The nature and treatment of stuttering as revealed by fMRI A within- and between-group comparison

This article reviews some of our recent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies of stuttering. Using event-related fMRI experiments, we investigated brain activation during speech production. Results of three studies comparing persons who stutter (PWS) and persons who do not stutter (PWNS) are outlined. Their findings point to a region in the right frontal operculum (RFO) that was consistently implicated in stuttering. During overt reading and before fluency shaping therapy, PWS showed higher and more distributed neuronal activation than PWNS. Immediately after therapy differential activations were even more distributed and left sided. They extended to frontal, temporal, and parietal regions, anterior cingulate, insula, and putamen. These over-activations were slightly reduced and again more right sided two years after therapy. Left frontal deactivations remained stable over two years of observation, and therefore possibly indicate a dysfunction. After therapy, we noted higher activations in persons who stutter moderately than in those who stutter severely. These activations might reflect patterns of compensation. We discuss why these findings suggest that fluency-inducing techniques might synchronize a disturbed signal transmission between auditory, speech motor planning, and motor areas.

Educational objectives: The reader will learn about and be able to: (1) identify regions of brain activations and deactivations specific for PWS; (2) describe brain activation changes induced by fluency shaping therapy; and (3) discuss the correlation between stuttering severity and brain activation.     

Clinical Guidelines for Working With Stepfamilies: What Family,Couple, Individual,and Child Therapists Need to Know

This article draws on four decades of research and clinical practice to delineate guidelines for evidence‐informed, clinically sound work with stepfamilies for couple, family, individual adult, and child therapists. Few clinicians receive adequate training in working with the intense and often complex dynamics created by stepfamily structure and history. This is despite the fact that stepfamilies are a fundamentally different family form that occurs world‐wide. As a result many clinicians rely on their training in first‐time family models. This is not only often unhelpful, but all too often inadvertently destructive. The article integrates a large body of increasingly sophisticated research about stepfamilies with the author's four decades of clinical practice with stepfamily relationships. It describes the ways in which stepfamilies are different from first‐time families. It delineates the dynamics of five major challenges stepfamily structure creates: (1) Insider/outsider positions are intense and they are fixed. (2) Children struggle with losses, loyalty binds, and change. (3) Issues of parenting, stepparenting, and discipline often divide the couple. (4) Stepcouples must build a new family culture while navigating previously established family cultures. (5) Ex‐spouses (other parents outside the household) are part of the family. Some available data are shared on the impact of cultural and legal differences on these challenges. A three‐level model of clinical intervention is presented: Psychoeducational, Interpersonal, and Intrapsychic/Intergenerational Family‐of‐Origin. The article describes some “easy wrong turns” for well‐meaning therapists and lists some general clinical guidelines for working with stepfamily relationships.     

Couple‐based Intervention for Depression: An Effectiveness Study in the National Health Service in England

This study represents an effectiveness study and service evaluation of a cognitive behavioral, couple‐based treatment for depression (BCT‐D) provided in London services that are part of the “Improving Access to Psychological Therapies” (IAPT) program in England. Twenty‐three therapists in community clinics were trained in BCT‐D during a 5‐day workshop, followed by monthly group supervision for 1 year. The BCT‐D treatment outcome findings are based on 63 couples in which at least one partner was depressed and elected to receive BCT‐D. Eighty‐five percent of couples also demonstrated relationship distress, and 49% of the nonclient partners also met caseness for depression or anxiety. Findings demonstrated a recovery rate of 57% with BCT‐D, compared to 41% for all IAPT treatments for depression in London. Nonclient partners who met caseness demonstrated a 48% recovery rate with BCT‐D, although they were not the focus of treatment. BCT‐D was equally effective for clients regardless of the clinical status of the nonclient partner, suggesting its effectiveness in assisting both members of the couple simultaneously. Likewise, treatment was equally effective whether or not both partners reported relationship distress. The findings are promising regarding the successful application of BCT‐D in routine clinical settings.     

Attachment Versus Differentiation: The Contemporary Couple Therapy Debate

This paper reviews the current debate between differentiation and attachment in treating couples through exploring the tenets of crucible therapy (Schnarch, 1991) and emotionally focused couple therapy (Johnson, 2004). We provide a review of the two theories—as well as the two “pure form” example models—and explore the debate in light of the integrative movement in couple and family therapy (Lebow, 2014). We also examine points of convergence of the two theories and models, and provide clinicians and researchers with an enhanced understanding of their divergent positions. Both differentiation and attachment are developmental theories that highlight the human experience of balancing individuality and connection in adulthood. The two models converge in terms of metaconcepts that pervade their respective theories and approach. Both models capitalize on the depth and importance of the therapeutic relationship, and provide rich case conceptualization and processes of therapy. However, they substantially differ in terms of how they view the fundamental aspects of adult development, have vastly divergent approaches to how a therapist intervenes in the room, and different ideas of how a healthy couple should function. In light of the deep polarization of the two models, points of integration—particularly between the broader theories of attachment and differentiation—are offered for therapists to consider.     

The Shift from Monologue to Dialogue in a Couple Therapy Session: Dialogical Investigation of Change from the Therapists’ Point of View

As part of a larger research project on couple therapy for depression, this qualitative case study examines the nature of dialogue. Drawing on Bakhtinian concepts, the investigation shows how the conversation shifts from a monologue to dialogue. Among the findings are: first, the process of listening is integral to the transforming experience. That is, the careful listening of the therapist can evoke new voices, just as the experience of one of the partners’ “listening in” to the conversation between the other partner and the therapist can create movement and new trajectories. The latter is a qualitative difference between dialogic therapy with a couple and that with an individual. Second, the therapist not only acts as creative listener, but as the dialogue unfolds, actively contributes to meaning‐making. Third, the study upholds having a team of researchers as a polyphonic forum and the usefulness of Bakhtinian concepts in clinical research on dialogue in multi‐actor sessions.     

Testing orofacial abilities of children who stutter: the Movement, Articulation, Mandibular and Sensory awareness (MAMS) assessment procedure

Objective

The purpose of this article is to introduce a new assessment designed to measure the orofacial abilities of children who stutter (CWS), the Movement, Articulation, Mandibular and Sensory Awareness (MAMS) Orofacial Assessment. The new instrument was developed and validated to measure orofacial abilities in a comprehensive manner.

Design

A group of 43 CWS (mean age 13.10 years, S.D. 2.10 years) and a control group of 32 fluent children (mean age 13.4 years, S.D. 2.6 years) were tested with the new tool. It was hypothesized, that (a) the MAMS is a reliable and valid instrument to measure orofacial abilities in CWS, (b) fluent children have better orofacial abilities than CWS and (c) that the therapy outcome of CWS depend on their orofacial abilities.

Results

The MAMS Orofacial Assessment proved to be a valid and reliable instrument to assess orofacial abilities. Compared with their fluent peers, CWS had significantly worse orofacial abilities. CWS with better orofacial abilities had a better prognosis for therapy outcome.

Conclusions

The new instrument is a reliable and valid tool to measure orofacial abilities and MAMS distinguishes CWS and controls. Orofacial abilities are one set of factors that influence therapy outcome for CWS.Educational objectives: The reader will get an overview over of the literature on orofacial abilities in people who stutter and will learn about and be able to (1) describe different characteristics of orofacial abilities, (2) use the MAMS Orofacial Assessment in the diagnostic process for CWS and for research purposes, and (3) interpret the results of the MAMS to use them for therapy planning.     

A Video Recall Study of In‐session Changes in Sentiment Override

This study examines in‐session changes in sentiment override over the first three sessions of couple therapy. Couples viewed a video recording of therapy sessions immediately after each of the first three sessions and continuously rated their level of sentiment override. Ninety‐eight changes were randomly chosen for analysis. Three talk turns prior to each change was coded using the Family Relational Communication Control Coding System. Results show that changes in sentiment override occur frequently. Repeated incidents of communication control were related to negative change in sentiment override for females. Repeated incidents of being left out of the conversation were related to negative changes in sentiment override for females and positive changes for males.     

The Cocreation of Crazy Patchworks: Becoming Rhizomatic in Systemic Therapy

In the field of systemic therapy, there has been much discussion recently about the narrative self. This concept refers to the idea that the self is narratively constructed in and through the stories which someone tells about him/herself. The story is thereby not only viewed as a metaphor for selfhood: Selfhood is not compared to a story, it is a story. But what kind of story are we talking about here? If the self is a story, what does that story look like? These questions are explored in this article. Starting from the possibilities and limitations of traditional and postmodern visions on the self as a story, an alternative vision is illustrated. By considering the self as a rhizomatic story, we not only create a useful view of the way narrative selfhood is constructed within a therapy context, but we also stimulate therapists to coconstruct—together with their clients—patchworks of self‐stories. By using story fragments of our own practice, we illustrate the rhizomatic thinking and its possibilities in therapy.     

The development of a culturally informed, family-focused treatment for schizophrenia

With the changing demographics in the United States, there is an increasing need for psychotherapy interventions that have been tailored for and empirically evaluated with culturally diverse groups. This article discusses the development and evaluation of a family-focused, culturally informed therapy for schizophrenia (CIT-S) that is currently being pilot tested at the University of Miami. Case examples of CIT-S with participating families are provided, along with a discussion of interesting and challenging cultural issues that we have encountered during the pilot phase of this treatment study.     

Using a metaperspective to clarify the structural-narrative debate in family therapy

The debate in family therapy between structural and narrative therapists often seems irreconcilable. Drawing from work in theoretical sociology that identifies the basic structure of existing social theory, a metaperspective is introduced to clarify a discussion between leading figures in the debate. Disparate views of family interactions are examined in terms of more fundamental disagreements about the center of attention in therapy. Narrative and structural modes of presentation are examined as separate traditions that could not be further apart conceptually. Efforts to identify common ground are discussed in terms of more significant differences that are minimized by drawing out similarities. This analysis provides a framework for standing outside entrenched arguments to see more clearly the unique contributions of each approach.