پديد آورندگان :
اسفنده، كوثر دانشگاه علوم پزشكي همدان , حاج وليئي، غلامرضا دانشگاه علوم پزشكي همدان , فرهنگ دوست، هاشم دانشگاه علوم بهزيستي و توانبخشي تهران
چكيده فارسي :
زمينه و هدف
بازداري به معناي توانايي فعالانه متوقف كردن يا تاخير فعاليتي است. چندين محقق به نقش ممكن فرايندهاي خودتنظيمي و فرايندهاي كنترل توجه و به ويژه كنترل بازداري در رشد لكنت اشاره كرده اند. هدف اين پژوهش بررسي تفاوت ها در عملكرد كنترل بازداري بين كودكان لكنتي و غيرلكنتي بود.
روش بررسي
در اين پژوهش مقطعي مقايسه اي، توانايي كنترل بازداري 30 كودك 7تا13ساله شهر تهران با تشخيص لكنت رشدي و 30 كودك غيرلكنتي رشديافته طبيعي كه به لحاظ سن و جنس با كودكان لكنتي تطابق داشته با استفاده از تكليف برو-بايست شنيداري ارزيابي شد. تحليل اطلاعات ازطريق آمار توصيفي تحليلي ازجمله آزمون تي مقايسه ميانگين هاي دو گروه مستقل و آزمون من ويتني و آزمون همبستگي پيرسون با نرم افزار SPSS نسخه 24 صورت گرفت. در تمامي آزمون ها سطح معناداري كمتر از 0٫05در نظر گرفته شد.
يافته ها
تفاوت هاي بين گروهي براي خطاهاي ارتكاب و خطاهاي بازداري نشان داد ميانگين درصد خطاهاي ارتكاب و بازداري در گروه لكنتي (13٫09±10٫47) و (15٫11±30٫21) درمقايسه با گروه غيرلكنتي (6٫17±8٫02) و (13٫73±24٫66) بيشتر به دست آمد؛ اما از نظر آماري تفاوت هاي معناداري نداشت. همچنين ميانگين زمان واكنش بيشتري، در گروه لكنتي (73٫9±627٫06) درمقايسه با گروه غيرلكنتي (53٫37±615٫4) مشاهده شد؛ ولي اين تفاوت ميانگين در كودكان لكنتي و غيرلكنتي از نظر آماري معنادار نبود.
نتيجه گيري
نتايج اين پژوهش براساس تكليف برو-بايست شنيداري، مشخص كرد كودكان لكنتي و غيرلكنتي در كنترل بازداري تفاوت معناداري ندارند. بين دو گروه كودكان داراي لكنت و غيرلكنتي در متغيرهاي ارتكاب و بازداري و زمان واكنش تفاوت معناداري مشاهده نشد.
چكيده لاتين :
Background & Objective: Inhibition refers to the ability to actively suppress, interrupt or delay an action. Several authors have shown a possible
role for self–regulatory processes, attentional control processes, and more specifically inhibitory control in the development of stuttering.
Inhibition control (IC) is essential for doing daily tasks and implicate in cognitive development, executive functioning and the conscious use of
attention or attentional control. Inhibition control relates to the coordination and integration of mental processes in successful task doing and
plays an important role in the self–regulation of emotional states. Children who stutter (CWS) have low adaptability, lower in biological
rhythmicity and less efficient in emotional regulation. Based on role of IC in speech motor planning and production, study in this field is
important. The aim of this study was to investigate differences in inhibitory control performance between CWS and children who not stutter
(CWNS).
Methods: This cross sectional study investigated inhibitory control ability of 30 children diagnosed with developmental stuttering and 30
typically developing nonstuttering children aged 7–13 in Tehran (capital city of Iran), matched by age and gender to the children who stutter.
All children were monolingual speaking (Persian). All participants had normal or corrected to normal vision and normal speech and language
development (except for stuttering in the experimental group), based on the criteria described below. Participants had no known or reported
neurological, psychological, developmental or hearing problems. Auditory Go/No Go task was used that assess to inhibitory control in CWS
and CWNS. One of two easily discriminated auditory stimuli –the low frequency tone (1000 Hz) and high frequency tone (1300 Hz) – is
randomly presented for 100 milliseconds. Pairs corresponding to trials present stimuli. Inter–stimulus interval in a pair was equal to 1000
millisecond. Two different pairs of stimuli are presented only: Low–Low pair (“Go” trial) and Low–High pair (“Nogo” trial). Trials presented
at random order with 50% probability. Subject has to press a button (right arrow key) as soon as possible in case of presentation of Low–Low
pair and ignore Low–High pairs of stimuli. The total number of trials was equal to 480. The parameters of performance were calculated for Go
and No Go condition. Data analysis in this cross sectional study was done using descriptive–analysis statistics such as independent sample T–
test, Mann–Whitney test and Pearson correlation coefficient test using SPSS program 24 series.
Results: Mean percentages of Commission errors and Omission errors were higher in the stuttering group (M=10.47, SD=13.09), (M=30.21,
SD=15.11) than in the nonstuttering group (M=8.02, SD=6.17), (M=24.66, SD=13.73). Nevertheless, there was not any significant differences
in Commission errors and Omission errors statically. The mean reaction time was higher in the stuttering group than in the nonstuttering group
(M=627.06, SD=73.9) (M=615.4, SD=53.37). However, the mean reaction time for CWS and CWNS was not significantly different.
Conclusion: According to results obtained in this study, based on auditory Go/No Go task, showed that CWS and CWNS not differ in inhibitory
control. CWS had lower mean in inhibitory control, which suggests a lowered ability to inhibit prepotent response tendencies. The findings were
showed that inhibitory control ability had important role in persistent developmental stuttering. CWS, who exhibit a lowered IC, would most
likely exhibit difficulties in suppressing prepotent responses across a variety of settings (school setting, playing with a friend). Therefore it might
be important to council parents that these children may have more difficulties dealing with everyday situations requiring response inhibition
(following instructions, waiting for something, ending an activity), resulting in increased emotional arousal.
