Comment #2: Once stuttering is anticipated, conscious and/or subconscious deviations are initiated to deal with the secondary influence (i.e., the atypical neurological processes that underpin stuttering). Perceivably fluent speech in a PWS does not equate to the absence of reactions and responses to stuttering. Open stuttering (Sisskin) still consists of reactions and responses to stuttering. Modified speech patterns learned in therapy (even when deemed highly successful) still represent reactions and responses to stuttering. Van Der Merwe’s model of speech production: linguistic-symbolic planning, motor planning, motor programming, and execution. Briley hypothesizes that the original disruption that brings about stuttering does not lie in faulty motor plans. A disruption at motor programming would be representative of a realization of stuttering, whereas stuttering anticipated at all previous phases, including prelexical phases, would be representative of a predictive event. Predictions of stuttering made at pre-linguistic and linguistic levels could be associated with learned consequences of the lived experiences of stuttering (Jackson). Stuttering anticipation at the frontolimbic, linguistic-symbolic planning, and motor planning phases would be the result of previous experiences and predictive in nature, whereas anticipation at the phase of motor programming would equate to realization of stuttering. When a sound or word has previously resulted in difficulty for a PWS, predictive anticipation may be triggered. Damasio: an intrinsic association that is paired with the body’s reaction to specific experiences. Specific to anticipation of stuttering, the experience(s) that would be tagged are those sounds and words that result in fluent or stuttered speech which then become associated with either a sense of reward or punishment, respectively. Those with a negative valence tag then become more ingrained with repeated difficulty or diminished with repeated success (Davidow). Similar to sounds and words produced fluently or dysfluently that are assigned a positive or negative valence tag, it is possible that core motor plans can be tagged as ones likely to produce fluent or dysfluent speech (Davidow). This negative valence assigned to these stuttering bound motor plans is the impetus of prediction of stuttering at the phase of motor planning. There is a need for previous experiences of stuttering for predicting stuttering.