Literature DB >> 31170355

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

Jonathan L Preston1,2, Tara McAllister3, Emily Phillips2, Suzanne Boyce2,4, Mark Tiede2, Jackie Sihyun Kim5, Douglas H Whalen2,6.   

Abstract

Purpose The aim of the study was to examine how ultrasound visual feedback (UVF) treatment impacts speech sound learning in children with residual speech errors affecting /ɹ/. Method Twelve children, ages 9-14 years, received treatment for vocalic /ɹ/ errors in a multiple-baseline across-subjects design comparing 8 sessions of UVF treatment and 8 sessions of traditional (no-biofeedback) treatment. All participants were exposed to both treatment conditions, with order counterbalanced across participants. To monitor progress, naïve listeners rated the accuracy of vocalic /ɹ/ in untreated words. Results After the first 8 sessions, children who received UVF were judged to produce more accurate vocalic /ɹ/ than those who received traditional treatment. After the second 8 sessions, within-participant comparisons revealed individual variation in treatment response. However, group-level comparisons revealed greater accuracy in children whose treatment order was UVF followed by traditional treatment versus children who received the reverse treatment order. Conclusion On average, 8 sessions of UVF were more effective than 8 sessions of traditional treatment for remediating vocalic /ɹ/ errors. Better outcomes were also observed when UVF was provided in the early rather than later stages of learning. However, there remains a significant individual variation in response to UVF and traditional treatment, and larger group-level studies are needed. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.8206640.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31170355      PMCID: PMC6802922          DOI: 10.1044/2019_AJSLP-18-0261

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Speech Lang Pathol        ISSN: 1058-0360            Impact factor:   2.408


  38 in total

1.  Acoustic modeling of American English /r/.

Authors:  C Y Espy-Wilson; S E Boyce; M Jackson; S Narayanan; A Alwan
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Toward articulatory-acoustic models for liquid approximants based on MRI and EPG data. Part II. The rhotics.

Authors:  A Alwan; S Narayanan; K Haker
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 3.  Evidence for the distinction between "consonantal-/r/" and "vocalic-/r/" in American English.

Authors:  Sarah Lockenvitz; Karrie Kuecker; Martin J Ball
Journal:  Clin Linguist Phon       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.346

4.  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

5.  The relationship between inexperienced listeners' perceptions and acoustic correlates of children's /r/ productions.

Authors:  Harriet B Klein; Maria I Grigos; Tara McAllister Byun; Lisa Davidson
Journal:  Clin Linguist Phon       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 1.346

6.  Perceptual, durational and tongue displacement measures following articulation therapy for rhotic sound errors.

Authors:  Tim Bressmann; Susan Harper; Irina Zhylich; Gajanan V Kulkarni
Journal:  Clin Linguist Phon       Date:  2016-03-16       Impact factor: 1.346

7.  The use of ultrasound in remediation of North American English /r/ in 2 adolescents.

Authors:  Marcy Adler-Bock; Barbara May Bernhardt; Bryan Gick; Penelope Bacsfalvi
Journal:  Am J Speech Lang Pathol       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 2.408

8.  Using ultrasound visual biofeedback to treat persistent primary speech sound disorders.

Authors:  Joanne Cleland; James M Scobbie; Alan A Wrench
Journal:  Clin Linguist Phon       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.346

9.  Ultrasound visual feedback treatment and practice variability for residual speech sound errors.

Authors:  Jonathan L Preston; Patricia McCabe; Ahmed Rivera-Campos; Jessica L Whittle; Erik Landry; Edwin Maas
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 2.297

10.  Differential Effects of Visual-Acoustic Biofeedback Intervention for Residual Speech Errors.

Authors:  Tara McAllister Byun; Heather Campbell
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2016-11-11       Impact factor: 3.169

View more
  6 in total

1.  Individual predictors of response to biofeedback training for second-language production.

Authors:  Joanne Jingwen Li; Samantha Ayala; Daphna Harel; Douglas M Shiller; Tara McAllister
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Computer-assisted challenge point intervention for residual speech errors.

Authors:  Tara McAllister; Elaine R Hitchcock; Jose A Ortiz
Journal:  Perspect ASHA Spec Interest Groups       Date:  2020-12-02

3.  Using Crowdsourced Listeners' Ratings to Measure Speech Changes in Hypokinetic Dysarthria: A Proof-of-Concept Study.

Authors:  Christopher Nightingale; Michelle Swartz; Lorraine Olson Ramig; Tara McAllister
Journal:  Am J Speech Lang Pathol       Date:  2020-04-24       Impact factor: 2.408

4.  Auditory-perceptual acuity in rhotic misarticulation: baseline characteristics and treatment response.

Authors:  Laine Cialdella; Heather Kabakoff; Jonathan Preston; Sarah Dugan; Caroline Spencer; Suzanne Boyce; Mark Tiede; D Whalen; Tara McAllister
Journal:  Clin Linguist Phon       Date:  2020-04-03       Impact factor: 1.346

5.  Comparing Biofeedback Types for Children With Residual /ɹ/ Errors in American English: A Single-Case Randomization Design.

Authors:  Nina R Benway; Elaine R Hitchcock; Tara McAllister; Graham Tomkins Feeny; Jennifer Hill; Jonathan L Preston
Journal:  Am J Speech Lang Pathol       Date:  2021-07-07       Impact factor: 2.408

6.  Protocol for Correcting Residual Errors with Spectral, ULtrasound, Traditional Speech therapy Randomized Controlled Trial (C-RESULTS RCT).

Authors:  Tara McAllister; Jonathan L Preston; Elaine R Hitchcock; Jennifer Hill
Journal:  BMC Pediatr       Date:  2020-02-11       Impact factor: 2.125

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.