Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 30, 2026
Radiotracer Administration for High Temporal Resolution Positron Emission Tomography of the Human Brain: Application to FDG-fPET
Published on: October 22, 2019
Common features of fluency-evoking conditions studied in stuttering subjects and controls: an H(2)15O PET study
Sheila V Stager1, Keith J Jeffries, Allen R Braun
1Language Section, Voice Speech and Language Branch, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.
Unlabelled:
We used H(2)15O PET to characterize the common features of two successful but markedly different fluency-evoking conditions -- paced speech and singing -- in order to identify brain mechanisms that enable fluent speech in people who stutter. To do so, we compared responses under fluency-evoking conditions with responses elicited by tasks that typically elicit dysfluent speech (quantifying the degree of stuttering and using this measure as a confounding covariate in our analyses). We evaluated task-related activations in both stuttering subjects and age- and gender-matched controls. Areas that were either uniquely activated during fluency-evoking conditions, or in which the magnitude of activation was significantly greater during fluency-evoking than dysfluency-evoking tasks included auditory association areas that process speech and voice and motor regions related to control of the larynx and oral articulators. This suggests that a common fluency-evoking mechanism might relate to more effective coupling of auditory and motor systems -- that is, more efficient self-monitoring, allowing motor areas to more effectively modify speech. These effects were seen in both PWS and controls, suggesting that they are due to the sensorimotor or cognitive demands of the fluency-evoking tasks themselves. While responses seen in both groups were bilateral, however, the fluency-evoking tasks elicited more robust activation of auditory and motor regions within the left hemisphere of stuttering subjects, suggesting a role for the left hemisphere in compensatory processes that enable fluency.
Educational Objectives:
The reader will learn about and be able to: (1) compare brain activation patterns under fluency- and dysfluency-evoking conditions in stuttering and control subjects; (2) appraise the common features, both central and peripheral, of fluency-evoking conditions; and (3) discuss ways in which neuroimaging methods can be used to understand the pathophysiology of stuttering.
