Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: The goals were to (a) test the efficacy of a motor-learning-based treatment that includes ultrasound visual feedback for individuals with residual speech sound errors and (b) explore whether the addition of prosodic cueing facilitates speech sound learning.A multiple-baseline, single-subject design was used, replicated across 8 participants. For each participant, 1 sound context was treated with ultrasound plus prosodic cueing for 7 sessions, and another sound context was treated with ultrasound but without prosodic cueing for 7 sessions. Sessions included ultrasound visual feedback as well as non-ultrasound treatment. Word-level probes assessing untreated words were used to evaluate retention and generalization.For most participants, increases in accuracy of target sound contexts at the word level were observed with the treatment program regardless of whether prosodic cueing was included. Generalization between onset singletons and clusters was observed, as was generalization to sentence-level accuracy. There was evidence of retention during posttreatment probes, including at a 2-month follow-up.A motor-based treatment program that includes ultrasound visual feedback can facilitate learning of speech sounds in individuals with residual speech sound errors.

SUBMITTER: Preston JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4272648 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Preston Jonathan L JL McCabe Patricia P Rivera-Campos Ahmed A Whittle Jessica L JL Landry Erik E Maas Edwin E

Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR 20141201 6

<h4>Purpose</h4>The goals were to (a) test the efficacy of a motor-learning-based treatment that includes ultrasound visual feedback for individuals with residual speech sound errors and (b) explore whether the addition of prosodic cueing facilitates speech sound learning.<h4>Method</h4>A multiple-baseline, single-subject design was used, replicated across 8 participants. For each participant, 1 sound context was treated with ultrasound plus prosodic cueing for 7 sessions, and another sound cont ...[more]

PMID: 25087938

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.

Project description:BackgroundSpeech sound disorder in childhood poses a barrier to academic and social participation, with potentially lifelong consequences for educational and occupational outcomes. While most speech errors resolve by the late school-age years, between 2 and 5% of speakers exhibit residual speech errors (RSE) that persist through adolescence or even adulthood. Previous findings from small-scale studies suggest that interventions incorporating visual biofeedback can outperform traditional motor-based treatment approaches for children with RSE, but this question has not been investigated in a well-powered randomized controlled trial.Methods/designThis project, Correcting Residual Errors with Spectral, ULtrasound, Traditional Speech therapy Randomized Controlled Trial (C-RESULTS RCT), aims to treat 110 children in a parallel randomized controlled clinical trial comparing biofeedback and non-biofeedback interventions for RSE affecting the North American English rhotic sound /ɹ/. Eligible children will be American English speakers, aged 9-15 years, who exhibit RSE affecting /ɹ/ but otherwise show typical cognitive-linguistic and hearing abilities. Participants will be randomized, with stratification by site (Syracuse University or Montclair State University) and pre-treatment speech production ability, to receive either a motor-based treatment consistent with current best practices in speech therapy (40% of participants) or treatment incorporating visual biofeedback (60% of participants). Within the biofeedback condition, participants will be assigned in equal numbers to receive biofeedback in the form of a real-time visual display of the acoustic signal of speech or ultrasound imaging of the tongue during speech. The primary outcome measure will assess changes in the acoustics of children's production of /ɹ/ during treatment, while a secondary outcome measure will use blinded listeners to evaluate changes in the perceived accuracy of /ɹ/ production after the completion of all treatment. These measures will allow the treatment conditions to be compared with respect to both efficacy and efficiency.DiscussionBy conducting the first well-powered randomized controlled trial comparing treatment with and without biofeedback, this study aims to provide high-quality evidence to guide treatment decisions for children with RSE.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03737318, November 9, 2018.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets