Dataset Information

Retroflex versus bunched in treatment for rhotic misarticulation: evidence from ultrasound biofeedback intervention.

ABSTRACT: To document the efficacy of ultrasound biofeedback treatment for misarticulation of the North American English rhotic in children. Because of limited progress in the first cohort, a series of two closely related studies was conducted in place of a single study. The studies differed primarily in the nature of tongue-shape targets (e.g., retroflex, bunched) cued during treatment.Eight participants received 8 weeks of individual ultrasound biofeedback treatment targeting rhotics. In Study 1, all 4 participants were cued to match a bunched tongue-shape target. In Study 2, participants received individualized cues aimed at eliciting the tongue shape most facilitative of perceptually correct rhotics.Participants in Study 1 showed only minimal treatment effects. In Study 2, all participants demonstrated improved production of rhotics in untreated words produced without biofeedback, with large to very large effect sizes.The results of Study 2 indicate that with proper parameters of treatment, ultrasound biofeedback can be a highly effective intervention for children with persistent rhotic errors. In addition, qualitative comparison of Studies 1 and 2 suggests that treatment for the North American English rhotic should include opportunities to explore different tongue shapes, to find the most facilitative variant for each individual speaker.

SUBMITTER: Byun TM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4294189 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Retroflex versus bunched in treatment for rhotic misarticulation: evidence from ultrasound biofeedback intervention.

Byun Tara McAllister TM Hitchcock Elaine R ER Swartz Michelle T MT

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

<h4>Purpose</h4>To document the efficacy of ultrasound biofeedback treatment for misarticulation of the North American English rhotic in children. Because of limited progress in the first cohort, a series of two closely related studies was conducted in place of a single study. The studies differed primarily in the nature of tongue-shape targets (e.g., retroflex, bunched) cued during treatment.<h4>Method</h4>Eight participants received 8 weeks of individual ultrasound biofeedback treatment target ...[more]

PMID: 25088034

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundBiofeedback is increasingly used to treat clinical conditions in a wide range of settings; however, evidence supporting its use remains unclear. The purpose of this evidence map is to illustrate the conditions supported by controlled trials, those that are not, and those in need of more research.MethodsWe searched multiple data sources (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, and EBM Reviews through September 2018) for good-quality systematic reviews examining biofeedback for clinical conditions. We included the highest quality, most recent review representing each condition and included only controlled trials from those reviews. We relied on quality ratings reported in included reviews. Outcomes of interest were condition-specific, secondary, and global health outcomes, and harms. For each review, we computed confidence ratings and categorized reported findings as no effect, unclear, or insufficient; evidence of a potential positive effect; or evidence of a positive effect. We present our findings in the form of evidence maps.ResultsWe included 16 good-quality systematic reviews examining biofeedback alone or as an adjunctive intervention. We found clear, consistent evidence across a large number of trials that biofeedback can reduce headache pain and can provide benefit as adjunctive therapy to men experiencing urinary incontinence after a prostatectomy. Consistent evidence across fewer trials suggests biofeedback may improve fecal incontinence and stroke recovery. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about effects for most conditions including bruxism, labor pain, and Raynaud's. Biofeedback was not beneficial for urinary incontinence in women, nor for hypertension management, but these conclusions are limited by small sample sizes and methodologic limitations of these studies.DiscussionAvailable evidence suggests that biofeedback is effective for improving urinary incontinence after prostatectomy and headache, and may provide benefit for fecal incontinence and balance and stroke recovery. Further controlled trials across a wide range of conditions are indicated.

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.

Dataset Information

Retroflex versus bunched in treatment for rhotic misarticulation: evidence from ultrasound biofeedback intervention.

Publications

Retroflex versus bunched in treatment for rhotic misarticulation: evidence from ultrasound biofeedback intervention.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets