Jarrad H Van Stan1, Daryush D Mehta2, Robert J Petit3, Dagmar Sternad4, Jason Muise5, James A Burns6, Robert E Hillman2. 1. Massachusetts General Hospital, BostonMGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, MA. 2. Massachusetts General Hospital, BostonMGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, MAHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 3. Independent Scholar, Boston, MA. 4. Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 5. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. 6. Massachusetts General Hospital, BostonHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Ambulatory voice biofeedback (AVB) has the potential to significantly improve voice therapy effectiveness by targeting one of the most challenging aspects of rehabilitation: carryover of desired behaviors outside of the therapy session. Although initial evidence indicates that AVB can alter vocal behavior in daily life, retention of the new behavior after biofeedback has not been demonstrated. Motor learning studies repeatedly have shown retention-related benefits when reducing feedback frequency or providing summary statistics. Therefore, novel AVB settings that are based on these concepts are developed and implemented. METHOD: The underlying theoretical framework and resultant implementation of innovative AVB settings on a smartphone-based voice monitor are described. A clinical case study demonstrates the functionality of the new relative frequency feedback capabilities. RESULTS: With new technical capabilities, 2 aspects of feedback are directly modifiable for AVB: relative frequency and summary feedback. Although reduced-frequency AVB was associated with improved carryover of a therapeutic vocal behavior (i.e., reduced vocal intensity) in a patient post-excision of vocal fold nodules, causation cannot be assumed. CONCLUSIONS: Timing and frequency of AVB schedules can be manipulated to empirically assess generalization of motor learning principles to vocal behavior modification and test the clinical effectiveness of AVB with various feedback schedules.
PURPOSE: Ambulatory voice biofeedback (AVB) has the potential to significantly improve voice therapy effectiveness by targeting one of the most challenging aspects of rehabilitation: carryover of desired behaviors outside of the therapy session. Although initial evidence indicates that AVB can alter vocal behavior in daily life, retention of the new behavior after biofeedback has not been demonstrated. Motor learning studies repeatedly have shown retention-related benefits when reducing feedback frequency or providing summary statistics. Therefore, novel AVB settings that are based on these concepts are developed and implemented. METHOD: The underlying theoretical framework and resultant implementation of innovative AVB settings on a smartphone-based voice monitor are described. A clinical case study demonstrates the functionality of the new relative frequency feedback capabilities. RESULTS: With new technical capabilities, 2 aspects of feedback are directly modifiable for AVB: relative frequency and summary feedback. Although reduced-frequency AVB was associated with improved carryover of a therapeutic vocal behavior (i.e., reduced vocal intensity) in a patient post-excision of vocal fold nodules, causation cannot be assumed. CONCLUSIONS: Timing and frequency of AVB schedules can be manipulated to empirically assess generalization of motor learning principles to vocal behavior modification and test the clinical effectiveness of AVB with various feedback schedules.
Authors: Jarrad H Van Stan; Daryush D Mehta; Steven M Zeitels; James A Burns; Anca M Barbu; Robert E Hillman Journal: Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Date: 2015-05-29 Impact factor: 1.547
Authors: Carla A Brandon; Clark Rosen; George Georgelis; Michael J Horton; Mark P Mooney; James J Sciote Journal: J Voice Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 2.009
Authors: Shannon N Austermann Hula; Donald A Robin; Edwin Maas; Kirrie J Ballard; Richard A Schmidt Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2008-08-26 Impact factor: 2.297
Authors: Jarrad H Van Stan; Se-Woong Park; Matthew Jarvis; Daryush D Mehta; Robert E Hillman; Dagmar Sternad Journal: J Acoust Soc Am Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 1.840
Authors: Jarrad H Van Stan; Daryush D Mehta; Dagmar Sternad; Robert Petit; Robert E Hillman Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2017-04-14 Impact factor: 2.297
Authors: Jarrad H Van Stan; Andrew J Ortiz; Dagmar Sternad; Daryush D Mehta; Chuanbing Huo; Robert E Hillman Journal: Am J Speech Lang Pathol Date: 2021-11-29 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Katherine L Marks; Alessandra Verdi; Laura E Toles; Kaila L Stipancic; Andrew J Ortiz; Robert E Hillman; Daryush D Mehta Journal: Am J Speech Lang Pathol Date: 2021-10-19 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Jarrad H Van Stan; Marc Maffei; Maria Lúcia Vaz Masson; Daryush D Mehta; James A Burns; Robert E Hillman Journal: Am J Speech Lang Pathol Date: 2017-11-08 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Samantha Kridgen; Robert E Hillman; Tara Stadelman-Cohen; Steven Zeitels; James A Burns; Tiffiny Hron; Carol Krusemark; Jason Muise; Jarrad H Van Stan Journal: Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Date: 2020-09-10 Impact factor: 1.547