TY - JOUR
T1 - Baseline Stimulability Predicts Patterns of Response to Traditional and Ultrasound Biofeedback Treatment for Residual Speech Sound Disorder
AU - McAllister, Tara
AU - Eads, Amanda
AU - Kabakoff, Heather
AU - Scott, Marc
AU - Boyce, Suzanne
AU - Whalen, D. H.
AU - Preston, Jonathan L.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
PY - 2022/8
Y1 - 2022/8
N2 - Purpose: This 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. Method: Thirty-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. Results: All 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. Conclusions: This 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.
AB - Purpose: This 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. Method: Thirty-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. Results: All 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. Conclusions: This 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85136006368&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85136006368&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1044/2022_JSLHR-22-00161
DO - 10.1044/2022_JSLHR-22-00161
M3 - Article
C2 - 35944047
AN - SCOPUS:85136006368
SN - 1092-4388
VL - 65
SP - 2860
EP - 2880
JO - Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
JF - Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
IS - 8
ER -