Stuttering
Conditions
Interventions
This was a double-blind, sham-controlled randomized trial. Our sample consisted of 8 people who stutter, as determined by our team of speech therapists. They were equally divided randomly and assigned
this is a common technique to ensure the blinding of participants in transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) research. The speech therapists, who applied the speech activities standardized acro
E02.331.750
Sponsors
Laboratório de Neurociência e Comportamento da Universidade de Brasília
Laboratório de Neurociência e Comportamento da Universidade de Brasília
Eligibility
Age
18 Years to 55 Years
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: Native speakers of Brazilian Portuguese speaker; age between 18 to 55 years old; diagnosis of stuttering
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: Presence of speech disorders other than stuttering; Presence of non-corrected visual perceptual deficits; Presence of any auditory perceptual deficits; Presence of any reported neurological or psychiatric comorbidities; Use of medication with action upon the central nervous system; Presence of any contraindications to transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) usage, such as seizures, in the medical history, intracranial metallic implants
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Awaited outcome 1: We expected to observe a reduction in the amount of spoken disfluent syllables after intervention (obtained by analyses of video recordings of speech samples from participants) for the real stimulation group in comparison to the sham stimulation group. Samples of post-intervention speech were taken around one and six weeks after intervention. The difference across treatments (real stimulation or sham) and week (1st or 2nd follow-up), as well as its interactions with the measurement indicated above were evaluated using General Linear Models Procedure (PROC GLM) in SAS v 9.4 (Statistical Analysis System Institute, Cary, North Carolina). Afterwards, the treatment effect was evaluated separately at each time point using an F test;Obtained outcome 1: we found that participants in the tDCS group showed a non-significant trend of less disfluent syllables than those in the sham group. This was observed one week after the last intervention session, in the first follow-up assessment and in the second follow-up ;Obtained outcome 2: We found that participants in the tDCS group showed significantly smaller SSI-3 scores than those in the sham group in the first follow-up. However, in the second follow-up no difference was found across treatments;Awaited outcome 3: We expected to observe reduction in the stuttering duration (i.e. time spent on disfluent moments) for the real stimulation group in comparison to the sham stimulation group, obtained by analyses of video recordings of speech samples from participants. Samples of post-intervention speech were taken around one and six weeks after intervention. The difference across treatments (real stimulation or sham) and week (1st or 2nd follow-up), as well as its interactions with the measurement indicated above were evaluated using General Linear Models Procedure (PROC GLM) in SAS v 9.4 (Statistical Analysis System Institute, Cary, North Carolina). Afterwards, the treatment effect was evaluated separately at each | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Awaited outcome 4: We expected to observe reduction in scores for self-reported speech perception (OASES) and overall anxiety (BAI) after intervention for the real stimulation group in comparison to the sham stimulation group. Changes in OASES and BAI were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test in GraphPad Prism 7;Obtained outcome 4: We did not observe any statistical difference in the OASES or the BAI questionnaires at any time point in comparison to baseline assessment | — |
Countries
Brazil
Contacts
Public ContactFabio Caixeta
Laboratório de Neurociência e Comportamento da Universidade de Brasília
Outcome results
None listed