for this are not entirely known, and it may, for many, be nothing more than a
temporal delay that eventually catches up for most and is not found in adults
(this may account for why a substantial majority of children who stutter
spontaneously outgrow it), but attempts to understand the mechanism are
currently underway. We do know, however, that since
the basal ganglia are critically involved in memory, cognition, learning,
sequencing of complex motor commands and have direct connections with the
limbic system and projections to and from a laryngeal area on the
motor cortex, the basal ganglia, more than any other central nervous
system structure, has the potential of being the source of the tensions that
ultimately produce the trigger for stuttering.
A final overview
We can summarize this talk by positing a sequence of
events that constitutes a model for stuttering based on the elucidation of a
trigger for the disorder. The events are
as follows:
In a neurologically-predisposed individual, diverse
endogenous and exogenous stresses occur simultaneously to result in a buildup
of tension at the larynx that reaches speech-arresting levels in the silence
before speech. A state of vocal-fold
immobilization, commonly called a block,
then exists. This block constitutes the core of stuttering.
The most typical immediate response to a block is a
repetition. Repetitions can occur with
varying degrees of tension and frequency and often become habits. After a period of time, which can vary
greatly, the child can become aware of and react to the repetitions by engaging
in one or more of a number of activities.
These can be avoidance behaviors, direct, forceful confrontational
attacks, or more subtle maneuvers such as swallowing, inhaling rapidly and
deeply, speaking on expiratory reserve volume or using starters.
All of these behaviors, with the exception of the
core behavior, the laryngeal block, are learned. The core behavior is represented by a unique
afferent array that, through conditioning, becomes the trigger for all of the
subsequent learned behaviors associated with it. Any activity that alters this unique afferent
array can prevent the conditioned stutter responses from occurring.
Concluding remarks
Textbooks on stuttering provide the student with
collections of published data. Examining these texts, and studying how they are
organized, one discovers a thread common to them all: Stuttering, in spite of a great deal of
research, remains for many a complex, often bewildering, frequently enigmatic
and frustratingly confusing disorder.
A large part of this difficulty stems from a
long-standing tradition by both researchers and clinicians to focus on the
overt signs of school age and adult stuttering populations. As indicated earlier, the myriad and
heterogeneous accumulations of overlaid struggle behaviors associated with the
chronic version of this disorder overwhelm and obscure the underlying core
mechanisms. Admittedly, these struggle
behaviors are seductive - and therein lies the trap, for much of the published
research on stuttering can be said to be essentially well-designed studies of
whether ‘the foot flies to the right, left or straight ahead when the tendon is
struck.’
It is hoped that awareness of the trigger will prove
useful for those seeking to find more productive ways of ordering the knowledge
database of stuttering and, by extension, to provide guidance for those seeking
more effective methods of treatment.
thank you, best info in years.i'm a 70 year old stuttering salesman that went through 20 years of speech therapy as a child and one year ( all the stuttering classes in the speech dept ) to realize how far we haven't come.the greeks 2000 bc used small stones under the tongue to treat stuttering.van riper called it approach avoidance conflict, you called it scanning , it's flight or fight - a fear based disorder.i've spent 50 years looking for the cause not the cure.it's hard to change a
ReplyDeletelearned behavior reinforced over 68 years ( those neurons fired together & wired together) those connections are in stone. the only way is learn new behavior, build new pathways. what worked for me was biofeedback, breathing (same as kings speech ) and facing & overcoming those FEARS - triggers.there were three traits of PWS that were compiled in the 60's - addiction,twins in the family & left handedness - all genetic. i started with our closest genetic relative, the bonobo monkeys, they lived in northwest central africa on the congo river.two very small studies showed a slight left handed preference which is extremely rare. 60 minutes did a segment on the bonobo handshake - their hyper sexuality which tied into addiction, excess dopamine ?? then i looked at twins in the family, that led me to nigeria 800 miles northwest of the bonobos.highest rate of twin births in the world. nigeria also has 2 to 3 times the PWS rate in the world. 1500 miles nw of nigeria in morocco the oldest modern humane remains ( 300,000 years old) were discovered. 400 miles north of morocco in a cave in spain remains of a modern human - neanderthal admix child were discovered. next i traced addiction from a map of alcohol consumption in world today and a map of the max plank genetic range of the denisovans,
a 400,000 year old haminide and it was almost a perfect match.1% to 6% of modern humans genes come from the neanderthal and or denisovan genes. there may be a linkage between the way a subset of modern human brains are wired & 10% of world population being left handed, 10% suffer from addiction, 10% suffer from mental illness or maybe its just random ? 40% of my family are left handed, we have over 30 sets of twins in three generation and addiction has taken its toll my family.with drs like you it wont be long before my family has the cause of our addictions, stuttering,adhd,ocd,tourette syndrome,depression and bipolar disorder. thank again for the insight.
Practicing Dr. Martin Schwartz's Airlow Technique for 44 years gave me a freedom I was missing. Continuous attention to the mechanics of airflow eliminates the scanning and perfectly produces fluency. After a while it becomes as natural as playing a piano and having your left and right hands do different movements. When you are concentrating on one thing you can't think of something else. It takes practice, practice, practice, to produce a strong technique.
ReplyDeleteThat allowed me to win two Toastmaster District speech contests, international and humorous, as well as District Governor. You can't argue with that.
Of course there were times my baseline stress rose to uncontrollable levels but I sought out Dr. Schwartz's help as well as fellow air-flowers. I would never forget Mrs, Schneider who was my monitor for a year and a half.
Thank you for this, Elliot. Yes, it is a great technique, I still use it often but not exclusively. The technique works particularly well for me when reading aloud. But when I rely on it exclusively, I become too dependent on it and then, strangely enough, I block more. This can perhaps be explained by mindbody theory. When I become too dependent on it, my brain gets the message that there is danger, and then it increases symptoms. Even so, I will always be grateful to Dr Schwartz (and Mrs Schneider who evaluated my airflow practice tapes!) for teaching me this great technique!
Delete