Back

Why Speech Motor Blocks Emerge in a Communicative Context: An Active Inference Model of Stuttering

Demirel, B.; Parr, T.; Saleh, Y.; Jackson, E. S.; Denison, T.; Manohar, S. G.

2026-08-21 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.08.17.745328 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Adults who stutter can speak fluently when speech is not addressed to another person, but stuttering emerges when they aim to convey information to a listener. The value of the information being conveyed to the listener also affects the likelihood of stuttering. Why should the mere absence of a listener neutralise a profound motor deficit, and why does a word's predictability affect whether it is spoken fluently? To resolve this socio-motor paradox, we develop a computational model of stuttering within an active inference architecture. The model represents the communicative context, including whether a listener is present and whether the agent is speaking or listening. It was designed around two candidate mechanisms for stuttering, a prior for silence and rigid phoneme sequencing precision. Using both, the model produced fluent private speech and more stuttering-like events during social speech. In the same parameter regime, the model also showed more stuttering-like events on words with higher information value, and produced a word-length effect, in which disfluency increased with longer words. To our knowledge, this is the first model of stuttering to generate both the private speech and the information-value effect from inferred communicative context. By representing the listener as a hidden state that makes the sensory consequences of resuming speech ambiguous, the model offers a computational link between social cognition and speech-motor instability, and suggests that speech fluency depends on whether the speaker believes anyone is present. Clinically, it may offer testable hypotheses and a route to personalising treatment, since the same overt severity can arise from different combinations of parameters.

Matching journals

The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.