[ Contents | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Steve Hood
Time: 8:17:27 PM
Remote Name: 18.104.22.168
Hello again, Greg !!
I pretty much figured that the "exogenous-endogenous" terms might have been manufactured for an article such as yours (he-he, "smile") since I could not figure out a way to make "electronic" or "behavioral" therapy be genetic or non-genetic.
If we get a chance to chat at ASHA, this will be great, because I do have some questions and comments that can better be discussed in person-- more so than a written interactive format such as this one...
In the meantime, I did have one additional comment that I neglected to mention in my earlier post. Maybe you can reply to it. Here it is:
I have sometimes used DAF with clients to help them do such things as maintain voicing, "stretch out the syllables" in their speech, learn to concentrate on proprioceptive monitoring by trying to block out the auditory delay. It has been my observatin that for PWS whose stuttering is vocalized and audible, the DAF is usually quite effective. However, for PWS whose stuttering is more inaudible and nonvocalized (e.g., silent blocks) it is not effective because there is no audible disfluency/stuttering to be altered. Whether "delayed" or "altered in fundamental frequency," -- silent blockers do not have any vocalized/audible stuttering to be picked up.
ALSO, the presence of background noise in the environment can be a problem.
I had not realized that Judy Kuster had asked you to keep a balanced perspective for your paper. FWIW, I think you did an admirable job in meeting this request.
Hope to see you in Atlanta.