Differential diagnosis in developmental and acquired neurogenic stuttering: Do fluency-enhancing conditions dissociate the two?

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In the past, several authors have proposed comparable sets of clinical features to differentiate acquired neurogenic stuttering (ANS) from developmental stuttering (DS). Further, people with ANS have been reported to show no changes in their dysfluencies during various fluency-enhancing conditions. Although these features have been criticized on their aptness and reliability in differentiating the two disorders (e.g., Lebrun, Bijleveld, & Rousseau, 1990), clinicians and researchers around the world continue to use them even today. In this context, we compile evidence from investigations employing fluency-enhancing conditions in people with ANS to highlight that this group shows extreme variability (including beneficial effects) under such conditions. Further, by combining the evidence from this review as well as that of Lebrun and colleagues', we propose that the clinical features that are used to differentiate ANS from DS are often unreliable. Additionally, we highlight on: (a) the heterogeneity in the manifestation of ANS, (b) recent attempts to draw similarity between ANS and DS, as well as (c) the surprising dearth of functional neuroimaging investigations in ANS that could pave potential ways to future investigations in this fluency disorder.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)252-257
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Neurolinguistics
Volume26
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01-03-2013

Fingerprint

Stuttering
Differential Diagnosis
evidence
Group
Neurogenic Stuttering
Fluency
Functional Neuroimaging
Research Personnel

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
  • Linguistics and Language
  • Cognitive Neuroscience

Cite this

@article{2123a36d348141ed8416b1dfacc5d475,
title = "Differential diagnosis in developmental and acquired neurogenic stuttering: Do fluency-enhancing conditions dissociate the two?",
abstract = "In the past, several authors have proposed comparable sets of clinical features to differentiate acquired neurogenic stuttering (ANS) from developmental stuttering (DS). Further, people with ANS have been reported to show no changes in their dysfluencies during various fluency-enhancing conditions. Although these features have been criticized on their aptness and reliability in differentiating the two disorders (e.g., Lebrun, Bijleveld, & Rousseau, 1990), clinicians and researchers around the world continue to use them even today. In this context, we compile evidence from investigations employing fluency-enhancing conditions in people with ANS to highlight that this group shows extreme variability (including beneficial effects) under such conditions. Further, by combining the evidence from this review as well as that of Lebrun and colleagues', we propose that the clinical features that are used to differentiate ANS from DS are often unreliable. Additionally, we highlight on: (a) the heterogeneity in the manifestation of ANS, (b) recent attempts to draw similarity between ANS and DS, as well as (c) the surprising dearth of functional neuroimaging investigations in ANS that could pave potential ways to future investigations in this fluency disorder.",
author = "Gopee Krishnan and Shivani Tiwari",
year = "2013",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jneuroling.2012.09.001",
language = "English",
volume = "26",
pages = "252--257",
journal = "Journal of Neurolinguistics",
issn = "0911-6044",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Differential diagnosis in developmental and acquired neurogenic stuttering

T2 - Do fluency-enhancing conditions dissociate the two?

AU - Krishnan, Gopee

AU - Tiwari, Shivani

PY - 2013/3/1

Y1 - 2013/3/1

N2 - In the past, several authors have proposed comparable sets of clinical features to differentiate acquired neurogenic stuttering (ANS) from developmental stuttering (DS). Further, people with ANS have been reported to show no changes in their dysfluencies during various fluency-enhancing conditions. Although these features have been criticized on their aptness and reliability in differentiating the two disorders (e.g., Lebrun, Bijleveld, & Rousseau, 1990), clinicians and researchers around the world continue to use them even today. In this context, we compile evidence from investigations employing fluency-enhancing conditions in people with ANS to highlight that this group shows extreme variability (including beneficial effects) under such conditions. Further, by combining the evidence from this review as well as that of Lebrun and colleagues', we propose that the clinical features that are used to differentiate ANS from DS are often unreliable. Additionally, we highlight on: (a) the heterogeneity in the manifestation of ANS, (b) recent attempts to draw similarity between ANS and DS, as well as (c) the surprising dearth of functional neuroimaging investigations in ANS that could pave potential ways to future investigations in this fluency disorder.

AB - In the past, several authors have proposed comparable sets of clinical features to differentiate acquired neurogenic stuttering (ANS) from developmental stuttering (DS). Further, people with ANS have been reported to show no changes in their dysfluencies during various fluency-enhancing conditions. Although these features have been criticized on their aptness and reliability in differentiating the two disorders (e.g., Lebrun, Bijleveld, & Rousseau, 1990), clinicians and researchers around the world continue to use them even today. In this context, we compile evidence from investigations employing fluency-enhancing conditions in people with ANS to highlight that this group shows extreme variability (including beneficial effects) under such conditions. Further, by combining the evidence from this review as well as that of Lebrun and colleagues', we propose that the clinical features that are used to differentiate ANS from DS are often unreliable. Additionally, we highlight on: (a) the heterogeneity in the manifestation of ANS, (b) recent attempts to draw similarity between ANS and DS, as well as (c) the surprising dearth of functional neuroimaging investigations in ANS that could pave potential ways to future investigations in this fluency disorder.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84871722176&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84871722176&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2012.09.001

DO - 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2012.09.001

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:84871722176

VL - 26

SP - 252

EP - 257

JO - Journal of Neurolinguistics

JF - Journal of Neurolinguistics

SN - 0911-6044

IS - 2

ER -