Once stuttering remission/recovery is achieved - do we start speaking without fear? Or doesn't this have anything to do with it?

Once stuttering remission/recovery is achieved - do we start speaking without fear? Or doesn't this have anything to do with it? I think we need to understand that stuttering remission/recovery - can occur in various different ways. for example see the research: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021992418300789](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021992418300789) Research: "Spontaneous" late recovery from stuttering: Dimensions of reported techniques and causal attributions (2019) \~\~ Above research proposes various methods of how their stuttering remission/recovery could have been achieved, for example: Some PWS do not accept stuttering While others did accept stuttering Some PWS used subtle interventions (such as small changes in mindset/attitude) etc etc Conclusion: There are many stutter theories. Each theory has their pros and cons. For example, genetical studies may attribute stuttering recovery primarily to genetics/neurology. Whereas from an approach-avoidance perspective - some theories may attribute it primarily to: (1) properly fine-tuning their release threshold, (2) successfully or effectively addresses their excessive error-avoidance response, (3) successfully addressing the excessive regulation to execute the speech plan, (4) extinguishing or de-conditioning the relevant conditioned stimuli. Personally, I've experienced many stuttering remissions and relapses by targeting the excessive error-avoidance response. From this perspective, I don’t quite relate to the idea that genetics/neurology - in my personal stutter experience - is constantly fluctuating between recess (being dormant) and reemergence. I think it's more about fine-tuning the release threshold (i.e., the gating node), rather than speaking without fear (at its root of this approach-avoidance mechanism). I think it's important to understand that the amygdala is not a single “fear button” but more as a salience / gating node that biases downstream motor and autonomic systems. “Tuning down” its sensitivity means either (A) changing the inputs that trigger it, (B) changing how it responds to those inputs, or (C) strengthening downstream circuits so the amygdala’s influence no longer blocks useful actions. Below are approaches that map to those three options. 1) Conditioning approach: Pavlovian retraining - graded exposure & desensitization What: Systematically expose the person to the cues that trigger amygdala responses in a controlled, graduated way while preventing the excessive error-avoidance response. Argument: Repeated safe exposures WEAKENS associative strength between cue and threat response (extinction), lowering automatic amygdala reactivity and conditioned suppression of motor plans. 2) Prediction-error, reconsolidation updating Present a brief reactivation of the cue and immediately provide new, corrective information or experience that violates the expected aversive outcome. How it tunes the amygdala: Memory reconsolidation window permit updating of the cue–value association so the amygdala learns the cue no longer predicts threat. 3) Cognitive reappraisal & attentional retraining Reinterpret social cues (reappraisal) or reallocate attention away from threat-predicting (attention-bias modification). 4) Social/contextual modifications & safety learning Maximize unambiguous “safety” signals. Then gradually vary context. How it tunes the amygdala: Promotes generalization of extinction/safety learning and reduces context-bound relapse. \~\~ And dozens and dozens of other interventions. So a stutter cycle could look like: 1. subconscious brain reacts to nonconscious cues (ultimate.ly linked to a fear of social rejection, but we often do not feel it - however, the subconscious brain still evaluates it as a problem and reacts to it) 2. evaluating the cue as a problem to be avoided 3. if the subconscious brain then excessivelly relies on the need to avoid this error - to execute speech (i.e., a certain level of stimuli has not yet matched with the self-imposed execution threshold) 4. failure of the speech motor program occurs 5. outward manifestations: stuttering-like disfluencies (in response to this underlying protective regulatory mechanism) \~\~ From a theoretical viewpoint, if we successfully address one of the phases (or steps) in the stutter cycle - fluency could be achieved. For example: Many PWS might speak fluently when doing choral reading -- I argue that in this case, they inadvertently sucessfully addressed the "cue evaluation" step. That is, choral reading led to bypassing the cognitive appraisal step. While other PWS might speak (more fluently) when eliminating fear -- eg. their brain evaluates 'stuttering or speaking' (a stimulus), not as fearful anymore. The negative downside of this is: Reducing fear actually doesn't result in fine-tuning the release threshold or excessive error-avoidance response. Because "reducing fear" is in itself an error-avoidance response, understand? In other words, reducing fear is an error-avoidance response i.e,. which I consider controlled fluency. In contrast to controlled fluency is subconscious fluency - where we maintain the fear instead (rather than needing to reduce it). Instead, this third approach is about successfully targeting the "needs to execute speech" (by replacing them with a helpful or rather, a required intervention - that non-stutterers also DO). Pros: This targets the excessive error-avoidance response, and fine-tunes the release threshold, so that we execute the speech plan even with fear, anticipation, tension, being out of breath and not calm (etc). Conclusion: So while there may be many ways towards stuttering remission; one could argue that some ways are more prone to relapse (because the underlying protective, regulatory mechanism) has not yet been effectively addressed. Can you resonate with this? \~\~ Your thoughts?