The application of neuronavigated rTMS of the supplementary motor area and rhythmic speech training for stuttering intervention
Authors: Bakhtiar Mehdi , Yeung Tegan Wai Yee , Choi Angela 
Published: May 2024

Background

Stuttering, a neurodevelopmental speech fluency disorder, is associated with intermittent disruptions of speech‐motor control. Behavioural treatments for adults who stutter (AWS) concentrate on adopting speech patterns that enhance fluency, such as speaking rhythmically or prolonging speech sounds. However, maintaining these treatment benefits can be challenging. Neuroimaging studies suggest that supplementary motor area (SMA) which play a crucial role in speech initiation, planning and internal timing shows aberrant activation in speech production of AWS and may contribute to stuttering. Preliminary evidence suggests that brain stimulation may impact responsiveness to behavioural treatments.

Aims

The present study aims to investigate whether excitatory repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the SMA and rhythmic speech can consistently reduce stuttering severity across various measures.

Methods and Procedures

Ten self‐identified Cantonese‐speaking AWS participated in this double‐blinded, sham‐controlled clinical trial study (NCT 05472181). The participants underwent 10 sessions of rhythmic speech training across two phases, combined with either neuronavigated rTMS or sham, with a 2‐week washout period between phases. The stuttering severity was assessed through various outcome measures, including the percentage of syllables stuttered, self‐perceived stuttering severity, and the brief version of Unhelpful Thoughts and Beliefs About Stuttering before and after each treatment phase.

Outcomes and Results

Results demonstrated improved speech fluency in various speaking contexts, with no significant difference between rTMS and sham conditions immediately and 1 week post‐treatment. Notably, rTMS specifically led to less stuttering in tongue twister production (d = –0.70). Both treatment conditions effectively reduced self‐perceived stuttering severity and negative thoughts and beliefs about stuttering.

Conclusions and Implications

The findings of this study indicate that stimulating the SMA reduced stuttering, only in the production of tongue twisters that may require greater motor control and coordination. Furthermore, it indicates that rhythmic speech might help alleviate negative beliefs and anxiety related to stuttering. This research contributes to our understanding of neuromodulation in stuttering treatment and the role of the SMA in speech motor control and emphasises the need for more research on the potential benefits and limitations of applying rTMS in this condition.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

What is already known on the subject

Behavioural treatments for adults who stutter concentrate on adopting speech patterns that enhance fluency, such as speaking rhythmically or prolonging speech sounds. However, maintaining these treatment benefits can be challenging. Neuroimaging studies indicate that aberrant neural activation in speech production regions, like the supplementary motor area (SMA), is involved in stuttering. The SMA plays a crucial role in initiating, planning, and sequencing motor behaviours. Preliminary evidence suggests that brain stimulation (e.g., transcranial direct current stimulation or transcranial magnetic stimulation) may impact responsiveness to behavioural treatments.

What this paper adds to existing knowledge

There is limited knowledge regarding the potential effects of stimulating the SMA to enhance speech fluency in people who stutter. Existing research primarily consists of single case studies that lack proper control conditions or involve only a single stimulation session. Due to their limited scope and power, these studies may not provide sufficient evidence. The current study expands upon existing research by investigating whether multiple sessions of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over the SMA, combined with rhythmic speech, improve speech fluency in adults who stutter. Furthermore, it addresses the limitations of brain stimulation methods and proposes directions for future research.

What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?

This study implies that the stimulation of SMA reduced stuttering only in speaking contexts that may require greater motor control and coordination such as tongue twisters. Additionally, the research suggests that using rhythmic speech could potentially alleviate negative beliefs and anxiety associated with stuttering.