Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation over the Broca's area on tongue twister production

The application of neuronavigated rTMS of the supplementary motor area and rhythmic speech training for stuttering intervention

BACKGROUND

Stuttering, a neurodevelopmental speech fluency disorder, is associated with intermittent disruptions of speech-motor control. Behavioural treatments for adults who stutter (AWS) concentrate on adopting speech patterns that enhance fluency, such as speaking rhythmically or prolonging speech sounds. However, maintaining these treatment benefits can be challenging. Neuroimaging studies suggest that supplementary motor area (SMA) which play a crucial role in speech initiation, planning and internal timing shows aberrant activation in speech production of AWS and may contribute to stuttering. Preliminary evidence suggests that brain stimulation may impact responsiveness to behavioural treatments.

AIMS

The present study aims to investigate whether excitatory repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the SMA and rhythmic speech can consistently reduce stuttering severity across various measures.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Ten self-identified Cantonese-speaking AWS participated in this double-blinded, sham-controlled clinical trial study (NCT05472181). The participants underwent 10 sessions of rhythmic speech training across two phases, combined with either neuronavigated rTMS or sham, with a 2-week washout period between phases. The stuttering severity was assessed through various outcome measures, including the percentage of syllables stuttered, self-perceived stuttering severity, and the brief version of Unhelpful Thoughts and Beliefs About Stuttering before and after each treatment phase.

OUTCOMES AND RESULTS

Results demonstrated improved speech fluency in various speaking contexts, with no significant difference between rTMS and sham conditions immediately and 1 week post-treatment. Notably, rTMS specifically led to less stuttering in tongue twister production (d = -0.70). Both treatment conditions effectively reduced self-perceived stuttering severity and negative thoughts and beliefs about stuttering.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The findings of this study indicate that stimulating the SMA reduced stuttering, only in the production of tongue twisters that may require greater motor control and coordination. Furthermore, it indicates that rhythmic speech might help alleviate negative beliefs and anxiety related to stuttering. This research contributes to our understanding of neuromodulation in stuttering treatment and the role of the SMA in speech motor control and emphasises the need for more research on the potential benefits and limitations of applying rTMS in this condition.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

What is already known on the subject Behavioural treatments for adults who stutter concentrate on adopting speech patterns that enhance fluency, such as speaking rhythmically or prolonging speech sounds. However, maintaining these treatment benefits can be challenging. Neuroimaging studies indicate that aberrant neural activation in speech production regions, like the supplementary motor area (SMA), is involved in stuttering. The SMA plays a crucial role in initiating, planning, and sequencing motor behaviours. Preliminary evidence suggests that brain stimulation (e.g., transcranial direct current stimulation or transcranial magnetic stimulation) may impact responsiveness to behavioural treatments. What this paper adds to existing knowledge There is limited knowledge regarding the potential effects of stimulating the SMA to enhance speech fluency in people who stutter. Existing research primarily consists of single case studies that lack proper control conditions or involve only a single stimulation session. Due to their limited scope and power, these studies may not provide sufficient evidence. The current study expands upon existing research by investigating whether multiple sessions of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over the SMA, combined with rhythmic speech, improve speech fluency in adults who stutter. Furthermore, it addresses the limitations of brain stimulation methods and proposes directions for future research. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? This study implies that the stimulation of SMA reduced stuttering only in speaking contexts that may require greater motor control and coordination such as tongue twisters. Additionally, the research suggests that using rhythmic speech could potentially alleviate negative beliefs and anxiety associated with stuttering.

Failure of tDCS to modulate motor excitability and speech motor learning

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) modulates cortical excitability in a polarity-specific way and, when used in combination with a behavioural task, it can alter performance. TDCS has the potential, therefore, for use as an adjunct to therapies designed to treat disorders affecting speech, including, but not limited to acquired aphasias and developmental stuttering. For this reason, it is important to conduct studies evaluating its effectiveness and the parameters optimal for stimulation. Here, we aimed to evaluate the effects of bi-hemispheric tDCS over speech motor cortex on performance of a complex speech motor learning task, namely the repetition of tongue twisters. A previous study in older participants showed that tDCS could modulate performance on a similar task. To further understand the effects of tDCS, we also measured the excitability of the speech motor cortex before and after stimulation. Three groups of 20 healthy young controls received: (i) anodal tDCS to the left IFG/LipM1 and cathodal tDCS to the right hemisphere homologue; or (ii) cathodal tDCS over the left and anodal over the right; or (iii) sham stimulation. Participants heard and repeated novel tongue twisters and matched simple sentences before, during and 10 min after the stimulation. One mA tDCS was delivered concurrent with task performance for 13 min. Motor excitability was measured using transcranial magnetic stimulation to elicit motor-evoked potentials in the lip before and immediately after tDCS. The study was double-blind, randomized, and sham-controlled; the design and analysis were pre-registered. Performance on the task improved from baseline to after stimulation but was not significantly modulated by tDCS. Similarly, a small decrease in motor excitability was seen in all three stimulation groups but did not differ among them and was unrelated to task performance. Bayesian analyses provide substantial evidence in support of the null hypotheses in both cases, namely that tongue twister performance and motor excitability were not affected by tDCS. We discuss our findings in the context of the previous positive results for a similar task. We conclude that tDCS may be most effective when brain function is sub-optimal due to age-related declines or pathology. Further study is required to determine why tDCS failed to modulate excitability in the speech motor cortex in the expected ways.

Investigating the effects of tDCS on Visual Orientation Discrimination Task Performance: 'The possible influence of placebo'

The non-invasive neuromodulation technique tDCS offers the promise of a low cost tool for both research and clinical applications in psychology, psychiatry and neuroscience. However, findings regarding its efficacy are often equivocal. A key issue is that the clinical and cognitive applications studied are often complex and thus effects of tDCS are difficult to predict given its known effects on the basic underlying neurophysiology, namely alterations in cortical inhibition-excitation balance. As such, it may be beneficial to assess the effects of tDCS in tasks whose performance has a clear link to cortical inhibition-excitation balance such as the visual orientation discrimination task (ODT). In prior studies in our laboratory no practise effects were found during 2 consecutive runs of the ODT, thus in the current investigation, to examine the effects of tDCS, subjects received 10 minutes of 2mA occipital tDCS (sham, anode, cathode) between a first and second run of ODT. Surprisingly, subjects' performance significantly improved in the second run of ODT compared to the first one regardless of the tDCS stimulation type they received (anodal, cathodal, or sham-tDCS). Possible causes for such an improvement could have been due to either a generic 'placebo' effect of tDCS (as all subjects received some form of tDCS) or an increased delay period between the two runs of ODT of the current study compared to our previous work (10 minutes duration required to administer tDCS as opposed to ~2 minutes in previous studies as a 'break'). As such, we tested these two possibilities with a subsequent experiment in which subjects received 2 minutes or 10 minutes delay between the 2 runs (with no tDCS) or 10 minutes of sham-tDCS. Only sham-tDCS resulted in improved performance thus these data add to a growing literature suggesting that tDCS has powerful placebo effect that may occur even in the absence of active cortical modulation.