Abstract
Attempts have been made to explain stuttering using learning principles (Wischner, 1950; Sheehan, 1958; Shoemaker, 1967; and Shames and Sherrick, 1963). There have been few studies, which have applied positive reinforcement procedures to enhance the fluency among stutterers (Richard and Mundy,1966; Leach, 1969; Bar, 1971).These studies have shown that it is possible to increase the desirable behaviour, fluency, and decrease the undesirable dysfluencies (stuttering) concomittantly. Hegde (1978), while reviewing these studies states that, 'Like most clinical studies, they lack appropriate control procedures. In addition one or other of the following features was also missing from these studies: (1) Specific description of dysfluencies and their frequencies before and after therapy; (2) Definitions of fluency; (3) Operational specification of the reinforcement procedure used; and (4) A description of the final target criterion of fluency'. In spite of these drawbacks, most of the studies that have been conducted to enhance fluency have shown that it is possible to find an increase in fluency with concomittant decrease in dysfluency.
References
Basavalingappa, S.: Effect of stimuli with and without time-out on stuttering. (Mysore University dissertation, 1980).
Brutten, GJ . and Shoemaker, D.J.: The modification of stuttering. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall, 1967.
Dattatreya, T. : Effects of continuous contingent, random contingent and random negative stimulation on selected responses in a moment of stuttering. (Mysore University dissertation,1978).
Hegde, M.N.: Short and long-term effects of contingent aversive noise on stuttering. J. All India Inst. Speech Hear., 2: 1971, 7-14.
Hegde, M.N.: Stuttering adaptation, reactive inhibition and spontaneous recovery. J. All India Inst. Speech Hear., 2: 1971, 40-47.
Hegde, M.N.: Effect of shock on stuttering. J. All India Inst. Speech Hear., 2: 1971, 104-10.
Hegde, M.N.: Fluency and fluency disorders: their definition, measurement and modification. J. of Fluency Dis., 3: 1978, 51-71.
Hegde, M.N. and Brutten, G.J.: Reinforcing fluency in stutterers: An experimental study. J. of Fluency Dis., 2: 1977, 515-28.
Hegde, M.N.: j Stuttering as operant behaviour (letters to the Editor). J. Speech Hear. Res., 22: 1979, 667-9.
Hegde, M.N. and Hartman, D.E.: Factors affecting judgements of fluency: I Interjections. J. Fluency Dis., 3: 1978, 1-11.
Leach, E.: Stuttering: Clinical application of responses contingent procedures. In stuttering and conditioning therapies, B.B. Gray and G.G. England (eds.), Monterey, Calif.: Monterey Institute of Speech and Hearing, 1969.
Martin, R.R. and Siegel, G.M.: The effects of simultaneously punishing stuttering and rewarding fluency. J. Speech Hear. Res., 9: 1966, 466-75.
Shames, G. and Sherrick, C.: ' A discussion of non-fluency and stuttering as operant behavior'. J. Speech Hear. Dis., 28: 1963, 3-18.
Sheehan, J.G.: An integration of psycho-therapy and speech-therapy through a conflict theory of stuttering. J. Speech Hear. Dis., 19: 1954, 474-82.
Sheehan, J.G.: Stuttering: Research and Therapy. New York: Harperand Row, 1970.
Vijayalakshmi, A.R.: Effect of three stimuli on fluency in stutterers. (Mysore University dissertation, 1973).
Vishwanath, N.S. : Effects of responses contingent negative stimulation on selected responses in a moment of stuttering (Mysore University dissertation, 1972).
Webster, R.L. and Dorman, M.F.: Decrease in stuttering frequency as a function of continuous and contingent forms of auditory masking. J. Speech Hear. Res., 11 : 1968, 219-23.
Wischner, G.J.: Stuttering behavior and learning. J. Speech Hear. Dis., 15: 1950, 324-34.