Biology subjects

Demirel, B.

Publications and source records attributed to Demirel, B..

4 recordsLinked to original sources

bioRxiv2026

Why Speech Motor Blocks Emerge in a Communicative Context: An Active Inference Model of Stuttering

Adults who stutter can speak fluently when speech is not addressed to another person, but stuttering emerges when they aim to convey information to a listener. The value of the information being conveyed to the listener also affects the likelihood of stuttering. Why should the mere absence of a listener neutralise a profound motor deficit, and why does a word's predictability affect whether it is spoken fluently? To resolve this socio-motor paradox, we develop a computational model of stuttering within an active inference architecture. The model represents the communicative context, including whether a listener is present and whether the agent is speaking or listening. It was designed around two candidate mechanisms for stuttering, a prior for silence and rigid phoneme sequencing precision. Using both, the model produced fluent private speech and more stuttering-like events during social speech. In the same parameter regime, the model also showed more stuttering-like events on words with higher information value, and produced a word-length effect, in which disfluency increased with longer words. To our knowledge, this is the first model of stuttering to generate both the private speech and the information-value effect from inferred communicative context. By representing the listener as a hidden state that makes the sensory consequences of resuming speech ambiguous, the model offers a computational link between social cognition and speech-motor instability, and suggests that speech fluency depends on whether the speaker believes anyone is present. Clinically, it may offer testable hypotheses and a route to personalising treatment, since the same overt severity can arise from different combinations of parameters.

neuroscience↗

bioRxiv2026

Differences in dynamic motor selection in stuttering

Stuttering involves interruptions to the smooth flow of speech occurring mostly at syllable onset.1 Speech fluency is enhanced in people who stutter (PWS) by external timing cues.2 This has been taken to indicate that difficulties in the temporal organisation of action selection and initiation during speech contribute to stuttering.3 An important unanswered question is whether putative temporal coordination difficulties are specific to speech or generalise to other actions. Here, we examined the temporal organisation of hand action selection in PWS. Twenty PWS and twenty typically fluent speakers (TFS) underwent magnetoencephalography (MEG) recording while performing a visuomotor working-memory task that encouraged temporally specific selection, preparation, and shifts between hand actions. Lateralised sensorimotor mu/beta-frequency (8-30 Hz) activity modulation accompanying hand-action prioritisation was weaker in PWS than TFS. Strikingly, this effect was specific to a period of high uncertainty regarding which action to select and when. Despite these differences, lateralised mu/beta modulation was functionally related to reaction times in both groups and reaction times were well matched between PWS and TFS. The findings suggest a general disruption of temporal structuring of action selection and preparation in stuttering.

neuroscience↗

bioRxiv2025

Differences in brain activity during sentence repetition in people who stutter: a combined analysis of four fMRI studies

Our understanding of the neural correlates of developmental stuttering benefits from the use of functional MRI (fMRI) during speech production. Despite two decades of research, however, we have reached little consensus. In the current study, we analysed pooled fMRI data from four different studies that used the same sentence reading task and methodological approach. The combined sample included 56 adolescents and adults who stutter and 53 demographically matched typically fluent controls. A sparse-sampling design was used in each study, in which participants spoke during the silent period between measurements of brain activity. Sentence reading evoked activity in both groups across frontal and temporal regions bilaterally. At statistical thresholds corrected for family-wise error, there were no significant group differences. An uncorrected threshold was applied to explore group differences in areas previously identified in earlier fMRI studies on stuttering. People who stutter (PWS) showed greater activity compared with controls in right frontal pole, right anterior insula extending to frontal operculum, left planum temporale, and midbrain, at the level of red nucleus. In contrast, PWS showed lower activity in left superior frontal sulcus, subgenual medial prefrontal cortex, right anterior temporal lobe, and portions of inferior parietal lobe bilaterally including the angular gyrus on the left. Despite pooling data across multiple studies to achieve a relatively large sample, group differences in regions involved in speech-motor control only emerged at an uncorrected voxel-wise threshold. Some of these findings align with previous fMRI studies, such as increased activity in the right anterior insular cortex.

neuroscience↗

bioRxiv2024

No Evidence of Altered Language Laterality in People Who Stutter across Different Brain Imaging Studies of Speech and Language

A long-standing neurobiological explanation of stuttering is the incomplete cerebral dominance theory, which refers to competition between two hemispheres for "dominance" over handedness and speech, causing altered language lateralisation. Renewed interest in these ideas came from brain imaging findings in people who stutter (PWS) of increased activity in the right hemisphere during speech production or of shifts in activity from right to left when fluency increased. Here, we revisited this theory using functional MRI data from children and adults who stutter, and typically fluent speakers (119 participants in total) during four different speech and language tasks: overt sentence reading, overt picture description, covert sentence reading and covert auditory naming. Laterality indices (LIs) were calculated for the frontal and temporal lobes using the LI toolbox running in Statistical Parametric Mapping. We also repeated the analyses with more specific language regions, namely the pars opercularis (Brodmann Area 44) and pars triangularis (Brodmann Area 45). Laterality indices in PWS and typically fluent speakers (TFS) did not differ and Bayesian analyses provided moderate to anecdotal levels of support for the null hypothesis (i.e., no differences in laterality in PWS compared with TFS). The proportions of the PWS and TFS who were left lateralised or had atypical rightwards or bilateral lateralisation did not differ. We found no support for the theory that language laterality is reduced or differs in PWS compared with TFS.

neuroscience↗