Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 29, 2026
A Tactile Automated Passive-Finger Stimulator TAPS
Published on: June 3, 2009
Rhythmic tapping difficulties in adults who stutter: A deficit in beat perception, motor execution, or sensorimotor
Anneke Slis1, Christophe Savariaux1, Pascal Perrier1
1CNRS, Grenoble INP, GIPSA-Lab, University Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.
Objectives:
The study aims to better understand the rhythmic abilities of people who stutter and to identify which processes potentially are impaired in this population: (1) beat perception and reproduction; (2) the execution of movements, in particular their initiation; (3) sensorimotor integration.
Material And Method:
Finger tapping behavior of 16 adults who stutter (PWS) was compared with that of 16 matching controls (PNS) in five rhythmic tasks of various complexity: three synchronization tasks - a simple 1:1 isochronous pattern, a complex non-isochronous pattern, and a 4 tap:1 beat isochronous pattern -, a reaction task to an aperiodic and unpredictable pattern, and a reproduction task of an isochronous pattern after passively listening.
Results:
PWS were able to reproduce an isochronous pattern on their own, without external auditory stimuli, with similar accuracy as PNS, but with increased variability. This group difference in variability was observed immediately after passive listening, without prior motor engagement, and was not enhanced or reduced after several seconds of tapping. Although PWS showed increased tapping variability in the reproduction task as well as in synchronization tasks, this timing variability did not correlate significantly with the variability in reaction times or tapping force. Compared to PNS, PWS exhibited larger negative mean asynchronies, and increased synchronization variability in synchronization tasks. These group differences were not affected by beat hierarchy (i.e., "strong" vs. "weak" beats), pattern complexity (non-isochronous vs. isochronous) or presence versus absence of external auditory stimulus (1:1 vs. 1:4 isochronous pattern). Differences between PWS and PNS were not enhanced or reduced with sensorimotor learning, over the first taps of a synchronization task.
Conclusion:
Our observations support the hypothesis of a deficit in neuronal oscillators coupling in production, but not in perception, of rhythmic patterns, and a larger delay in multi-modal feedback processing for PWS.
