How would you interpret a person who stutters being able to achieve complete and natural fluency through intensive fluency shaping intervention (only with motor-based exercices) ?

How would you interpret a person who stutters being able to achieve complete and natural fluency through intensive fluency shaping intervention (only with motor-based exercices) ? **My opinion:** I think that's a very interesting question, because many researchers usually bring up the classic argument: Genetics/neurology causes stuttering. However, a few research studies that investigated stuttering recovery (e.g., Late Onset Recovery in People Who Stutter, 2019) suggest that recovery often occurs due to some kind of (subtle) intervention — rather than "spontaneous" recovery, as is often thought. Another researcher, Brocklehurst (PhD), stated: People who stutter (PWS) in speech therapy might maintain the novelty effect of their speech strategy (whatever this may be) long enough to enable the development of faith in one’s ability to speak without stuttering. \[resulting in stuttering remission\] \~\~ In my understanding, there are factors that predispose us to stuttering onset (e.g., genetics/neurology that make us error-prone or hyper-sensitive). In contrast, there are likely completely other factors that prevent adults from achieving stuttering remission or subconscious fluency (over-controlled fluency). So the main question is then: Why does stuttering remission occur in a subset of PWS through motor-based exercises? My reply: Obviously, motor-based exercises were helpful to achieve stuttering remission. So "something" in this approach was effective/successful. What is this successful component exactly? **To answer this question, we can reverse-engineer the problem.** *(Which I often do to make the problem clearer)* Why do motor-based exercises help in a subset of PWS and not in others? In other words: What is the difference exactly? To answer this question, each researcher would likely answer it differently: some would adopt a bioneurological/biochemical view, and others an approach-avoidance perspective. Agreed? \~\~ Yet, we cannot change our genetics. So I argue we should look at what we CAN change, i.e., the approach-avoidance perspective. Then the question becomes: Why do some achieve stuttering remission — and others not — through motor-based exercises? (From the approach-avoidance perspective — AA for short) \~\~ My reply: In my personal experience as a child, fluency shaping (motor-based exercises) did not improve my duration of speech blocks. So what should I do to achieve stuttering remission from the AA perspective - when I use motor-based exercises? From an AA perspective, if we initiate speech execution and our subconscious brain is holding back speech (in response to cues/stimuli), stuttering-like disfluencies occur. So somehow the "motor-based exercises" have led the subconscious brains of that subset of PWS not to hold back speech in response to conditioned stimuli — which is also called desensitization, where extinction occurred between CS and CR. Put simply: somehow those motor-based exercises led their subconscious brains to **stop** excessively avoiding conditioned stimuli — specifically to allow regulation of the speech plan-execution. In other words: somehow the motor-based exercises led the subconscious to "evaluate or interpret" it was ready to send the GO-signal — to execute the speech plan; i.e., the error or "cognitive" conflict has been primarily resolved so that speech execution can proceed. \~\~ Then the main question becomes: what exactly occurred at the deepest level of this AA mechanism for the subconscious brain to perceive it's ready to execute the speech plan? \~\~ Let me know if you have any questions. Perhaps the attached image could explain more about this. https://preview.redd.it/03dbhxou9usf1.jpg?width=1415&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=55ab476b63c66a93a56da31b56fefb6d6056599c Here is the [screenshot](https://imgur.com/a/VLAwEtu).