Literature DB >> 25088034

Retroflex versus bunched in treatment for rhotic misarticulation: evidence from ultrasound biofeedback intervention.

Tara McAllister Byun, Elaine R Hitchcock, Michelle T Swartz.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To document the efficacy of ultrasound biofeedback treatment for misarticulation of the North American English rhotic in children. Because of limited progress in the first cohort, a series of two closely related studies was conducted in place of a single study. The studies differed primarily in the nature of tongue-shape targets (e.g., retroflex, bunched) cued during treatment.
METHOD: Eight participants received 8 weeks of individual ultrasound biofeedback treatment targeting rhotics. In Study 1, all 4 participants were cued to match a bunched tongue-shape target. In Study 2, participants received individualized cues aimed at eliciting the tongue shape most facilitative of perceptually correct rhotics.
RESULTS: Participants in Study 1 showed only minimal treatment effects. In Study 2, all participants demonstrated improved production of rhotics in untreated words produced without biofeedback, with large to very large effect sizes.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of Study 2 indicate that with proper parameters of treatment, ultrasound biofeedback can be a highly effective intervention for children with persistent rhotic errors. In addition, qualitative comparison of Studies 1 and 2 suggests that treatment for the North American English rhotic should include opportunities to explore different tongue shapes, to find the most facilitative variant for each individual speaker.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25088034      PMCID: PMC4294189          DOI: 10.1044/2014_JSLHR-S-14-0034

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res        ISSN: 1092-4388            Impact factor:   2.297


  20 in total

1.  Speech habilitation of hard of hearing adolescents using electropalatography and ultrasound as evaluated by trained listeners.

Authors:  Barbara Bernhardt; Bryan Gick; Penelope Bacsfalvi; Julie Ashdown
Journal:  Clin Linguist Phon       Date:  2003 Apr-May       Impact factor: 1.346

Review 2.  A five-phase model for clinical-outcome research.

Authors:  Randall R Robey
Journal:  J Commun Disord       Date:  2004 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.288

3.  Development of [j] in young, midwestern, American children.

Authors:  Richard S McGowan; Susan Nittrouer; Carol J Manning
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 4.  Evaluating single-subject treatment research: lessons learned from the aphasia literature.

Authors:  Pélagie M Beeson; Randall R Robey
Journal:  Neuropsychol Rev       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 7.444

5.  Teaching consonants to profoundly hearing-impaired speakers using palatometry.

Authors:  S G Fletcher; P A Dagenais; P Critz-Crosby
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1991-08

6.  A theoretical investigation of reference frames for the planning of speech movements.

Authors:  F H Guenther; M Hampson; D Johnson
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 8.934

7.  The percentage of consonants correct (PCC) metric: extensions and reliability data.

Authors:  L D Shriberg; D Austin; B A Lewis; J L McSweeny; D L Wilson
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 2.297

8.  Ultrasound biofeedback for speech training. Instrumentation and preliminary results.

Authors:  T H Shawker; B C Sonies
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1985 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 6.016

9.  Visual feedback in treatment of residual phonological disorders.

Authors:  D M Ruscello
Journal:  J Commun Disord       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 2.288

10.  Interallophonic generalization of (r) training.

Authors:  P R Hoffman
Journal:  J Speech Hear Disord       Date:  1983-05
View more
  29 in total

1.  Limited acquisition and generalisation of rhotics with ultrasound visual feedback in childhood apraxia.

Authors:  Jonathan L Preston; Edwin Maas; Jessica Whittle; Megan C Leece; Patricia McCabe
Journal:  Clin Linguist Phon       Date:  2015-08-03       Impact factor: 1.346

2.  Remediating Residual Rhotic Errors With Traditional and Ultrasound-Enhanced Treatment: A Single-Case Experimental Study.

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

3.  Deriving individualised /r/ targets from the acoustics of children's non-rhotic vowels.

Authors:  Heather Campbell; Tara McAllister Byun
Journal:  Clin Linguist Phon       Date:  2017-07-13       Impact factor: 1.346

4.  Ultrasound Images of the Tongue: A Tutorial for Assessment and Remediation of Speech Sound Errors.

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

5.  Acquisition, retention, and generalization of rhotics with and without ultrasound visual feedback.

Authors:  Greta M Sjolie; Megan C Leece; Jonathan L Preston
Journal:  J Commun Disord       Date:  2016-10-14       Impact factor: 2.288

Review 6.  Tutorial: Motor-Based Treatment Strategies for /r/ Distortions.

Authors:  Jonathan L Preston; Nina R Benway; Megan C Leece; Elaine R Hitchcock; Tara McAllister
Journal:  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch       Date:  2020-08-12       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  Do Participants Report Any Undesired Effects in Ultrasound Speech Therapy?

Authors:  Jonathan L Preston; Gabriela Holliman-Lopez; Megan C Leece
Journal:  Am J Speech Lang Pathol       Date:  2018-05-03       Impact factor: 2.408

8.  Treatment for Residual Rhotic Errors With High- and Low-Frequency Ultrasound Visual Feedback: A Single-Case Experimental Design.

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

9.  Auditory Perception and Ultrasound Biofeedback Treatment Outcomes for Children With Residual /ɹ/ Distortions: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Jonathan L Preston; Elaine R Hitchcock; Megan C Leece
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2020-02-26       Impact factor: 2.297

10.  Covert contrast in velar fronting: An acoustic and ultrasound study.

Authors:  Tara McAllister Byun; Adam Buchwald; Ai Mizoguchi
Journal:  Clin Linguist Phon       Date:  2015-09-01       Impact factor: 1.346

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.