Dataset Information

Tutorial: Using Visual-Acoustic Biofeedback for Speech Sound Training.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

This tutorial summarizes current practices using visual-acoustic biofeedback (VAB) treatment to improve speech outcomes for individuals with speech sound difficulties. Clinical strategies will focus on residual distortions of /ɹ/.

Method

Summary evidence related to the characteristics of VAB and the populations that may benefit from this treatment are reviewed. Guidelines are provided for clinicians on how to use VAB with clients to identify and modify their productions to match an acoustic representation. The clinical application of a linear predictive coding spectrum is emphasized.

Results

Successful use of VAB requires several key factors including clinician and client comprehension of the acoustic representation, appropriate acoustic target and template selection, as well as appropriate selection of articulatory strategies, practice schedules, and feedback models to scaffold acquisition of new speech sounds.

Conclusion

Integrating a VAB component in clinical practice offers additional intervention options for individuals with speech sound difficulties and often facilitates improved speech sound acquisition and generalization outcomes.

Supplemental material

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.21817722.

SUBMITTER: Hitchcock ER

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10023147 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Tutorial: Using Visual-Acoustic Biofeedback for Speech Sound Training.

Hitchcock Elaine R ER Ochs Laura C LC Swartz Michelle T MT Leece Megan C MC Preston Jonathan L JL McAllister Tara T

American journal of speech-language pathology 20230109 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>This tutorial summarizes current practices using visual-acoustic biofeedback (VAB) treatment to improve speech outcomes for individuals with speech sound difficulties. Clinical strategies will focus on residual distortions of /ɹ/.<h4>Method</h4>Summary evidence related to the characteristics of VAB and the populations that may benefit from this treatment are reviewed. Guidelines are provided for clinicians on how to use VAB with clients to identify and modify their productions to ...[more]

PMID: 36623212

Similar Datasets

Project description:Recent evidence suggests that the incorporation of visual biofeedback technologies may enhance response to treatment in individuals with residual speech errors. However, there is a need for controlled research systematically comparing biofeedback versus non-biofeedback intervention approaches. This study implemented a single-subject experimental design with a crossover component to investigate the relative efficacy of visual-acoustic biofeedback and traditional articulatory treatment for residual rhotic errors. Eleven child/adolescent participants received ten sessions of visual-acoustic biofeedback and 10 sessions of traditional treatment, with the order of biofeedback and traditional phases counterbalanced across participants. Probe measures eliciting untreated rhotic words were administered in at least three sessions prior to the start of treatment (baseline), between the two treatment phases (midpoint), and after treatment ended (maintenance), as well as before and after each treatment session. Perceptual accuracy of rhotic production was assessed by outside listeners in a blinded, randomized fashion. Results were analyzed using a combination of visual inspection of treatment trajectories, individual effect sizes, and logistic mixed-effects regression. Effect sizes and visual inspection revealed that participants could be divided into categories of strong responders (n = 4), mixed/moderate responders (n = 3), and non-responders (n = 4). Individual results did not reveal a reliable pattern of stronger performance in biofeedback versus traditional blocks, or vice versa. Moreover, biofeedback versus traditional treatment was not a significant predictor of accuracy in the logistic mixed-effects model examining all within-treatment word probes. However, the interaction between treatment condition and treatment order was significant: biofeedback was more effective than traditional treatment in the first phase of treatment, and traditional treatment was more effective than biofeedback in the second phase. This is consistent with existing theory and data suggesting that detailed knowledge of performance feedback is most effective in the early stages of motor learning. Further research is needed to confirm that an initial phase of biofeedback has a facilitative effect, and to determine the optimal duration of biofeedback treatment. In addition, there is a strong need for correlational studies to examine which individuals with residual speech errors are most likely to respond to treatment.

Project description:PurposeThis study aimed to identify predictors of response to treatment for residual speech sound disorder (RSSD) affecting English rhotics. Progress was tracked during an initial phase of traditional motor-based treatment and a longer phase of treatment incorporating ultrasound biofeedback. Based on previous literature, we focused on baseline stimulability and sensory acuity as predictors of interest.MethodThirty-three individuals aged 9-15 years with residual distortions of /ɹ/ received a course of individual intervention comprising 1 week of intensive traditional treatment and 9 weeks of ultrasound biofeedback treatment. Stimulability for /ɹ/ was probed prior to treatment, after the traditional treatment phase, and after the end of all treatment. Accuracy of /ɹ/ production in each probe was assessed with an acoustic measure: normalized third formant (F3)-second formant (F2) distance. Model-based clustering analysis was applied to these acoustic measures to identify different average trajectories of progress over the course of treatment. The resulting clusters were compared with respect to acuity in auditory and somatosensory domains.ResultsAll but four individuals were judged to exhibit a clinically significant response to the combined course of treatment. Two major clusters were identified. The "low stimulability" cluster was characterized by very low accuracy at baseline, minimal response to traditional treatment, and strong response to ultrasound biofeedback. The "high stimulability" group was more accurate at baseline and made significant gains in both traditional and ultrasound biofeedback phases of treatment. The clusters did not differ with respect to sensory acuity.ConclusionsThis research accords with clinical intuition in finding that individuals who are more stimulable at baseline are more likely to respond to traditional intervention, whereas less stimulable individuals may derive greater relative benefit from biofeedback.Supplemental materialhttps://doi.org/10.23641/asha.20422236.

Dataset Information

Tutorial: Using Visual-Acoustic Biofeedback for Speech Sound Training.

Purpose

Method

Results

Conclusion

Supplemental material

Publications

Tutorial: Using Visual-Acoustic Biofeedback for Speech Sound Training.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets