Literature DB >> 33705667

Neuroimaging of the Syllable Repetition Task in Children With Residual Speech Sound Disorder.

Caroline Spencer1, Jennifer Vannest1, Edwin Maas2, Jonathan L Preston3, Erin Redle1, Thomas Maloney4, Suzanne Boyce1.   

Abstract

Purpose This study investigated phonological and speech motor neural networks in children with residual speech sound disorder (RSSD) during an overt Syllable Repetition Task (SRT). Method Sixteen children with RSSD with /ɹ/ errors (6F [female]; ages 8;0-12;6 [years;months]) and 16 children with typically developing speech (TD; 8F; ages 8;5-13;7) completed a functional magnetic resonance imaging experiment. Children performed the SRT ("SRT-Early Sounds") with the phonemes /b, d, m, n, ɑ/ and an adapted version ("SRT-Late Sounds") with the phonemes /ɹ, s, l, tʃ, ɑ/. We compared the functional activation and transcribed production accuracy of the RSSD and TD groups during both conditions. Expected errors were not scored as inaccurate. Results No between-group or within-group differences in repetition accuracy were found on the SRT-Early Sounds or SRT-Late Sounds tasks at any syllable sequence length. On a first-level analysis of the tasks, the TD group showed expected patterns of activation for both the SRT-Early Sounds and SRT-Late Sounds, including activation in the left primary motor cortex, left premotor cortex, bilateral anterior cingulate, bilateral primary auditory cortex, bilateral superior temporal gyrus, and bilateral insula. The RSSD group showed similar activation when correcting for multiple comparisons. In further exploratory analyses, we observed the following subthreshold patterns: (a) On the SRT-Early Sounds, greater activation was found in the left premotor cortex for the RSSD group, while greater activation was found in the left cerebellum for the TD group; (b) on the SRT-Late Sounds, a small area of greater activation was found in the right cerebellum for the RSSD group. No within-group functional differences were observed (SRT-Early Sounds vs. SRT-Late Sounds) for either group. Conclusions Performance was similar between groups, and likewise, we found that functional activation did not differ. Observed functional differences in previous studies may reflect differences in task performance, rather than fundamental differences in neural mechanisms for syllable repetition.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33705667      PMCID: PMC8740709          DOI: 10.1044/2020_JSLHR-20-00269

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


  57 in total

1.  Towards a functional neuroanatomy of speech perception.

Authors: 
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 20.229

2.  Relations between the neural bases of dynamic auditory processing and phonological processing: evidence from fMRI.

Authors:  R A Poldrack; E Temple; A Protopapas; S Nagarajan; P Tallal; M Merzenich; J D Gabrieli
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2001-07-01       Impact factor: 3.225

3.  Functional neuroanatomical differences between adults and school-age children in the processing of single words.

Authors:  Bradley L Schlaggar; Timothy T Brown; Heather M Lugar; Kristina M Visscher; Francis M Miezin; Steven E Petersen
Journal:  Science       Date:  2002-05-24       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Event-related fMRI technique for auditory processing with hemodynamics unrelated to acoustic gradient noise.

Authors:  Vincent J Schmithorst; Scott K Holland
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 4.668

5.  Threshold-free cluster enhancement: addressing problems of smoothing, threshold dependence and localisation in cluster inference.

Authors:  Stephen M Smith; Thomas E Nichols
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2008-04-11       Impact factor: 6.556

Review 6.  Cerebellar contributions to speech production and speech perception: psycholinguistic and neurobiological perspectives.

Authors:  Hermann Ackermann
Journal:  Trends Neurosci       Date:  2008-05-09       Impact factor: 13.837

7.  Working memory in school-age children with and without a persistent speech sound disorder.

Authors:  Kelly Farquharson; Tiffany P Hogan; John E Bernthal
Journal:  Int J Speech Lang Pathol       Date:  2017-03-17       Impact factor: 2.484

8.  Subtyping Children With Speech Sound Disorders by Endophenotypes.

Authors:  Barbara A Lewis; Allison A Avrich; Lisa A Freebairn; H Gerry Taylor; Sudha K Iyengar; Catherine M Stein
Journal:  Top Lang Disord       Date:  2011

9.  Altered gray matter volumes in language-associated regions in children with developmental language disorder and speech sound disorder.

Authors:  Florian Kurth; Eileen Luders; Lauren Pigdon; Gina Conti-Ramsden; Sheena Reilly; Angela T Morgan
Journal:  Dev Psychobiol       Date:  2018-08-13       Impact factor: 3.038

10.  Tongue Part Movement Trajectories for /r/ Using Ultrasound.

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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.