Thank you for your honest response. I agree with you, and I hope more people are willing to sum up recent research studies and extract a few takeaway bullet points from them. PWS mainly use this subreddit to vent their energy and frustration on stuttering, perhaps it's time to transform this energy into compiling new insights and engaging in productive discussions on recent research findings. That aside, here are a few conclusions. **Conclusion from the original investigation:** >We found that PWS were slower to respond to simple ‘go’ stimuli than PWTF, but there was no difference in stopping behaviour. Our fMRI results were consistent with these behavioural results. PWS showed significant overactivity of the inhibition network even during ‘go’ trials, which supports the idea of a global suppression mechanism in PWS. In addition, there were qualitative differences in the neural stopping response between groups, with PWS appearing to overactivate the inhibitory control network compared with PWTF. However, it must be stressed that these differences did not pass statistical significance, and that the study may have been underpowered to detect them. Overall, this study offers tentative support to the global suppression hypothesis of stuttering. **Conclusion from this post:** >PWS had extensive and widespread activation of the frontal operculum, precentral gyrus, SMA, putamen, and cerebellum, all bilaterally. The left postcentral gyrus and supramarginal gyrus bilaterally were also robustly activated. There was also activity in the anterior portion of the middle frontal gyrus bilaterally. Visual cortex activity extended from the pole to include the lateral occipital cortex bilaterally. PWS had significantly greater activity relative to PWTF in the inferior frontal gyrus, caudate nucleus and putamen bilaterally, and in the left precentral cortex and parietal operculum > >According to the global suppression hypothesis, shorter stop-signal reaction time (SSRT) and hyperactivation of the right hemisphere inhibition network were expected. Contrary to this prediction, in the current study, PWS had longer reaction times on ‘go’ trials than PWTF. There was no significant difference in the speed of the stopping process (SSRT) > >The significantly longer reaction times for ‘go’ responses in PWS found in the current study were unexpected but could be explained in two ways: (1) PWS have greater difficulty enacting a response under temporal uncertainty, may be due to problems relying on internally generated timing compared with the externally generated timing provided by the predictability of the fixed inter-trial-intervals (impairment in internal cueing), and (2) PWS show longer reaction times because they were in a state of heightened inhibition as the task demands required enacting a stopping response (at an unpredictable time) and might have prevented them from generating a ‘go’ response as quickly as PWTF. An alternative (but less likely) explanation is that the stuttering participants were in a higher state of arousal (possibly due to increased desire to perform the task well, or in response to being scanned). > >We found that PWS were slower to respond to simple ‘go’ stimuli than PWTF, but there was no difference in stopping behaviour. Our fMRI results were consistent with these behavioural results. PWS showed significant overactivity of the inhibition network even during ‘go’ trials, which supports the idea of a global suppression mechanism in PWS. In addition, there were qualitative differences in the neural stopping response between groups, with PWS appearing to overactivate the inhibitory control network compared with PWTF. Overall, this study offers tentative support to the global suppression hypothesis of stuttering. ​ **Personal conclusions (i.e., helpful interventions):** >I perceive that individuals with (persistent) developmental stuttering often blame their bioneurology (i.e., reduced inhibitory control) to justify overactivation, dysfunction or bi-lateral synchronization \[neural impairments\]. However, this research study provides evidence that functional neurological differences are likely significantly influenced by moments of stuttering at the state level, in contrast to the general traits of developmental stuttering. > >So, perhaps a more effective way to addressing the neural impairments in persistent developmental stuttering is to implement clinical interventions that specifically target right hemisphere overactivity, left-hemisphere dysfunction, and bilateral synchronization. This should not be limited to certain conditions, like only during choral reading, but rather applied unconditionally in all situations.