TY - JOUR
T1 - Remediating residual rhotic errors with traditional and ultrasound-enhanced treatment
T2 - A single-case experimental study
AU - Preston, Jonathan L.
AU - McAllister, Tara
AU - Phillips, Emily
AU - Boyce, Suzanne
AU - Tiede, Mark
AU - Kim, Jackie Sihyun
AU - Whalen, Douglas H.
N1 - Funding Information:
Research reported in this publication was supported by National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Award R01DC013668 (D. Whalen, PI). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The authors thank Jose Ortiz, Daphna Harel, Alyssa Skibo, Olivia Harold, and Heena Damania for assistance and the Siemens Corporation for loaning an ultrasound for use in this study.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 American 1000 Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
PY - 2019/8
Y1 - 2019/8
N2 - Purpose: The aim of the study was to examine how ultrasound visual feedback (UVF) treatment impacts speech sound learning in children with residual speech errors affecting /r{turned}/. Method: Twelve children, ages 9-14 years, received treatment for vocalic /r{turned}/ errors in a multiple-baseline across-subjects design comparing 8 sessions of UVF treatment and 8 sessions of traditional (no-biofeedback) treatment. All participants were exposed to both treatment conditions, with order counterbalanced across participants. To monitor progress, naïve listeners rated the accuracy of vocalic /r{turned}/ in untreated words. Results: After the first 8 sessions, children who received UVF were judged to produce more accurate vocalic /r{turned}/ than those who received traditional treatment. After the second 8 sessions, within-participant comparisons revealed individual variation in treatment response. However, group-level comparisons revealed greater accuracy in children whose treatment order was UVF followed by traditional treatment versus children who received the reverse treatment order. Conclusion: On average, 8 sessions of UVF were more effective than 8 sessions of traditional treatment for remediating vocalic /r{turned}/ errors. Better outcomes were also observed when UVF was provided in the early rather than later stages of learning. However, there remains a significant individual variation in response to UVF and traditional treatment, and larger group-level studies are needed.
AB - Purpose: The aim of the study was to examine how ultrasound visual feedback (UVF) treatment impacts speech sound learning in children with residual speech errors affecting /r{turned}/. Method: Twelve children, ages 9-14 years, received treatment for vocalic /r{turned}/ errors in a multiple-baseline across-subjects design comparing 8 sessions of UVF treatment and 8 sessions of traditional (no-biofeedback) treatment. All participants were exposed to both treatment conditions, with order counterbalanced across participants. To monitor progress, naïve listeners rated the accuracy of vocalic /r{turned}/ in untreated words. Results: After the first 8 sessions, children who received UVF were judged to produce more accurate vocalic /r{turned}/ than those who received traditional treatment. After the second 8 sessions, within-participant comparisons revealed individual variation in treatment response. However, group-level comparisons revealed greater accuracy in children whose treatment order was UVF followed by traditional treatment versus children who received the reverse treatment order. Conclusion: On average, 8 sessions of UVF were more effective than 8 sessions of traditional treatment for remediating vocalic /r{turned}/ errors. Better outcomes were also observed when UVF was provided in the early rather than later stages of learning. However, there remains a significant individual variation in response to UVF and traditional treatment, and larger group-level studies are needed.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85071349054&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85071349054&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1044/2019_AJSLP-18-0261
DO - 10.1044/2019_AJSLP-18-0261
M3 - Article
C2 - 31170355
AN - SCOPUS:85071349054
SN - 1058-0360
VL - 28
SP - 1167
EP - 1183
JO - American journal of speech-language pathology
JF - American journal of speech-language pathology
IS - 3
ER -