4.2 Article

Estimates of functional cerebral hemispheric differences in monolingual and bilingual people who stutter: dichotic listening paradigm

Journal

CLINICAL LINGUISTICS & PHONETICS
Volume 34, Issue 8, Pages 774-789

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/02699206.2019.1697372

Keywords

Developmental stuttering; bilingualism; dichotic listening paradigm; hemispheric asymmetry; language lateralisation

Funding

  1. School of Applied Sciences at the University of Mississippi

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recent studies indicate functional cerebral hemispheric processing differences between monolinguals and bilinguals who stutter, as well as monolinguals and bilinguals who do not stutter. Eighty native German speakers, half of whom were also proficient speakers of English as a second language (L2), were assessed on a dichotic listening paradigm using CV syllables as stimuli. The participants were organised into four different groups according to speech status and language ability: 20 monolinguals who stutter, 20 bilinguals who stutter, 20 monolinguals who do not stutter, and 20 bilinguals who do not stutter. A right ear advantage (REA) was observed across all groups with no significant group differences in regard to hemispheric asymmetry. Although MWS (18 dB) and BWS (16 dB) crossed over to an LEA at an earlier point compared to the MWNS (5 dB) and BWNS (2 dB), the difference between groups was minor and not significant. Thus, a significant difference in REA resistance, as proposed by other researchers, was not reflected in the current study neither for people who stutter nor for bilinguals. In addition, no meaningful relationship was found between dichotic listening and stuttering severity, as well as the four language modalities (listening, speaking, reading, writing). Thus, we contend that neither stuttering nor bilingualism has any non-trivial effect on functional cerebral hemispheric differences in language processing in dichotic listening.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available