PDF herunterladen
Semin Speech Lang 2019; 40(02): 124-137
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1677763
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Speech Sound Disorder and Visual Biofeedback Intervention: A Preliminary Investigation of Treatment Intensity

Elaine R. Hitchcock
1   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Montclair State University, Bloomfield, New Jersey
,
Michelle T. Swartz
1   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Montclair State University, Bloomfield, New Jersey
,
Melissa Lopez
1   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Montclair State University, Bloomfield, New Jersey
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
22. Februar 2019 (online)

    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

A growing body of research suggests that cases of speech sound errors that have not responded to previous intervention can sometimes be eliminated through speech therapy incorporating visual biofeedback. Aside from considerations related to the specific biofeedback type, acquisition and generalization of a motor plan may be linked to treatment intensity. Several researchers have raised the possibility that inadequate dosage levels may present a significant barrier to success. Thus, the current study aimed to assess the relationship between treatment intensity and treatment outcomes. Twenty-nine articles reporting the use of visual biofeedback intervention for speech sound disorder were identified and coded for treatment intensity using the cumulative intervention index and outcomes using mean level difference scores. Findings reveal small but significant relationships between measures of treatment intensity and efficacy, which should be interpreted with caution given the preliminary nature of this review. Further research in this area is necessary, as inconsistencies in reporting intensity and outcomes across studies underscore the need for more systematic terminology and reporting methods.

Keywords

residual speech errors - childhood apraxia of speech - treatment intensity - dose - visual biofeedback

Disclosures

Elaine R. Hitchcock is a recipient of a separately budgeted research grant from Montclair State University. She has no relevant nonfinancial relationships.


Michelle T. Swartz has no relevant financial or nonfinancial relationships to disclose.


Melissa B. Lopez has no relevant financial or nonfinancial relationships to disclose.


 

  • References

  • 1 Shuster L, Ruscello D, Toth A. The use of visual feedback to elicit correct /r/. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 1995; 4 (02) 37-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Gibbon F, Paterson L. A survey of speech and language therapists' views on electropalatography therapy outcomes in Scotland. Child Lang Teach Ther 2006; 22 (03) 275-292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Adler-Bock M, Bernhardt BM, Gick B, Bacsfalvi P. The use of ultrasound in remediation of North American English /r/ in 2 adolescents. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2007; 16 (02) 128-139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bacsfalvi P, Bernhardt B, Gick B. Electropalatography and ultrasound in vowel remediation for adolescents with hearing impairment. Adv Speech Lang Pathol 2007; 9 (01) 36-45
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Byun TM, Hitchcock ER. Investigating the use of traditional and spectral biofeedback approaches to intervention for /r/ misarticulation. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2012; 21 (03) 207-221
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Preston JL, Brick N, Landi N. Ultrasound biofeedback treatment for persisting childhood apraxia of speech. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2013; 22 (04) 627-643
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Byun TM, Hitchcock ER, Swartz MT. Retroflex versus bunched in treatment for rhotic misarticulation: evidence from ultrasound biofeedback intervention. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2014; 57 (06) 2116-2130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Preston JL, McCabe P, Rivera-Campos A, Whittle JL, Landry E, Maas E. Ultrasound visual feedback treatment and practice variability for residual speech sound errors. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2014; 57 (06) 2102-2115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 McAllister Byun T, Campbell H. Differential effects of visual-acoustic biofeedback intervention for residual speech errors. Front Hum Neurosci 2016; 10 (567) 567
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Maas E, Robin DA, Austermann Hula SN. , et al. Principles of motor learning in treatment of motor speech disorders. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2008; 17 (03) 277-298
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Austermann Hula SN, Robin DA, Maas E, Ballard KJ, Schmidt RA. Effects of feedback frequency and timing on acquisition, retention, and transfer of speech skills in acquired apraxia of speech. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2008; 51 (05) 1088-1113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Allen MM. Intervention efficacy and intensity for children with speech sound disorder. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2013; 56 (03) 865-877
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ruscello DM. Visual feedback in treatment of residual phonological disorders. J Commun Disord 1995; 28 (04) 279-302
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Ballard KJ, Robin DA, McCabe P, McDonald J. A treatment for dysprosody in childhood apraxia of speech. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2010; 53 (05) 1227-1245
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 McCormack J, McLeod S, McAllister L, Harrison L. A systematic review of the association between childhood speech impairment and participation across the lifespan. Int J Speech-Language Pathol 2009; 11 (02) 155-170
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hitchcock ER, Harel D, Byun TM. Social, emotional, and academic impact of residual speech errors in school-aged children: a survey study. Semin Speech Lang 2015; 36 (04) 283-294
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Volin R. A relationship between stimulability and the efficacy of visual biofeedback in the training of a respiratory control task. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 1998; 7 (01) 81-90
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 McAllister Byun T, Swartz MT, Halpin PF, Szeredi D, Maas E. Direction of attentional focus in biofeedback treatment for /r/ misarticulation. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2016; 51 (04) 384-401
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Bernhardt MB, Bacsfalvi P, Adler-Bock M. , et al. Ultrasound as visual feedback in speech habilitation: exploring consultative use in rural British Columbia, Canada. Clin Linguist Phon 2008; 22 (02) 149-162
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Fletcher SG, Dagenais PA, Critz-Crosby P. Teaching consonants to profoundly hearing-impaired speakers using palatometry. J Speech Hear Res 1991; 34 (04) 929-942
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hitchcock ER, Byun TM, Swartz M, Lazarus R. Efficacy of electropalatography for treating misarticulation of /r/. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2017; 26 (04) 1141-1158
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Mental R, Carey H, Schreiber N, Barnes A, Lee G, Vick J. Changes in lateralized /s/ production after treatment with opti-speech visual biofeedback. J Acoust Soc Am 2016; 140 (04) 3442
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Vick J, Mental R, Carey H, Schreiber N, Barnes A, Lee G. Plasticity of the internal model for speech sounds: articulatory changes during intensive visual biofeedback treatment. J Acoust Soc Am 2016; 140 (04) 3226
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Warren SF, Fey ME, Yoder PJ. Differential treatment intensity research: a missing link to creating optimally effective communication interventions. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev 2007; 13 (01) 70-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Kleim JA, Jones TA. Principles of experience-dependent neural plasticity: implications for rehabilitation after brain damage. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2008; 51 (01) S225-S239
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Preston JL, Leece MC. Intensive treatment for persisting rhotic distortions: a case series. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2017; 26 (04) 1066-1079
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Preston JL, Leece MC, Maas E. Intensive treatment with ultrasound visual feedback for speech sound errors in childhood apraxia. Front Hum Neurosci 2016; 10 (440) 440
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. ; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62 (10) 1006-1012
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Reuters T. Endnote X7. Philadelphia, PA: Thomson Reuters; 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 30 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Evidence-Based Practice in Communication Disorders: In: Communication Disorders: An Introduction. Rockville: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association; 2004
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Murray E, McCabe P, Ballard KJ. A systematic review of treatment outcomes for children with childhood apraxia of speech. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2014; 23 (03) 486-504
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Parker R, Vannest K, Brown L. The improvement rate difference for single-case research. Except Child 2009; 75 (02) 135-150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 National Institute of Health on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. Apraxia of Speech. Bethesda: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services-National Institutes of Health; 2016. Available at: https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/Documents/health/voice/Apraxia-508.pdf . Accessed January 2, 2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD). National Institutes of Health (NIH). Available at: https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/nih-almanac/national-institute-deafness-other-communication-disorders-nidcd . Published 2018. Accessed December 10, 2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Shriberg L, Potter N, Strand E. Childhood apraxia of speech in children and adolescents with galactosemia. Presentation presented at the 2009 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association National Convention, New Orleans, LA
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Bernhardt B, Gick B, Bacsfalvi P, Ashdown J. Speech habilitation of hard of hearing adolescents using electropalatography and ultrasound as evaluated by trained listeners. Clin Linguist Phon 2003; 17 (03) 199-216
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Carter P, Edwards S. EPG therapy for children with long-standing speech disorders: predictions and outcomes. Clin Linguist Phon 2004; 18 (6-8): 359-372
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Cleland J, Timmins C, Wood SE, Hardcastle WJ, Wishart JG. Electropalatographic therapy for children and young people with Down's syndrome. Clin Linguist Phon 2009; 23 (12) 926-939
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Dent H, Gibbon F, Hardcastle W. Inhibiting an abnormal lingual pattern in a cleft palate child using electropalatography. In: Leahy M, Kallen J. , ed. Interdisciplinary Perspectives in Speech and Language Pathology. Dublin: Trinity College; 1992: 211-221
    Google Scholar
  • 40 Hardcastle WJ, Gibbon FE, Jones W. Visual display of tongue-palate contact: electropalatography in the assessment and remediation of speech disorders. Br J Disord Commun 1991; 26 (01) 41-74
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Preston JL, Maas E, Whittle J, Leece MC, McCabe P. Limited acquisition and generalisation of rhotics with ultrasound visual feedback in childhood apraxia. Clin Linguist Phon 2016; 30 (3-5): 363-381
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Schmidt R, Lee T. Motor Control and Learning: A Behavioral Emphasis. 4th ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2005
    Google Scholar
  • 43 Schooling T, Venediktov R, Leech H. Evidence-Based Systematic Review: Effects of Service Delivery on The Speech and Language Skills of Children from Birth to 5 Years of Age. Rockville: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association; 2010. . Available at: https://www.asha.org/uploadedfiles/ebsr-service-delivery.pdf . Accessed January 2, 2019
    Google Scholar
  • 44 Duhon G, Mesmer E, Atkins M, Greguson L, Olinger E. Quantifying intervention intensity: a systematic approach to evaluating student response to increasing intervention frequency. J Behav Educ 2009; 18 (02) 101-118
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Baker E, McLeod S. Evidence-based practice for children with speech sound disorders: part 1 narrative review. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2011; 42 (02) 102-139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Dagenais P, Critz-Crosby P, Adams J. Defining and remediating persistent lateral lisps in children using electropalatography. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 1994; 3 (03) 67-76
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Gibbon F, Dent H, Hardcastle W. Diagnosis and therapy of abnormal alveolar stops in a speech-disordered child using electropalatography. Clin Linguist Phon 1993; 7 (04) 247-267
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Gibbon F, Hardcastle W, Moore A. Modifying abnormal tongue patterns in an older child using electropalatography. Child Lang Teach Ther 1990; 6 (03) 227-244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Schmidt A. Evaluating a new clinical palatometry system. Adv Speech Lang Pathol 2007; 9: 73-81
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Bressmann T, Harper S, Zhylich I, Kulkarni GV. Perceptual, durational and tongue displacement measures following articulation therapy for rhotic sound errors. Clin Linguist Phon 2016; 30 (3-5): 345-362
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Cleland J, Scobbie JM, Wrench AA. Using ultrasound visual biofeedback to treat persistent primary speech sound disorders. Clin Linguist Phon 2015; 29 (8-10): 575-597
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Heng Q, McCabe P, Clarke J, Preston JL. Using ultrasound visual feedback to remediate velar fronting in preschool children: a pilot study. Clin Linguist Phon 2016; 30 (3-5): 382-397
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Hitchcock ER, Byun TM. Enhancing generalisation in biofeedback intervention using the challenge point framework: a case study. Clin Linguist Phon 2015; 29 (01) 59-75
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Lee S, Wrench A, Sancibrian S. How to get started with ultrasound technology for treatment of speech sound disorders. Perspect Speech Sci Orofac Disord 2015; 25 (02) 66-80
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Modha G, Bernhardt BM, Church R, Bacsfalvi P. Case study using ultrasound to treat /r/. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2008; 43 (03) 323-329
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Preston JL, Leece MC, Maas E. Motor-based treatment with and without ultrasound feedback for residual speech-sound errors. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2017; 52 (01) 80-94
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Preston JL, Leece MC, McNamara K, Maas E. Variable practice to enhance speech learning in ultrasound biofeedback treatment for childhood apraxia of speech: a single case experimental study. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2017; 26 (03) 840-852
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Preston JL, McAllister T, Phillips E. , et al. Treatment for residual rhotic errors with high- and low-frequency ultrasound visual feedback: a single-case experimental design. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2018; 61 (08) 1875-1892
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Shawker TH, Sonies BC. Ultrasound biofeedback for speech training. Instrumentation and preliminary results. Invest Radiol 1985; 20 (01) 90-93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Sjolie GM, Leece MC, Preston JL. Acquisition, retention, and generalization of rhotics with and without ultrasound visual feedback. J Commun Disord 2016; 64: 62-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 McAllister Byun T. Efficacy of visual–acoustic biofeedback intervention for residual rhotic errors: a single-subject randomization study. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2017; 60 (05) 1175-1193
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Byun TM, Campbell H, Carey H, Liang W, Park TH, Svirsky M. Enhancing intervention for residual rhotic errors via app-delivered biofeedback: a case study. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2017; 60 (6S): 1810-1817
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar