Greta M Sjolie1, Megan C Leece1, Jonathan L Preston2. 1. Department of Communication Sciences & Disorders, Syracuse University, 621 Skytop Rd., Suite 1200, Syracuse, NY 13244, United States. 2. Department of Communication Sciences & Disorders, Syracuse University, 621 Skytop Rd., Suite 1200, Syracuse, NY 13244, United States; Haskins Laboratories, New Haven, CT, USA. Electronic address: jopresto@syr.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose was to provide a preliminary within-participant comparison of speech therapy with and without exposure to ultrasound visual feedback for postvocalic rhotics (/r/- colored vowels). Effects of the two treatments on acquisition, retention, and generalization were explored. It was hypothesized that treatment with ultrasound would facilitate acquisition but hinder retention and generalization. METHODS: A single subject randomized block design was replicated across four American English-speaking participants ages 7-9 years. Each participant was trained on postvocalic /r/. Each week for seven weeks, one session with ultrasound visual feedback and one session with no ultrasound were randomly ordered. A Training Probe and Generalization Probe were used to measure acquisition within each session as well as retention and generalization between two consecutive sessions. Graphical displays of the data, effect size calculation, and statistical results from a randomization test were used to analyze the results. RESULTS: Two participants showed essentially no evidence of acquisition, retention or generalization of rhotics (<5%). Of the two who showed evidence of acquisition, one participant showed a significant advantage and large effect size for ultrasound sessions over no ultrasound sessions in acquisition of rhotics. However, no participants showed differences between treatment conditions in generalization or retention of rhotics. CONCLUSION: For some children, acquisition may be facilitated by ultrasound visual feedback. Ultrasound visual feedback neither inhibited nor facilitated retention or generalization of rhotics. As a whole, the 14 treatment sessions (7 with ultrasound and 7 without) were effective for 2 of the 4 participants when comparing pre/post generalization scores. Future studies should evaluate the effectiveness of ultrasound visual feedback given a larger dose and differing age groups.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The purpose was to provide a preliminary within-participant comparison of speech therapy with and without exposure to ultrasound visual feedback for postvocalic rhotics (/r/- colored vowels). Effects of the two treatments on acquisition, retention, and generalization were explored. It was hypothesized that treatment with ultrasound would facilitate acquisition but hinder retention and generalization. METHODS: A single subject randomized block design was replicated across four American English-speaking participants ages 7-9 years. Each participant was trained on postvocalic /r/. Each week for seven weeks, one session with ultrasound visual feedback and one session with no ultrasound were randomly ordered. A Training Probe and Generalization Probe were used to measure acquisition within each session as well as retention and generalization between two consecutive sessions. Graphical displays of the data, effect size calculation, and statistical results from a randomization test were used to analyze the results. RESULTS: Two participants showed essentially no evidence of acquisition, retention or generalization of rhotics (<5%). Of the two who showed evidence of acquisition, one participant showed a significant advantage and large effect size for ultrasound sessions over no ultrasound sessions in acquisition of rhotics. However, no participants showed differences between treatment conditions in generalization or retention of rhotics. CONCLUSION: For some children, acquisition may be facilitated by ultrasound visual feedback. Ultrasound visual feedback neither inhibited nor facilitated retention or generalization of rhotics. As a whole, the 14 treatment sessions (7 with ultrasound and 7 without) were effective for 2 of the 4 participants when comparing pre/post generalization scores. Future studies should evaluate the effectiveness of ultrasound visual feedback given a larger dose and differing age groups.
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: Lawrence D Shriberg; Edythe A Strand; Marios Fourakis; Kathy J Jakielski; Sheryl D Hall; Heather B Karlsson; Heather L Mabie; Jane L McSweeny; Christie M Tilkens; David L Wilson Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2017-04-14 Impact factor: 2.297
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
Authors: Sarah Dugan; Sarah R Li; Jack Masterson; Hannah Woeste; Neeraja Mahalingam; Caroline Spencer; T Douglas Mast; Michael A Riley; Suzanne E Boyce Journal: Perspect ASHA Spec Interest Groups Date: 2019-12