PURPOSE: The goals were to (a) test the efficacy of a motor-learning-based treatment that includes ultrasound visual feedback for individuals with residual speech sound errors and (b) explore whether the addition of prosodic cueing facilitates speech sound learning. METHOD: A multiple-baseline, single-subject design was used, replicated across 8 participants. For each participant, 1 sound context was treated with ultrasound plus prosodic cueing for 7 sessions, and another sound context was treated with ultrasound but without prosodic cueing for 7 sessions. Sessions included ultrasound visual feedback as well as non-ultrasound treatment. Word-level probes assessing untreated words were used to evaluate retention and generalization. RESULTS: For most participants, increases in accuracy of target sound contexts at the word level were observed with the treatment program regardless of whether prosodic cueing was included. Generalization between onset singletons and clusters was observed, as was generalization to sentence-level accuracy. There was evidence of retention during posttreatment probes, including at a 2-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: A motor-based treatment program that includes ultrasound visual feedback can facilitate learning of speech sounds in individuals with residual speech sound errors.
PURPOSE: The goals were to (a) test the efficacy of a motor-learning-based treatment that includes ultrasound visual feedback for individuals with residual speech sound errors and (b) explore whether the addition of prosodic cueing facilitates speech sound learning. METHOD: A multiple-baseline, single-subject design was used, replicated across 8 participants. For each participant, 1 sound context was treated with ultrasound plus prosodic cueing for 7 sessions, and another sound context was treated with ultrasound but without prosodic cueing for 7 sessions. Sessions included ultrasound visual feedback as well as non-ultrasound treatment. Word-level probes assessing untreated words were used to evaluate retention and generalization. RESULTS: For most participants, increases in accuracy of target sound contexts at the word level were observed with the treatment program regardless of whether prosodic cueing was included. Generalization between onset singletons and clusters was observed, as was generalization to sentence-level accuracy. There was evidence of retention during posttreatment probes, including at a 2-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: A motor-based treatment program that includes ultrasound visual feedback can facilitate learning of speech sounds in individuals with residual speech sound errors.
Authors: Edwin Maas; Donald A Robin; Shannon N Austermann Hula; Skott E Freedman; Gabriele Wulf; Kirrie J Ballard; Richard A Schmidt Journal: Am J Speech Lang Pathol Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Lawrence D Shriberg; Marios Fourakis; Sheryl D Hall; Heather B Karlsson; Heather L Lohmeier; Jane L McSweeny; Nancy L Potter; Alison R Scheer-Cohen; Edythe A Strand; Christie M Tilkens; David L Wilson Journal: Clin Linguist Phon Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 1.346
Authors: Jonathan L Preston; Tara McAllister; Emily Phillips; Suzanne Boyce; Mark Tiede; Jackie Sihyun Kim; Douglas H Whalen Journal: Am J Speech Lang Pathol Date: 2019-06-06 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Jonathan L Preston; Tara McAllister Byun; Suzanne E Boyce; Sarah Hamilton; Mark Tiede; Emily Phillips; Ahmed Rivera-Campos; Douglas H Whalen Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2017-01-03 Impact factor: 1.355
Authors: Jonathan L Preston; Tara McAllister; Emily Phillips; Suzanne Boyce; Mark Tiede; Jackie S Kim; Douglas H Whalen Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2018-08-08 Impact factor: 2.297