Talk:Stuttering

message: Removed text that is uncited, poorly sourced, or sounds like an essay rather than an encyclopedic entry.  If this information can be cited and written in an encyclopedic tone, it may be possible to readd it, preferably to correct sections per WP:MEDMOS and avoiding use of words to avoid and weasle words.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur about the problems involved in media articles that simplify the possibility of a 'cure' to stammering. It's not that easy to quantify. There are also outside influences - the more pressure in social situations the worse the stammer sometimes. I used to find sibilants particularly hard to deal with and at times were distressed by them. Ironically enough putting on a Scottish accent removed my stammer almost completely. It sounds odd, but it worked - for me that is. Darkmind1970 15:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Removed due to clear conflict of interest on dead link to reference (patent holder), no journal published research, and clear statements at pagoclone that this treatment is unlikely.  If the text can be better cited to reliable sources, it can be added.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Uncited, removed because there are PubMed studies indicating SSRIs are used to treat stuttering, this needs to be sorted out and cited.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Removed, not based on reliable source, self-reported.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed 

message: Reports about successful stuttering treatment are not rare in contemporary media, particularly in television news programs and talk shows, since stories about recovery from stuttering have a strong emotional appeal.  Media reports have typically focused on dramatic treatments such as the fluency-shaping method of therapy and, more recently, electronic fluency aids.  Although such treatments may increase fluency in some stutterers, media reports seldom examine either the long-term efficacy of these treatments or their effect on stutterers of differing severity.  As a result, media reports usually imply that such therapies are miracle cures.  (Significantly, licensed speech pathologists who provide these treatments routinely emphasize that they are not "cures".)  Indeed, anecdotal evidence suggests that media attention to such treatments may actually have a negative effect on the public perception of stutterers: for example, after an uncritical media report incorrectly claims the existence of a newly available "cure", non-stuttering family members and workplace superiors may penalize or put pressure on a stutterer for not having his or her speech impediment "cured".
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur about the problems involved in media articles that simplify the possibility of a 'cure' to stammering. It's not that easy to quantify. There are also outside influences - the more pressure in social situations the worse the stammer sometimes. I used to find sibilants particularly hard to deal with and at times were distressed by them. Ironically enough putting on a Scottish accent removed my stammer almost completely. It sounds odd, but it worked - for me that is. Darkmind1970 15:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Media publicity about stuttering "cures"

message: Clinical trials are underway for what could be the first FDA-approved anti-stuttering medications. Pagoclone is a gamma amino butyric acid (GABA) selective receptor modulator. Dopamine and GABA are both neurotransmitters.14
:Removed due to clear conflict of interest on dead link to reference (patent holder), no journal published research, and clear statements at pagoclone that this treatment is unlikely.  If the text can be better cited to reliable sources, it can be added.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uncited, removed because there are PubMed studies indicating SSRIs are used to treat stuttering, this needs to be sorted out and cited.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-stuttering medications

message: * Note 15:  Auditory feedback and stuttering:
* 
* 
* 
* 
Note 15 no longer in this article, cleaned up to better sources and use of cite journal, but removed.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 15 

message: * Note 16:  Ryan, B.P., Van Kirk, B. "The Establishment, Transfer and Maintenance of Fluent Speech in 50 Stutterers Using Delayed Auditory Feedback and Operant Procedures."  Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 39:1, February, 1974. Ryan, Bruce and Barbara Van Kirk Ryan. "Programmed Stuttering Treatment for Children: Comparison of Two Establishment Programs Through Transfer, Maintenance, and Follow-Up," Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38:1, February 1995. Radford, N., Tanguma, J., Gonzalez, M., Nericcio, M.A., Newman, D. "A Case Study of Mediated Learning, Delayed Auditory Feedback, and Motor Repatterning to Reduce Stuttering," Perceptual and Motor Skills, 2005, 101, 63–71.
* Note 17:  
* Note 18:  Stuart, A., Kalinowski, J., Rastatter, M., Saltuklaroglu, T., Dayalu, V. "Investigations of the impact of altered auditory feedback in-the-ear devices on the speech of people who stutter: initial fitting and 4-month follow-up," International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 2004, 39:1, 93–113. Stuart, A., Kalinowski, J., Saltuklaroglu, T., Guntupalli, V. "Investigations of the impact of altered auditory feedback in-the-ear devices on the speech of people who stutter: One-year follow-up," Disability and Rehabilitation, 2006. 1–9.
Removed from Notes, no longer in this article, if used again, cleanup to cite journal format (including PMIDs) is still needed.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes 16–18

message: * Note 8:  
* Note 9:  
Removed; no longer in this article.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes 8 and 9 

message: * Note 42:  
Removed; no longer in this article.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 42 

message: Stuttering has been correlated with certain genes;29 however, a genetic cause for stuttering has yet to be proven. Many studies have investigated stuttering in families, yet typically have yielded results that could be interpreted as either genetic or social environment ("nature" or "nurture").
* Note 29:  Comings, D., et al., "Polygenic Inheritance of Tourette Syndrome, Stuttering, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity, Conduct, and Oppositional Defiant Disorder," American Journal of Medical Genetics 67:264–288 (1996).
Comings work enjoys no widespread support by peers; too speculative, removed.  If this text can be sourced without relying on Comings (ascertainment bias in Tourette syndrome samples), perhaps it could be added.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetics

message: Along with disability legislation, many stutterer rights groups have formed to address these issues. One interesting example is the Turkish Association of Disabled Persons, which successfully appealed to the major Turkish telephone company Telsim, resulting in reduced rates for people with stutters or other speech disabilities because of the additional time it takes them to converse on the telephone.
:Removed, not based on reliable source, self-reported.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Phone companies

message: As requested, I have removed other sections that are unsourced or that I believe to be inaccurate. I have also done a small amount of editing of the existing text to remove commentary and other unencyclopedic content.Slp1 02:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No references and such an incomplete description of the topic that it is best removed until all theories (linguistic, motor control, learning theory etc) are described fullySlp1 02:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There are bits of this that are sourced, but it is not complete or accurate, I believe.  For example there is at least one study  noted in Stuttering Treatment Research 1970–2005, Bothe et al American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology Vol.15 321-341 November 2006, that notes improvements in childhood stuttering following a parental program.  A Lidcombe type program is not described at all and this is a major omission given that this is the most common intervention in childhood and also has lots of positive research results (see Bothe et al again)--Slp1 02:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More removals

message: No single, exclusive cause of stuttering is known. A variety of hypotheses and theories suggest multiple factors contributing to stuttering.
Head injuries and strokes can cause repetitions, prolongations, and blocks. Stuttering also can be induced by specific medications. Medications such as antidepressants, antihistamines, tranquilizers and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors have been known to affect speech in this way.
Rarely, traumatic experiences caused an adult to begin stuttering. Psychogenic stuttering typically involves rapid, effortless repetitions of initial sounds, without struggle behavior. Since stuttering may reappear at times of emotional strain, a psychogenesis has been proposed, but if there are any psychologic abnormalities in the stutterer, they are secondary rather than primary. It's observed that many stutterers, probably as a result of this impediment to free social interaction, do become increasingly fearful of talking and develop feelings of inferiority. By the time adolescence and adulthood are reached, emotional factors are so prominent that many physicians have mistaken stuttering for neurosis. Usually there is little or no evidence of any personality deviation before the onset of stuttering, and psychotherapy has not had a significant effect on the underlying defect. A strong family history in many cases and male dominance point to a genetic origin, but the inheritance does not follow a readily discernible pattern.
Another prominent view is that stuttering is caused by neural synchronization problems in the brain. Recent research indicates that stuttering may be correlated with disrupted fibers between the speech area and language planning area, both in the left hemisphere of the brain. Such a disruption could potentially be due to early brain damage or to a genetic defect.
: No references and such an incomplete description of the topic that it is best removed until all theories (linguistic, motor control, learning theory etc) are described fullySlp1 02:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Causes

message: In certain situations, such as talking on the telephone, stuttering might increase, or it might decrease, depending on the anxiety level connected with that activity.
Under stress, people's voices change. They tense their speech-production muscles, increasing their vocal pitch. They try to talk faster. They repeat words or phrases. They add interjections, also known as "filler words", such as "uh." These are normal dysfluencies. A study found that under stress, non-stutterers went from 0% to 4% dysfluencies, for the simple task of saying colors. Stutterers went from 1% to 9%.
Stuttering reduces stress 10%, as measured by systolic blood pressure. Stuttering appears to reduce stress temporarily, but then cause stress, creating a cyclical pattern in which the stutterer stutters on the first syllable of the first word, then says the rest of the word and several more words fluently, then stutters again, then says a few more words fluently, and so on.
One study found that developmental stuttering and Tourette syndrome may be pathogenetically related. Tics are exacerbated by stress, and when the affected person tries harder to control the undesired movement, the conditions can become more pronounced.Slp1 18:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stress-related changes

message: In the past, stuttering children received indirect therapy, which changed the parents' speech behaviors. Such indirect therapy has been proven ineffective. For example, popular websites advise that parents should "speak slowly and in a relaxed manner"; make positive statements such as praise, and refrain from negative statements such as criticism; "pause before responding to your child's questions or comments," etc. Yet more than a dozen studies found that such parental behavior had no effect on children's stuttering—or the effect was the opposite of what the parents intended. For example, when parents spoke slower, their children spoke faster and their stuttering increased.
Speech-language pathologists now recommend direct therapy with young children. The target speech behaviors are similar to fluency shaping therapy, but various toys and games are used. For example, a turtle hand puppet may be used to train the slow speech with stretched syllables goal. When the child speaks slowly, the turtle slowly walks along. But when the child talks too fast, the turtle retreats into his shell.
: There are bits of this that are sourced, but it is not complete or accurate, I believe.  For example there is at least one study  noted in Stuttering Treatment Research 1970–2005, Bothe et al American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology Vol.15 321-341 November 2006, that notes improvements in childhood stuttering following a parental program.  A Lidcombe type program is not described at all and this is a major omission given that this is the most common intervention in childhood and also has lots of positive research results (see Bothe et al again)--Slp1 02:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Therapies for pre-school children

message: ===Therapies for school-age children===
A study of 98 children, 9 to 14 years old, compared three types of stuttering therapy. One year after therapy, the percentage of children with disfluency rates under 2% were:
	48% of the children who were treated by a speech-language pathologist.
	63% of the children whose parents were trained by a speech-language pathologist to do speech therapy at home (but the children weren't treated by the speech-language pathologists).
	71% of the children who were treated by a computer-based anti-stuttering program, with minimal interaction from speech-language pathologists.
The results for children with disfluency rates under 1% were even more striking:
	10% of the children from the clinician-based program.
	37% of the children from the "parent-based" program.
	44% of the children from the computer-based program.
		
In other words, the computers were most effective, the parents next most effective, and the speech-language pathologists were least effective. At the 1% disfluency level, the computers and the parents were about four times more effective than the speech-language pathologists.
Parents should realize that school speech-language pathologists are trained to treat a wide variety of speech and language disorders. Many don't have training or experience with stuttering, and few specialize in stuttering. Many school districts are underfunded and school speech-language pathologists have caseloads of 40 or more children, seeing each child for perhaps twenty minutes twice a week, or even doing group therapy with several children who have different communication disorders. Parents whose child's speech isn't improving may want to consider additional treatments beyond their school's speech-language pathologist:
Seeing a board-certified Fluency Specialist.
Asking the school speech-language pathologist to train the parents to do therapy at home, increasing therapy time to perhaps twenty minutes twice a day, every day. The speech-language pathologist may recommend using computer software or an electronic device to assist in home practice.
===Therapies for teenagers===
One strategy for treating teenagers who stutter is to include peers in therapy. This is usually the teenager's best friend. This can improve the stuttering teenager's motivation in therapy, and also the friend can give reminders outside of therapy for the stuttering teenager to use his speech target behaviors.
Another strategy is to encourage a stuttering teenager to develop a passion for an activity requiring speech. This could be getting involved in the school's drama club, or doing a science project about stuttering. Bully programs have sometimes told kids not to beat up kids who stutter.
:Large chunks are unsourced, and contains US-advice commentary and advice.  One study is (unaccurately) described in much too much detail (it was EMG, not computers), while the many, many other studies and approaches are not described at all. --Slp1 02:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing study which is described in much too much detail.  What we need is an overview of the many studies that have looked at the efficacy of this approach.Slp1 02:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Removing study since there is more than one study (see Laiho, Auli, and Klippi, Anu from International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders. Vol 42(3), May-Jun 2007) and to be consistent with other sections. --Slp1 02:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Childhood treatments

message: One strategy for treating teenagers who stutter is to include peers in therapy. This is usually the teenager's best friend. This can improve the stuttering teenager's motivation in therapy, and also the friend can give reminders outside of therapy for the stuttering teenager to use his speech target behaviors.
Another strategy is to encourage a stuttering teenager to develop a passion for an activity requiring speech. This could be getting involved in the school's drama club, or doing a science project about stuttering. Bully programs have sometimes told kids not to beat up kids who stutter.
:Large chunks are unsourced, and contains US-advice commentary and advice.  One study is (unaccurately) described in much too much detail (it was EMG, not computers), while the many, many other studies and approaches are not described at all. --Slp1 02:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Therapies for teenagers

message: A study followed 42 stutterers through the three-week fluency shaping program. The program also included psychological treatment to reduce fears and avoidances, discussing stuttering openly, and changing social habits to increase speaking. The therapy program reduced stuttering from about 15–20% stuttered syllables to 1–2% stuttered syllables. About 70% of the stutterers had satisfactory fluency 12 to 24 months after therapy. About 5% were marginally successful. About 25% had unsatisfactory fluency.
: Removing study which is described in much too much detail.  What we need is an overview of the many studies that have looked at the efficacy of this approach.Slp1 02:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fluency shaping therapy

message: Only one long-term efficacy study of a stuttering modification therapy program has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. This study concluded that the program "appears to be ineffective in producing durable improvements in stuttering behaviors."
:Removing study since there is more than one study (see Laiho, Auli, and Klippi, Anu from International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders. Vol 42(3), May-Jun 2007) and to be consistent with other sections. --Slp1 02:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stuttering modification therapy

message: It is important to note that stuttering does not affect intelligence and that stutterers are sometimes wrongly perceived as being less intelligent than non-stutterers. This is mainly due to the fact that stutterers often resort to a practice called word substitution, where words that are difficult for a stutterer to speak are replaced with less-suitable words with one or two syllables that are easier to pronounce. This often leads to simple, short, and awkward sentences which give an impression of feeble mindedness. A stutterer may take longer to answer a question or respond, because it takes them longer to get a word out. They have to think about every word they are going to say and how they  might modify that word so that a stuttering moment won't occur or won't be as intense. Stutterers often feel great frustration because they know what they want to say, but can not translate it into spoken language using the same words they are thinking of or the way they would like to. They may also feel that non-stutters do not have the patience to wait and listen for the prolonged time it could take them to complete what they want to say. Stuttering is a communicative disorder that affects speech; it is not a language disorder—although a person's use of language is often affected or limited by a stutter.  Slp1 01:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another section moved from article

message: I am a stutterer, and find it almost offensive that blocks are referred to as an "abnormal hesitation or pausing before speech" in the opening section.  That does not describe at all the tension which causes the pause, and makes it sound like blocks are controllable, or something psychological.  Isn't there any better way to put it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.55.19 (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  I can see how that can be offensive and it also doesn't sound very objective. How about something like, "Blocks are involuntary physical tension resulting in a tightening of the larnyx causing a pause or reflexive disruption of speech" ,  Fredsmith2 23:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm a stutterer too.  I don't have much to say about your comment other than stuttering takes different forms and can be classified many ways.  The line as it was (since changed) didn't offend me in the least.  Stuttering is an abnormality in the speech mechanism.  I really just wanted to remark that stuttering is one of those condtions that someone who doesn't stutter (short of a speech pathologist specializing in stuttering) almost has no right to really comment about.  It really is a condition (like many others) that someone without the problem really has no idea what it's like to live with.  That said, as long as a wikipedia article is unbiased and factually correct, I really can't take issue with it.  I think what I'm trying to find out is, how many people that edited and commented on this article are actually stutterers?Zerotta (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  One thing that I wondered if someone could clarify - This section says stuttering is not caused by anxiety, then just below it, says that stuttering on the telephone can be more or less severe, depending on the anxiety of the situation. Maybe I've misunderstood something, but this seems like a contradiction. Any ideas?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.147.75.236 (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As a lifelong stutterer (although it's lessened in later life, it's always lurking in the wings), in my experience it does work both ways.  Anxiety or fatigue can trigger increased stuttering; however, anger or other forms of emotional stress can also produce unusually fluent speech.  When I was a teenager I was taken to a speech therapist for an evaluation and when unable to "stutter on cue," erroneously diagnosed as having no speech disorder. --Wi2g 02:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

text:  It wasn't just you. I can +1 the request for someone who knows something about this to clarify the top section. Wmdiem (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

text:  I've stuttered significantly as a child but with a speech pathalogist managed to overcome it to a non-immediatly noticible level.  My reading of the line was to interpret anxiety is not the original cause of the symptoms of stuttering to begin occurring; rather it is a reactive emotion brought about during stuttering.  Note that I do see the article lacking comments on stuttering really never cured (I'll still notice myself stuttering at small levels periodically and then have to consciously work to not do so). 71.70.229.134 (talk) 03:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi 71.70.229.134, and welcome to Wikipedia! Please, find some good and reliable sources, be bold and add some text on stuttering really never cured to the article! Lova Falk talk 08:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Are we certain that "stammering" is the more common term in the UK? Everyone I've  said that to here has no idea what I mean. "Oh, you mean stuttering," they say. And, no, I don't generally stammer when I say "stammer," so it can't be that! - 79.73.145.143 13:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting question.  It certainly used to be, and still appears to be the more 'official word' (British Stammering Association, The Michael Palin Centre for Stammering Children, and the Association for Research into Stammering in Childhood and more too).  I wouldn't be surprised if stuttering was gaining currency in daily conversation in the UK, though, as with many other words that have travelled across the Atlantic (in both directions!)--Slp1 12:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, AFAIK (at least in my native dialect of American) the term 'stammering' is a popular variant in the US. 4.242.147.25 (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Stammering as a term

message: There's a lot of attention given to singing as a cure-all for stuttering.  However, from what I can tell, singing as a stuttering cure isn't very well-documented.  This article makes it seem like singing will help almost any stutterer.  Is this true?  Is it really documented anywhere that SLPs use singing therapy as a cure-all for stuttering? Fredsmith2 22:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly isn't a technique that is commonly used as far as I am concerned (I've never heard of it) and there have been no efficacy studies about it to my knowledge.  There is no cure-all for stuttering, though many people find they are fluent when they sing.  Of interest is that singing and talking come from different parts of the brain, and any kind of "distraction often works (at least to begin with) people who stutters.--Slp1 23:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This makes sense.  Maybe we should remove the singing references that aren't well-documented, then. Fredsmith2 00:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole article is about to get a massive revamp as part of Featured Article Review.  I hope to get start the process in the next few days.  Any help gratefully received. Slp1 00:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Even during my worst period of stammering when I was a teenager I never stammered whilst I sang. That said, I cannot recall it ever being mentioned as a therapy. My own experience of stammering saw it start to fade after I left a school that I hated and then finally went after some creative thinking and a change of accent in college, after persistent trouble with my sibilants that became worse when I worried about it. I think that talk of a 'cure' founders on the fact that stammering can be said to be unique to each individual. Darkmind1970 09:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singing as a cure-all? 

message: I removed the sentence "In a 2006 review of the efficacy of stuttering treatments, none of the studies on altered auditory feedback met the criteria for experimental quality, such as the presence of control groups." This sentence refered to the article (ref name =Bothe2006I> </ref). This article is a secondary review and Wikipedia policy says to reference primary sources whenever possible. The authors say they looked at 162 studies of stuttering treatments, but I counted the references (on page 327) and there are only 48 studies listed. Referencing a secondary source that doesn't reference its primary sources is a bad idea. Regarding altered auditory feedback anti-stuttering devices, the article looked at three studies of masking and three studies of the SpeechEasy device. The authors didn't look at 50+ other studies of altered auditory feedback anti-stuttering devices, in other words, they sampled about 10% of the published studies in this area. I'm curious what the three masking studies were. Did these studies look at the relatively ineffective white noise masking, or the more effective sine wave masking? When were these studies published? Were they high-stress (e.g., public speaking, telephone calls to local businesses) or low-stress (reading aloud in a speech clinic) speaking situations? I don't know, these three studies aren't referenced. I suggest not using this article for other references, due to other shortcomings. A criterion in this article was that the treatment had to result in less than 5% stuttering. A better measure would have been a statistically significant reduction in stuttering. For example, a severe stutterer who droped from 50% stuttered syllables to 10% stuttered syllables would be considered a failure in this article, but a mild stutterer who dropped from 6% stuttered words to 3% stuttered words would be considered a success. (And if an average word has three syllables, the resulting speech would be about the same.) Another criterion was that the study had to have a speaking task outside the speech clinic. A better criterion would have been to classify speaking tasks as low stress or high stress, regardless of where they took place. E.g., a public speaking task in the speech clinic is harder than reading aloud outside the speech clinic. Another criterion was that studies had to include a six-month follow-up. A follow-up study is desirable but not essential for all studies. The groupings of studies was debatable. For example, under the category of "response contingencies" was included a 1972 study of two boys (three and four years old), whose stuttering caused a puppet stage to go dark. I haven't read that study but I heard that other things were done in the darkness to scare the children. Lidcombe therapy is placed in the same category! I would have classified Lidcombe as parent-administered direct therapy, not as "response contingencies." I could go on but you get my point.--TDKehoe (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Thomas, I have reverted your removal if this sourced information.  I think you are incorrect in your analysis that primary sources are to be preferred, quite the reverse in fact (see WP:RS WP:NOR) though in any case, a peer-reviewed journal article is not a primary source by WP definition. Your criticisms may be entirely appropriate but until they are published by a reliable source they remain  Original research.Since you also have a conflict of interest in this matter,[] you should follow the  conflict of interest guidelines and make suggestions on the talkpage of this article rather making edits yourself. --Slp1 (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [[User:Slp1|Slp1] wrote: "you are incorrect in your analysis that primary sources are to be preferred, quite the reverse in fact..." However Citing_sources#Say_where_you_got_it says: "It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making it clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of the article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and the article itself must make that clear." This means that Wikipedia policy is to reference primary sources wherever possible instead of secondary sources.--TDKehoe (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [[User:Slp1|Slp1] wrote: "peer-reviewed journal article is not a primary source by WP definition." [primary sources in various disciplines] says: "In scientific literature, a primary source is the original publication of a scientist's new data, results, and theories." That means that a study written by the scientist(s) who conducted the research and published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal is a primary source.--TDKehoe (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: [[User:Slp1|Slp1] wrote: "see WP:RS WP:NOR)" I don't see anything about this matter in either article, please quote specifically what you are referring to.--TDKehoe (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: [[User:Slp1|Slp1] wrote: "Your criticisms may be entirely appropriate but until they are published by a reliable source they remain  Original research." I don't see criticizing poor-quality sources listed as a form of original research in the WP:NOR. Please quote specifically what you are referring to.--TDKehoe (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: [[User:Slp1|Slp1] wrote: "Since you also have a conflict of interest in this matter,[] you should follow the  conflict of interest guidelines and make suggestions on the talkpage of this article rather making edits yourself." WP:COI  says: "Merely participating in or having professional expertise in a subject is not, by itself, a conflict of interest. Editors who may have a conflict of interest are not barred from participating in articles and discussion of articles where they have a conflict of interest, but must be careful when editing in mainspace." Please let me know if I ever write anything that is biased.--67.173.255.60 (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Thomas,  I am not able to respond in detail to your comments immediately, but will do so as soon as possible, hopefully tomorrow, but maybe not till Tuesday. My internet access is limited for the next 24 hours. I apologize.  Slp1 (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference to "Stuttering Treatment Research 1970-2005"

message: I have reverted today's edits, starting with Stutterman's revert  to a much older version of the article with incorrect formatting and much original research. I do not agree (obviously) that my edits and those of Sandy Georgia have "messed up the article." Slp1 (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today's edits 

message: I'm not sure if this is the correct place to post so I do apologise if it is not. I'm writing as I had an external link removed from this page. It was for the McGuire Programme which is a treatment programme for people with stutters. I myself have a stutter and have found it to be of great benefit. I would like to let others know also about the programme and don't see why this link should be removed as it is very relevant?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.161.137 (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes this is exactly the right place to post about this! The reason that the link keeps getting removed is that it violates WP's guidelines on External Links in that it "primarily exist to sell products or services." I am really glad that you found the program so useful, but this isn't the place to advertise it. You'll notice that there are no other commercial therapy sites there either, for the same reason. Sorry, and I hope that explains it for you!  --Slp1 (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: if so we should include this - hell, if not we should include this too. Radiohumor (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is already in the article: see .  To summarize there is likely a genetic component, but it is nowhere as simple as your question implies.  So the answer is "No, it would be very unlikely, but slightly more likely than if the person wasn't a stutterer. --Slp1 (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience, no.  No one else in my entire family stutters.  My son is 2 years old so it's too early to tell with him.  I certainly hope not for his sake.Zerotta (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My experience echoes yours.  I'm the only stutterer in my family, and none of my three grown children stutter.  Hope this puts your mind at ease! --Wi2g 02:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  If a stutterer reproduces, would his offspring be a stutterer too? 

message: The section Stuttering#Anti-stuttering medications says:
:Of those that were, only one, not unflawed study,[42] showed a reduction in stuttering to less than 5%. 
with a link to a NIH abstract that says:
:After 6 weeks of treatment, decreases in all measures of stuttering severity were greater in the risperidone group than in the placebo group; the between-treatment difference was significant (p < 0.05) on the most important measure, the percentage of syllables stuttered.
The 5% figure expresses a confidence interval, i.e. there is 95% statistical confidence that the apparent observed difference between the treated and untreated populations is a real effect of the drug, and not an artifact of sampling error.  The article phrasing instead makes it sound like the drug eliminated 95% of stuttering in patients who received it, which was surprising enough to make me check out the abstract.  I'm reasonably sure that the article phrasing is just wrong, but can someone with access to the article fulltext check and make sure, and fix the article as appropriate?  Thanks. 67.122.210.149 (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question.  I have a review article describing the study.  This was the only study where the frequency of stuttering in speech was reduced to 5% of words/syllables spoken (a criterion measure of successful treatment and "fluent" speech.  I will try and clarify it in the article.--Slp1 (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  description of Risperidone trial 

message: Neither Merriam-Webster nor the OED lists either word as a national variant.  Maybe "stammering" is more common in BrE than in AmE, but I don't know. Mark Foskey (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Therefore, this article should be renamed stammering, surely? RyanPLB (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Stammering' used in US as well 

message: the last sentence in this section seems to contradict the rest of the paragraph. what i took from the paragraph was the stammering rates are about the same worldwide, then cooper^2 says that isn't the case. but i couldn't quite follow what cooper^2 was saying as i thought that black, white and asian are US terms. so did they mean african? because i thought that black culture was sort of part of the american culture, however you define that.
my point is that this section doesn't make much sense as written, and i really don't know enough about it to offer corrections myself. but i think it is important to know which opinion is correct or if there is some controversy. because if stammering is more prevalent in some cultures, that might mean something, but most of the article says that while the causes are poorly understood (or at least debated), that stammering seems to be related to physiological rather than psychological forces, so it would make more sense if stammering rates were about the same globally.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.89.215 (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: epidemiology

message: :I have moved this here from the article as it seemed written in a fairly promotional way and the external link is to a website that does not meet WP:RS. I do not know enough about Stuttering to judge whether or not this should be included, but it needs better references at a minimum. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 14:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that , the editor who added this, was also responsible for an article on the method which was deleted as spam, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proprioceptive Method. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 14:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Proprioceptive Method 

message: With the popularity of the film The King's Speech and Colin Firth's Golden Globe win for the role of George VI, perhaps an image of the British King would be a good addition to this article. I have no idea how to it, so will rely on the article's authors to consider my suggestion. Wordreader (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  George VI 

message: The PubMed link is wrong and the paper doesn't appear to be there at all. I did find it here, with a slightly different name given to the journal: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14417040500055060
I'm not au fait with the way we cite references to scientific papers so I'll leave this to someone else to  fix. Barnabypage (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Craig & Tran paper, "Epidemiology of Stuttering" 

message: The article opens by equating stuttering and stammering, but assigning them different scientific names: 'Stuttering (alalia syllabaris), also known as stammering (alalia literalis or anarthria literalis)'. Can this confusing beginning be fixed? Spicemix (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Can a professional please help us out here? Is stammering a synonym or does it carry other specific symptoms?P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  stutter/stammer 

message: In the introduction, it states that stuttering is NOT caused by anxiety, but then goes on to say that stuttering can be more or less severe over the phone, depending on the level of anxiety connected to it. Could somebody more experienced please fix this contradiction?
95.152.234.113 (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: There is no 'metabolic' sub-type of stuttering. In one study, a gene pointing to a lysosomal protein seems to be associated with stuttering. The role that the lysosome could play in causing developmental stuttering is entirely unknown. In any case, if a mutation in a lysosomal protein is found to be involved in stuttering, it will be expressed during speech skill acquisition, so it will fall under the developmental sub-type.
Since speech is acquired over time during childhood, it can only be either prevented from happening entirely, interfered with during development, or lost due to trauma or other brain insult. 
It would be more accurate to call these 'types' of stuttering, which would allow for further division into sub-types if necessary. In the academic stuttering literature, developmental and neurogenic are the two categories you see. 
MarkinBoston (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed 'Metabolic' from Sub-types 

message: I've stammered ever since I can remember myself. Relatives recall my incessant, horrible stammering, while aged 2 to ~10, but not since. I've worked with some success as a SIMULTANEOUS INTERPRETER, for focus groups no less (utter chaos on the floor common, unpredictable and incomplete syntax from multiple sources, and required burst rates that would put an auction announcer to shame) and have, after passing auditions successfully, turned down a NEWS ANCHOR JOB ON RADIO for unrelated personal reasons. Guess what? I still stammer, no less than before. Except that no one, outside a couple absolutely wildly emotional screaming matches from an imploding relationship with a difficult girlfriend, has ever heard me stammer, not since middle school. My own mother doesn't realize that I still stammer. BREATHING AND PACING, PEOPLE. Predict it, catch it, talk around, make it sound like a dramatic pause. Bend the words around it. Throw in last-second shorter or longer synonyms into your sentences, ones that shift the upcoming stammering beat off a word and into some piece of punctuation. Drop in some gesture, talk with your hands, shrug, smile - do whatever to recover from that moment of panic without a sound. If all else fails, light up a cigarette, take a sip of a beverage, or otherwise occupy your mouth for a few seconds. It'll pass. And once you know that it always passes, each recovery becomes almost instant, and you never really even think about it anymore. Neither will anyone else. At the worst, linguists and the like tend to catch some strange variations in speaking rates, and theatrical persons will blame you for over-dramatic pauses and gesticulations... but then, both tend to blame it on overexposure to some foreign language. Roll with it! It works. 208.127.80.135 (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. What works for one person doesn't for another, and what is acceptable and desired for one isn't for another. That description of using gestures, pauses, word changes, etc, to avoid a stutter/stammer is one of the things I hate most about stuttering. It is unacceptable to me to know what word I want to say but switch to a different word because I think I will get stuck on the word I mean to use. To me this kind of thing is not a solution at all but rather one of the most annoying symptoms! I have found other, very different ways to deal with it. Pfly (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hope no one actually applies any of this quackery - or - The treatments section might be worth keeping, but only as a list of historical nonsence  

message: I looked up three literature reviews, four systematic reviews, and one meta-analysis, covering more than 200 studies, published in recent years in the speech-language pathology journals. I put this together as a short, easy-to-read e-book and I put the GNU General Public License "copyleft" on it so y'all are free to use it on Wikipedia. You can download my e-book free from [].
Looking over this article's treatment section, the "Fluency shaping therapy" paragraph is good except that Camperdown isn't fluency shaping. It's prolonged speech stuttering therapy. All other prolonged speech therapies are also fluency shaping but Camperdown is the exception. Camperdown doesn't have any exercises to breathe with your diaphragm, relax your vocal folds, etc. Instead it uses modeling, i.e., you watch a video of the developer speaking fluently and you try to imitate him.
The "Stuttering modification therapy" paragraph is good. 
"Response contingencies therapies" (e.g., Lidcombe and "time out" therapies)  and "GILCU" are missing. Generally it seems that the treatment section is about adult stuttering treatment. It needs some childhood stuttering treatments too!
"Electronic fluency device" is good except for the last two sentences. A 2006 literature review of 17 studies (Lincoln, Journal of Fluency Disorders, 31, 71-89) said, "From the above review of experimental studies we can confidently conclude that in the laboratory, clinic, or classroom AAF will result in reduced stuttering during oral reading for most people who stutter." The reference to the the Bothe 2006 systematic review is incorrect. The Bothe review says that 123 of the 162 studies examined failed to meet their trial quality standards. None of the 39 studies that met their trial quality standards were studies of AAF devices. But the authors also said that they excluded all studies of "Laboratory-bound investigations of fluency-inducing conditions." They only mention one AAF study that didn't meet their trial quality standard (a study of a SpeechEasy device). Presumably all the other studies were excluded because they were "Laboratory-bound investigations of fluency-inducing conditions." In any case, none of that matters because the Lincoln review covered the AAF studies excluded from the Bothe review.
"Anti-stuttering medications" is good except for the last sentence. Plagoclone testing was stopped last year due to the medication being ineffective.
The "Support groups and the self-help movement" paragraph is nonsense and should be removed or rewritten.  Several "existing treatments" are highly effective, especially for pre-school children who stutter. The purpose of the stuttering self-help movement is the exact opposite of what is stated: "quality of living can be improved by not thinking about the stammer for prolonged periods". In my NSA chapter we thought about stuttering a lot! We talked about stuttering, and shared our challenges, and brainstormed solutions. I've been to many NSA and Friends conventions and I can assure you that hundreds of people think about stuttering during the conventions! The line "Psychoanalysis has claimed success in the treament of stuttering" is completely wrong. OK, it's true that psychoanalysts have claimed success, they just haven't ever proven to have reduced anyone's stuttering! "Mere acceptance of this so called "disorder", displays a complete lack of self-confidence and a "give-up" attitude." Huh? What does that sentence mean? The last line is nonsense. Stuttering hasn't been seen as a psychological disorder since about 1950. There are psychological disorders associated with stuttering, such as social phobia, but stuttering isn't a psychological disorder.
How about we replace the "support groups" paragraph with a paragraph about the psychological disorders associated with stuttering and how these are treated, e.g., cognitive-behavioral therapy? Then create a separate category for the self-help movement.
The first sentence of "Diaphragmatic breathing" is OK but the second sentence should be clarified that it refers to several singers who stutter, e.g., Mel Tillis and Carly Simon. The way the sentence is written now implies that learning to sing causes stuttering!--TDKehoe (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Review of 200+ stuttering treatment studies 

message: Is it worth pointing out that stuttering is one of the few disabilities (maybe the only one) that it is still acceptable to make fun of? I am thinking of Shakespeare in Love, A Fish Called Wanda, Open All Hours and some plays that I have seen. PhilUK (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use in comedy 

message: I have a bit more information that could be added to the feelings and attitudes section of this page.
Adults seeking treatment for stuttering were twice as likely to meet criteria for the diagnosis of a mood disorder. The anxiety one feels in relation to their dysfluency may reach a level that warrants a diagnosis of social phobia. A lot of the anxiety and mood disturbances associated with stuttering are due to low self-esteem, social isolation, negative stereotypes, and a general lower quality of life. Even early diagnoses of stuttering, that are later ameliorated, are associated with a higher chance of emotional and anxiety disorders  
(Ehealy92 (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding to Feelings and Attitudes 

message: This article called The Monster Experiment should have been mentioned before.    It tells the story of a doctor who made people stutter and thus destroyed their lives.    I stuttered for the first 30 years of my life and fully believe that family members made my stuttering worse.    Perhaps for fun.    It may be because of being ADD themselves.     Arydberg (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Monster Experiment 

message: The first sentence seems to be a close paraphrase of the source article, and I find it to be less informative than the original.  Is there another definition we can integrate in order to  provide a more clear definition? Reidh084 (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory Paragraph 

message: In this section there are citations that are from very old sources (e.g. article number 67) - are more recent articles available that provide a similar analysis or is this information simply out-of-date?Reidh084 (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment section 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.didistutter.org/index.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Isaidnoway deleted the section Stuttering#Figures suffering from Stuttering disorder (diff). I am not necessarily opposed to the deletion. But I do think an explanation is in order when we delete an entire section. Isaidnoway's edit message was: "removed entire section of List of figures suffering from Stutter disorder, let's not do that". I speculate that the reason is something similar to this explanation: 
Per the 2013 strong consensus on fundamentally the same topic, and the January consensus on a parallel issue. This entire concept is troubling from a BLP issue; medical diagnoses of living individuals cannot and must not be sourced to the media. As noted above, WP:EGRS provides an imperative to proceed with caution, and to restrict inclusion in lists of this nature to those people with the condition as a defining characteristic of their notability. I am hard pressed to argue that even for Howie Mandel, this diagnosis is defining in our sense of the term. And the wider we permit the net to be cast, the more problematic the list becomes. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of section - Figures suffering from Stuttering disorder 

message: I was very surprised to read that "It is common for individuals who suffer from a lifetime stuttering problem for their symptoms to worsen considerably as they reach their 70s and 80s." but the reference actually does not support that statement at all.
The paper in question is:
Bricker-Katz, Geraldine; Lincoln, Michelle; McCabe, Patricia (2009). "The persistence of stuttering behaviours in older people". Disability and Rehabilitation. 31 (8): 646–658. doi:10.1080/09638280802306299. PMID 19105057. S2CID 25100914.
The abstract says:
> Results. Descriptive statistics showed that all participants in the persistent stuttering group evidenced stuttering with varying severity. In the group of four who reported recovery, one participant presented with measurable stuttering behaviours in the conversational and telephone sample. Participants, in the group who reported persistence of stuttering evidenced the full range of stuttering behaviours seen in younger adults.
> Conclusion. Stuttering is a disorder that may persist for some beyond 55 years of age. This result compels investigation to explore how stuttering impacts on activity and participation for this older group.
In other words, people who stutter (PWS) keep stuttering when they're old. One participant who reported having recovered from a stutter actually still stuttered.
Nothing about symptoms worsening, much less worsening considerably. Even if the paper did say that, it would be misleading to say it is "common". Given the study's sample size (12 PWS + 4 ex-PWS), it could only be reported as "some evidence that [...]". The age range also does not match at all.
Is there a better paper supporting the claim or is it plainly inacurate?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.79.162 (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed: stuttering commonly worsens considerably as in the 70s and 80s. 

message: "In a 2006 review of the efficacy of stuttering treatments, none of the studies on altered auditory feedback met the criteria for experimental quality, such as the presence of control groups."
Bothe (2006) reviewed only three studies of AAF devices. Lincoln (2006) reviewed 17 studies of AAF devices and is considered to be the "gold standard" systematic review of AAF studies.
The Lincoln review concluded, "From the above review of experimental studies we can confidently conclude that in the laboratory, clinic, or classroom AAF will result in reduced stuttering during oral reading for most people who stutter."
I suggest replacing the former sentence with the latter sentence.
Michelle Lincoln, Ann Packman, Mark Onslow. "Altered auditory feedback and the treatment of stuttering: A review."
Journal of Fluency Disorders 31 (2006) 71–89--TDKehoe (talk) 22:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace reference to Bothe (2006) with Lincoln (2006) 

message: First, the picture? What is this picture intended to communicate?
The goal pursued by the applications of this kind is speech cycle restoration – I say –>I hear –>I build a phrase –>I say and so on, using various methods of stutter correction.
Drop this sentence? It sounds like there's an app that records your speech and then plays it back to you? I don't get how that will correct stuttering.
"Electronic Devices, Software and Apps". Stuttering Foundation: A Nonprofit Organization Helping Those Who Stutter. Retrieved 2019-11-21.
This SFA webpage isn't bad but it's not a reliable source.
The user interacts with the application through altered auditory feedback: they say something into the headset's microphone and listen to their own voice in the headphones processed by a certain method.
This repeats what was just said in the previous section Electronic_fluency_device. 
The following stutter correction methods are typically used in applications:
"Stutter corrections methods"? The first three are altered auditory feedback, which is described in the previous section.
MAF (masking auditory feedback). It is basically masking by "white noise"or sinus noises of the user's own speech.
"Sinus noises"? What are those?
MAF can be white noise masking (less effective) or sine wave masking (more effective, what the Edinburgh Masker does). This is in the article Electronic_fluency_device. Do we need to repeat info from Electronic_fluency_device in Stuttering? 
What mobile apps provide MAF? I've never heard of any.
Scientists believe that people who stutter can speak more smoothly when they do not hear their own speech. This method is considered old-fashioned and ineffective.
There's no support for these sentences.
Jacks, Adam; Haley, Katarina L. (2015). "Auditory Masking Effects on Speech Fluency in Apraxia of Speech and Aphasia: Comparison to Altered Auditory Feedback". Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 58 (6): 1670–1686. doi:10.1044/2015_JSLHR-S-14-0277. ISSN 1092-4388. PMC 4987030. PMID 26363508.
That study was of aphasia and apraxia, not stuttering.
DAF (delayed auditory feedback). This method involves sending the user's voice from a microphone to headphones with a delay of fractions of a second. The goal of this method is to teach people who stutter to prolong vowels and reduce their speech rate. After speech correction with long delays, the application is adjusted at shorter delays which increase the speech rate until it becomes normal.
This paragraph is pretty good.
FAF (frequency-shifted auditory feedback). This method involves shifting the user's voice tone frequency that they are listening to compared to their own voice. The shift range can be different: from several semitones to half an octave.
This paragraph is good too, except that the pitch shift range used in experiments is usually 0.25 to 1 octave.
Using metronomes and tempo correctors. Rhythmic metronome strikes are used in this method. The effectiveness of the method is related to the fact that rhythm has positive effect on someone who stutters, especially when pronouncing slowly.
Metronomes were last used to treat stuttering around 1975. Are there really mobile apps available now that provide a metronome to reduce stuttering?
Using visual feedback. This method determines the user's speech parameters (for instance, speech tempo) and their representation on screen as visual information. The principal goal of the method is allowing the user to effectively manage their voice through achieving the defined targeted parameters. It is supposed that the user sees visual representation of both current and targeted parameters (such as speech tempo) on the screen while pronouncing.
This paragraph should be expanded and improved. The Modifying Phonated Intervals (MPI) therapy app, for example, is based on excellent research and should be described. Perhaps include a picture of this app? I'm not familiar with any other mobile app showing visual representations of speech parameters related to stuttering but if there are such apps I'd like to know more.--TDKehoe (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mobile applications" section needs work 

message: New research suggests that stuttering could be an unconventional, uncommon speech pattern, yet another manifestation of human diversity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loriente Zamora (talk • contribs) 15:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stuttering  

message: Hello.
In "Stuttering pride" section, there is a
Self portrait of Paul Aston stuttering. Aston wished to create a positive picture of himself stuttering to explore the visual side of his diverse and exciting speech patterns.
Ok, but... who is Paul Aston?
There is no other mention of him, in the entire article. EDIT: I think that this should be mentioned in the section text, and not only in the caption of the image... That way, the text would mention who Paul Aston is, and why this picture is here in the article.
Thanks, in advance, for any help in improving this. 192.44.63.169 (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The Stuttering#Stuttering pride section was added on 09:51, 19 October 2022 by an account which has made no other edit. It's advocacy that may or may not be warranted, depending on what independent reliable sources have to say. Johnuniq (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the Stuttering#Stuttering pride section is not just advocacy, as it is also based on a growing body of scientific literature that adopts the social model of disability to understand stuttering (as opposed to the medical model, which practically covers the entire Stuttering article). It even quotes from papers and books that are well known not only in the stuttering community, but in the academic field too. I think it's healthy to have multiple perspectives on the same subject, don't you? Before 2022, this article was dominated by a single perspective, which I find problematic and I think contradicts Wikipedia's principles. G.fernandescdias (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is Paul Aston? 

message: I propose that a new page be created, "Causes and Treatments of Stuttering (History)" or "Research of Stuttering" that includes detailed information regarding the history and current research around stuttering causes and cures. There a lot of information on this page at present and it could be organized in an easier way. There's also a paragraph at the bottom of 'causes' that states stuttering may be caused by poor self-esteem, which has been disproven time and time again.
A lot of "mechanism" can also be moved to this page, as it discusses possible cause and treatment as well. The Stuttering therapy and Dopamine hypothesis of stuttering could be moved there, along with most of the Treatment section. Wikipedia is used to keep a simple view.
For an example of how this looks, see Stuttering in popular culture - this section is briefly summarized on the main Stuttering page, and then expanded upon in detail. Jehorak (talk) 08:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  TMI - Over-cluttered page? Proposal of change.