Exam 2

Question 1

Genetics and Stuttering

Genotype

Answer 1

Specific genetic constitution in one or several sites.

Question 2

Genetics and Stuttering

Phenotype

Answer 2

Realization of observable characteristics

Question 3

Genetics and Stuttering

Penetrance

Answer 3

The likelihood that a person with a specific gene will show that gene’s effects. i. Development of phenotypes is not an all or nothing phenomena.

Question 4

Genetics and Stuttering

Pleiotropy

Answer 4

Multiple effects of a gene

Question 5

Genetics and Stuttering

Variable expressivity

Answer 5

Extent or manner of expression (mild to severe across people or time or as different traits across time)

Question 6

Genetics and Stuttering

Reaction range

Answer 6

Qualitatively and quantitatively different phenotypes that can develop from the same genotype under varying environmental conditions.

1. Each genotype has a specific range of phenotypes that can develop
2. A phenotype within that range develops because of environmental interactions that occur throughout development

Question 7

Genetics and Stuttering

Possible relationships of genotypes and phenotypes (3)

Answer 7

1. Different genotypes can produce different phenotypes
2. Different genotypes can produce phenotypes that are indistinguishable (genetic heterogeneity)
3. Same genotypes can produce more than one phenotype, sometimes depending on environmental conditions (pleiotropy and variable expressivity)

Question 8

Genetics and Stuttering

Realization of a function specified in segments of DNA is dependent on what?

Answer 8

1. On metabolic system of cell
2. Which is dependent on the whole organism
3. Which is dependent on the physical and social environment needed for the organism’s development
4. Thus, we cannot say if genetic constitution or environment is more important.

Question 9

Genetics and Stuttering

Genetic Models in stuttering (3)

Answer 9

1. Monogenetic
2. Polygenetic
3. Mixed

Question 10

Genetics and Stuttering

Genetic Model: Monogenetic

Answer 10

Single gene is implicated in the transmission of stuttering.

Question 11

Genetics and Stuttering

Genetic Model: Polygenetic

Answer 11

Cumulative effects of multiple, unrelated genes. Would result in a normal distribution of fluency skills.

Question 12

Genetics and Stuttering

Genetic Model: Mixed

Answer 12

Both a single gene and the effects of other genes are implicated in transmission.

Question 13

Genetics and Stuttering

What are the simple genetic transmission patterns? (3)

Answer 13

1. Dominant
2. Recessive
3. Sex-linked recessive

Question 14

Genetics and Stuttering

Simple genetic transmission patterns: dominant

Answer 14

Presence of one gene in the gene pair causes expression of the trait.

• High incidence form parent to child
• Too low of an incidence among relatives to fit this.
• Example: Huntington’s Chorea

Question 15

Genetics and Stuttering

Simple genetic transmission patterns: recessive

Answer 15

Effects of one gene are subordinate to the other in the pair. Need both to cause the effects.

• Example: Brown eyes = dominant, blue eyes = recessive
• Trait less often in parents than in affected child’s siblings
• This is not the case with stutterers.
• Near equal incidence for siblings and offspring

Question 16

Genetics and Stuttering

Simple genetic transmission patterns: sex-linked recessive

Answer 16

Recessive transmission linked to the chromosomes determining gender.

• Rarely transmitted from father to son (e.g., hemophilia)
• High frequency of rather to son transmission in stuttering

Question 17

Genetics and Stutterin

Do transmission patterns in stuttering fit simple transmission patterns

Answer 17

Patterns of incidence in families of stutterers do not fit these patterns of genetic transmission.

Question 18

Operant Methodology

Operant

Answer 18

Future occurrences of behavior are a function of its consequences

Question 19

Operant Methodology

Reinforcement

Answer 19

Reinforcement increases the behavior

1. Positive reinforcement - presentation
   
   • Presented after behavior
2. Negative reinforcement - withdrawal
   
   • Withheld/removed after behavior

Question 20

Operant Methodology

Punishment

Answer 20

Punishment after behavior decreases the behavior

1. Type 1 - presentation
   
   • Example: person stutters, electric shock is given, stutter decreases
2. Type 2 - withdrawal
   
   • Example: person stutters, clinician uses time-out (withdraws the person-to-person interaction), stutter decreases

Question 21

Operant Methodology

Discriminative stimulus

Answer 21

When its presented, it consistently evokes the behavior

- Police car on freeway makes you start breaking

Question 22

Operant Methodology

Stimulus control

Answer 22

Presence of stimuli makes occurrence of behavior more likely.

Question 23

Operant Methodology

Punishment by contingent presentation - ways this was done

Answer 23

Type 1 Punishment

1. Electro-shock therapy
2. Noise

Question 24

Operant Methodology

Punishment by contingent presentation - Summarize the results

Answer 24

Presentation of various stimuli can reduce stuttering.

Question 25

Operant Methodology Punishment by contingent presentation - Goldiamond, Flanagan, and Azrin (1958)

Answer 25

1. Stutterers received loud blasts of white noise contingent on stuttering during oral reading. 2. Quickly eliminated stuttering. 3. When headphones were removed, stuttering returned. 4. Showed that stuttering could be changed by contingent environmental events – therefore considered an operant behavior 5. Penalties were supposed to make it worse

Question 26

Operant Methodology Punishment by contingent presentation - Cooper, Cady, and Robbins (1970)

Answer 26

1. 2 groups of 14 stutterers 2. “right, wrong, tree” 3. All reduced stuttering 4. Replicated in 1978 with 2 groups of 18 children

Question 27

Operant Methodology Punishment by contingent withdrawal - ways this is done

Answer 27

Type 2 Punishment 1. Time Out Response Cost

Question 28

Operant Methodology Punishment by contingent withdrawal - Time Out

Answer 28

1. Procedure: signaled to stop speaking for 10, 20, or 30 seconds 2. Presumed that speaking was reinforcing - Or was not speaking an aversive stimulus? - One study asked stutterers about T.O. 6 out of 8 said they saw it as a time to relax. 1 said it was aversive/failure and disapproval. 3. T.O. has 2 components: - Interruption of speaking = removal of positive reinforcement - Imposed silence = presented aversive stimulus

Question 29

Operant Methodology Punishment by contingent withdrawal - Response Cost

Answer 29

Subjects were given an amt of points. They lost one for each moment of stuttering

Question 30

Operant Methodology Punishment by contingent withdrawal - Summarize the results

Answer 30

- Punishment by withdrawal is reliably affective. | - T.O. is particularly effective.

Question 31

Operant Methodology Punishment by contingent withdrawal - Haroldson, Martin, and Starr (1968)

Answer 31

1. Using T.O. 2. Used red light for 20 seconds every time the person stuttered 3. Reduced stuttering by 88%

Question 32

Operant Methodology Punishment by contingent withdrawal - Martin, Kuhl, and Haroldson (1972). Note why this study was "controversial."

Answer 32

1. Using T.O. 2. 2 children aged 3 and 4 years old 3. They got to talk to a beautiful puppet named Suzybelle illuminated in a glass case 4. When they stuttered, the light went out and Suzybelle stopped talking for 10 seconds 5. Significantly reduced stuttering. Maintained a year later. 6. It was thought that “punishment” of stuttering with children would make it worse.

Question 33

Operant Methodology Punishment by contingent withdrawal - Halvorson (1971)

Answer 33

Subjects were given an amt of points. They lost one for each moment of stuttering.

Question 34

Operant Methodology Reinforcement by contingent presentation - ways this is done

Answer 34

1. Reinforcing stuttered speech | 2. Reinforcing non-stuttered speech

Question 35

Operant Methodology Reinforcement by contingent presentation - reinforcing stuttered speech

Answer 35

1. Two studies of children 9-10 and 6-9 showed that reinforcement of stuttering did increase stuttering 2. Summary: contradictory evidence, but were the “reinforcers” reinforcing?

Question 36

Operant Methodology Reinforcement by contingent presentation - reinforcing non- stuttered speech

Answer 36

1. One study of 3 children (from 9-11) showed that reinforcement of 5 seconds, then 10 seconds of non-stuttered speech reduced stuttering in a few sessions. 2. It generalized to other settings. 3. No previous tx helped

Question 37

Operant Methodology Reinforcement by contingent withdrawal - ways this is done

Answer 37

1. Loud tone – See Flanagan et al. (1958) 2. Continuous shock – See Martin et al. (1975) 3. DAF – Goldiamond

Question 38

Operant Methodology Reinforcement by contingent withdrawal - summarize the results

Answer 38

Though operant effects shown to increase stuttering, the studies have shown limitations.

Question 39

Operant Methodology Reinforcement by contingent withdrawal - Flanagan et al. (1958)

Answer 39

1. Provided a 6000Hz 105dB tone ended for 5 sec. after each stuttering 2. Increased stuttering by 30% in all subjects 3. Reversed when treatment ended

Question 40

Operant Methodology Reinforcement by contingent withdrawal - Goldiamond in two studies (1962; 1965)

Answer 40

1. Shut off DAF for 10 sec. after stuttering 2. Increased stuttering by 37% for one and a small increase for the second 3. This study showed extended DAF produced slow prolonged speech

Question 41

Operant Methodology Reinforcement by contingent withdrawal - what is stimulus control?

Answer 41

Presence of stimuli makes occurrence of behavior more likely.

Question 42

Operant Methodology Reinforcement by contingent withdrawal - what was learned in Martin and Siegel (1966)?

Answer 42

Showed nylon strap or blue light associated with punishment reduced stuttering alone.

Question 43

Operant Methodology Reinforcement by contingent withdrawal - summarize research as a whole

Answer 43

1. These studies do not deal with operant conditioning as a factor in the onset of stuttering. - These studies deal with the nature of stuttering instead of its cause. 2. If stuttering itself has operant properties, it doesn’t mean its origin is operant. 3. Most of the time, stuttering acts like operant behavior. 4. When it doesn’t, there were often problems with the research design. 5. We don’t know the maintaining environmental variables for stuttering.

Question 44

Neurological Perspectives Summarize study by R.K. Jones (1966)

Answer 44

1. Wada Test used to determine dominance before surgery to treat epilepsy. - Injection of sodium amytal into carotid arteries. 2. When it reaches cerebral hemispheres it blocks activity. 3. Patient talks. If pt stops talking, the language dominant hemisphere is found.

Question 45

Neurological Perspectives What is the Dichotic Word Test?

Answer 45

Dichotic Word Test: audiology test | - Shows if right ear dominant, then person is language dominant in the left hemisphere

Question 46

Neurological Perspectives Dichotic Word Test - how it's used in stuttering research

Answer 46

1. Curry and Gregory studies 2. Other studies showed right or weak dominance, others showed no difference 3. Visual field tests (corresponding to dichotic listening)

Question 47

Neurological Perspectives Is there a consistent trend for PWS not to be left hemisphere dominant for language?

Answer 47

Evidence of hemispheric asymmetry for language is inconsistent.

Question 48

Neurological Perspectives Is the anatomical structure of the brain in PWS different than nonPWS

Answer 48

NO. Research does not support it.

Question 49

Neurological Perspectives Do PWS have brain lesions?

Answer 49

No.

Question 50

Neurological Perspectives Is the physiology or functioning of the brain consistently different between PWS and nonPWS?

Answer 50

Yes. There are differences in the motor speech control areas for PWS and nonPWS.

Question 51

Neurological Perspectives For studies that did show differences between physiology and functioning, what were the major areas of the brain in which differences were seen?

Answer 51

There were abnormalities in the motor speech control areas, specifically abnormal blood flow patterns to the motor speech areas, as well as hypo-activity in the Broca’s and Wernicke’s area that went away during choral reading, as opposed to solo reading.

Question 52

Neurological Perspectives Would differences in brain functioning (versus anatomical structures) prove a neurological cause of stuttering? Why or why not?

Answer 52

1. No. It is inconsistent. 2. Several studies show some anomalies of brain function (physiology) – though not consistently and not in the best study to date. 3. In studies that do show anomalies these are in language and speech processing areas of the brain.