Literature DB >> 34232693

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

Nina R Benway1, Elaine R Hitchcock2, Tara McAllister3, Graham Tomkins Feeny3, Jennifer Hill4, Jonathan L Preston1.   

Abstract

Purpose Research comparing different biofeedback types could lead to individualized treatments for those with residual speech errors. This study examines within-treatment response to ultrasound and visual-acoustic biofeedback, as well as generalization to untrained words, for errors affecting the American English rhotic /ɹ/. We investigated whether some children demonstrated greater improvement in /ɹ/ during ultrasound or visual-acoustic biofeedback. Each participant received both biofeedback types. Individual predictors of treatment response (i.e., age, auditory-perceptual skill, oral somatosensory skill, and growth mindset) were also explored. Method Seven children ages 9-16 years with residual rhotic errors participated in 10 treatment visits. Each visit consisted of two conditions: 45 min of ultrasound biofeedback and 45 min of visual-acoustic biofeedback. The order of biofeedback conditions was randomized within a single-case experimental design. Acquisition of /ɹ/ was evaluated through acoustic measurements (normalized F3-F2 difference) of selected nonbiofeedback productions during practice. Generalization of /ɹ/ was evaluated through acoustic measurements and perceptual ratings of pretreatment/posttreatment probes. Results Five participants demonstrated acquisition of practiced words during the combined treatment package. Three participants demonstrated a clinically significant degree of generalization to untreated words on posttreatment probes. Randomization tests indicated one participant demonstrated a significant advantage for visual-acoustic over ultrasound biofeedback. Participants' auditory-perceptual acuity on an /ɹ/-/w/ identification task was identified as a possible correlate of generalization following treatment. Conclusions Most participants did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in acoustic productions between the ultrasound and visual-acoustic conditions, but one participant showed greater improvement in /ɹ/ during visual-acoustic biofeedback. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.14881101.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34232693      PMCID: PMC8702873          DOI: 10.1044/2021_AJSLP-20-00216

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


  55 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

Review 2.  Emergence and Prevalence of Persistent and Residual Speech Errors.

Authors:  Peter Flipsen
Journal:  Semin Speech Lang       Date:  2015-10-12       Impact factor: 1.761

3.  Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.

Authors:  Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2008-09-30       Impact factor: 6.317

4.  Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels.

Authors:  J Hillenbrand; L A Getty; M J Clark; K Wheeler
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  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

6.  Motor-based treatment with and without ultrasound feedback for residual speech-sound errors.

Authors:  Jonathan L Preston; Megan C Leece; Edwin Maas
Journal:  Int J Lang Commun Disord       Date:  2016-06-14       Impact factor: 3.020

7.  A comparison of Cohen's Kappa and Gwet's AC1 when calculating inter-rater reliability coefficients: a study conducted with personality disorder samples.

Authors:  Nahathai Wongpakaran; Tinakon Wongpakaran; Danny Wedding; Kilem L Gwet
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2013-04-29       Impact factor: 4.615

8.  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

9.  Perception-production relations in later development of American English rhotics.

Authors:  Tara McAllister Byun; Mark Tiede
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-02-16       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.