1. Visuomotor Tracking Abilities of Adults who Stutter, Adults with Parkinson’s disease and Normally Fluent Healthy Adults
Victoria Tumanova Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders Dissertation project

2. Introduction
Stuttering is a disorder of timing and sequencing of multiple movements
Procedural learning
Motor Learning
Speech is a highly automatized motor behavior
Language
Phonology
Grammar
May be less robust in people who stutter
Studies of nonsense word learning
Studies of finger tapping and tracking

3. Introduction
Procedural learning is dependent on the Basal Ganglia function
Studies of people who have abnormal BG function
Recent hypothesis that BG may be involved in developmental stuttering
Imaging studies of PWS and NS
Subcortical mapping and lesion studies
Sensitivity to dopamine modulating medication
Speech and non-speech (tics) characteristics

4. Questions Is procedural learning less robust in PWS?
Is there any difference in oral vs manual tracking performance (pervasive vs non pervasive deficit)
Is it similar to people with abnormal BG function (Parkinson’s disease)?

5. Method: Participants 15 adults who stutter (13)
15 adults with Parkinson’s disease, mild or moderate stage, on regular medication (13)
15 age-matched to PWS normally fluent healthy adults
15 age-matched to PPD normally fluent healthy adults

6. Tracking with the jaw and dominant hand
Each trial lasts 60 seconds
3 repeated trials for each “predictable” condition

7. Optotrak – Jaw tracking

8. Hand tracking

9. Optotrak camera

10. User interface

11. Method: Visuomotor Tracking Conditions
Simple repetitive movement
sine waves at 0.3, 0.6 and 0.9 Hz
Complex repetitive movement
combination of sine waves with 3 amplitudes, S-M-L

12. Method: Visuomotor Tracking Conditions
Complex non-repetitive movement
combination of sine waves with different amplitudes with constant frequency at 0.3, 0.6 and 0.9 Hz
Sine waves that vary both in frequency and in amplitude
Tracking by memory
Simple sine wave, target disappears after 30 sec

13. Analysis Learning =increases in speed and accuracy over time
Sine wave can be characterized in terms of
Amplitude
Frequency
Phase

14. Analysis Gain Delay Calculated using amplitude data
is the ratio of tracking peak velocity to target peak velocity
is expected to be very close to 1 for “good trackers”
Delay
Calculated using phase data, target phase - tracking phase
Negative phase difference – lag
Positive phase difference – lead
expected to be very close to 0 for “good trackers”

15. Data points for each measure

16. GAIN
AMPLITUDE
DELAY

17. Results

18. Data points for Gain/Delay per trail
Depending on the frequency of the target
54 points (0.3Hz=18 cycles*3)
108 points (0.6Hz= 36 cycles*3)
162 points (0.9Hz=54 cycles*3)

19. Subject 1 (gain over t) Subject 2 Subject 3 Subject 4 Subject 5
0.8896
0.6013
0.7569
0.7112
1.2525
0.8355
1.2611
0.861
0.5922
0.1023
0.8807
0.9297
1.1177
0.8719
0.4393
0.1779
0.8165
0.9588
0.9607
0.8755
1.2346
0.4579
0.9283
0.7416
0.8768
0.8995
0.8255
0.3954
0.8266
0.7906
0.8281
0.8982
0.5844
0.5762
0.6696
0.7182
0.9397
0.9737
0.8757
0.5608
0.8207
0.9786
0.9013
0.9163
0.8714
0.7125
0.934
0.8668
0.8946
0.5841
0.9115
0.8895
0.7886
0.7771
0.7878
1.1617
0.7622
0.2118
0.9378
0.6076
0.9532
1.0331
0.7432
0.7403
1.0086
0.6837
1.0221
0.816
0.6075
0.9901
1.2561
0.7922
0.6993
1.042
0.9897
0.3225
0.9301
0.8499
1.2458
1.0671
0.9917
0.6745
1.0104
0.9218
1.6381
0.8826
1.2568
0.9542
0.7527
0.9462

20. Statistical Analysis Accuracy overall Accuracy over time
Divide the tracking trail into 3 segments (initial 20 sec, medial 20sec, final 20sec)
Compare trial 1 with trail 2 and trial 3

21. Thank you!