Here are ideas for spontaneous recovery according to new research. Do you agree? Why or why not?

Here are ideas for spontaneous recovery according to new research. Do you agree? Why or why not? This is a follow-up on [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stutter/comments/149ky5q/comment/jo5tnd1/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) research study about "*Spontaneous late recovery from stuttering: Dimensions of reported techniques and causal attributions*". The analysis identified that "attitude change" is a perceived causal attributions of recovery. Question to the community. What can we learn from this? **Answer**: In my opinion: The research states that "*no longer accepting yourself that you were the one stuttering*" and "*self-confidence*" are causal attributions to recovery. \[the ideas\] In my opinion, for me this *research result* is an indication that, if I would perceive myself as a PWS, then I consider this a speaker-related factor that predisposes to stuttering, because believing that I will stutter and therefore justifying neurological pathways to the erroneous encoding, **may** impair my ability to plan or execute suitably well-formed utterances. Additionally, because having a self-image of myself stuttering, **may** make me slowly more sensitive (or hypersensitive) to cues that alert me to the possibility that my speech performance is likely to be inadequate. At least, this is just my take on it. But.. in the end, it all doesn't matter anymore, as replacing the impaired speech programming with a helpful one may be sufficient to reach stuttering remission, in my opinion. Share your opinion and arguments in the comments. No one is right, no one is wrong, as long as we can learn from one another! I argue that PWS may have developed impaired speech programming to scan, measure or evaluate whether to continue the flow of speech (aka proprioception, tactile feedback, efference copy, pre-articulatory error monitoring, conflict monitoring, monitoring of the listener and his responses). I argue that this would then result in "voice onset before we instruct execution of speech movements" (resulting in a speech block). **Researchers state**: * "*If speech production is impaired at the level of speech motor control, then no matter how perfect the speech plan is, overt speech will still sound imprecise and may still be relatively difficult for listeners to understand. Unfortunately, although speakers may perceive a need for clearer, more accurate speech, they may not be sensitive to the level at which the problem has arisen (speech plan formulation or speech motor control).*" * "*We have rejected the ‘****tension and fragmentation****’ account that Bloodstein proposed to explain the production of stuttered disfluencies, on the grounds that it is unable to account for the specific forms that stuttered disfluencies take, and because it fails to account for the subjective experience of loss of control*" **In my opinion:** For me this is an indication that the 'timing ability' in and of itself is not impaired, the feedforward system is not impaired, our control to instruct motor execution is not impaired. Rather, the speech programming of the "release and repair threshold" to execute speech movements, is impaired. This is my attempt to provide an alternative term for this, so that you guys can understand more clearly what I'm trying to say: * erroneous, inappropriate or incomplete encoding (which may cause cerebellar dysfunction, and other structural and functional abnormalities commonly found in PWS) * speech planning deficit * speech programming impairment * unhelpful timing method (or cognitive condition) * stutter program, mechanism, release or repair threshold (or neurological habit) for regulating speech quality So, secondary characteristics (like articulatory tension) may not be the problem, rather this '*encoding of the speech plan*' may be the main problem. Argument: Because this encoding (aka speech programming) centrally decides whether to initiate articulation. In other words, this release threshold mechanism decides when it releases for overt execution. **Researchers conclude**: * "*It is possible that, once established, a tendency to set the release threshold too high may sometimes continue, even after any underlying impairment has*" **In my opinion**: * this may indicate that, even if we deal with a trigger (*such as anticipation, needing more accuracy, or stress*), stuttering-like disfluencies may still continue simply because we keep applying or relying on the impaired speech programming (e.g., evaluating whether to wait out execution of articulation or not)