Comment #3: **Realization of stuttering at motor programming:** The imprecise or discoordinated signals to muscles would precipitate a realization of stuttering. Learning from previous experiences is not necessary for this internal realization. In time, sounds, words, core motor plans, and eventually, people, places, and situations, associated with stuttering would become associated with stuttering (i.e., learned). **The influence of adapted motor plans on stuttering variability** PWS's ability to engage alternative core motor plans contributes to at least some of a PWS’ perceptually fluent speech. The interpretation to follow differs from Bloodstein’s Anticipatory Struggle Hypothesis, which states that it is anticipation of stuttering that brings about stuttering, in which a PWS impedes their speech based on a belief that difficulty lies ahead. A differing interpretation is that anticipation is not based on a belief that stuttering will occur, but rather, a realization that it is occurring (Jackson). Additionally, techniques taught in speech therapy represent adapted motor plans. For example, Van Riper’s cancellations, pull-outs, and preparatory sets represent ways of implementing new motor plans. Reactive behaviors indicative of adapted motor plans includes adjusting breathing patterns or initiating a swallow, coughing, atypical subglottal air pressure patterns, or adding sounds or words to help initiate voice. Some judgements of anticipation are incorrect. Stuttering is realized in people who stutter even when speech is absent of characteristic stuttering behaviors. Stuttering is a disruption of neurological processes at its root, and the behaviors are reactions and responses to that realization. The presence of stuttering, the internal realization of it, requires a reaction or response. Approach-Avoidance Conflict (Sheehan) states that stuttering behaviors emerge from competing motivations to speak and to not speak. Most would agree that simple repetitions are the preferred reaction, but the presence of a repetition equates to the presence of a block. An intervention may teach how to work through an internally realized moment of stuttering in a predictable manner, and when a less effective reaction has been replaced with a more effective response, it is likely the reflection of treatment success. \~\~\~ **Question**: How exactly can PWS notice (1) a disruption of atypical neurological processes that brings about the central involuntary block, or (2) imprecise or discoordinated signals to muscles, or (3) an internal mismatch in motor programming? **Question**: What is usually the duration of a block in response to realizing stuttering VS predicting stuttering? (my aim is to understand if "realization" stuttering anticipation can also result in 1-minute blocks? I'm assuming they don't, and instead usually reflect millisecond blocks but not longer than 1 second akin to neurogenic SLDs, is this assumption correct?) **Question**: PWS might experience stuttering anticipation associated with cognitive and emotional cues from memory, belief, or prior consequences, or past association. How can PWS anticipate other cues that are NOT thru association with past experiences or beliefs?