Motor-based treatment with and without ultrasound feedback for residual speech-sound errors

Jonathan L. Preston, Megan C. Leece, Edwin Maas
2016 International journal of language and communication disorders  
Background-There is a need to develop effective interventions and to compare the efficacy of different interventions for children with residual speech sound errors (RSSEs). Rhotics (the rfamily of sounds) are frequently in error American English-speaking children with RSSEs and are commonly targeted in treatment. One treatment approach involves the use of ultrasound visual feedback of the tongue. Aims-Although prior studies have shown that children with RSSEs acquire rhotics and generalize to
more » ... trained words with ultrasound visual feedback treatment, predictions from schemabased motor learning theory suggest that visual feedback might impede generalization. Therefore, the primary aim was to compare generalization of rhotics treated with and without ultrasound in children with RSSEs. Methods and Procedures-Twelve children ages 10-16 years with RSSEs affecting rhotics participated in a multiple baseline single case design with two treatment phases. For each participant, rhotics in one syllable position were treated for seven hour long sessions with ultrasound visual feedback and rhotics in a different syllable position were treated without ultrasound in a second treatment phase. The order of treatment conditions was counterbalanced across participants. A treatment framework incorporating the principles of motor learning through chaining procedures was implemented across both treatment phases; thus the primary distinction between conditions was the use of ultrasound visual feedback. Outcomes and Results-On average, both treatments resulted in approximately 30% increase in accuracy of untreated words in seven sessions. However, variability in response suggested some children showed a preferential response to one treatment over another, some children respond well to both interventions, and some responded minimally to both interventions.
doi:10.1111/1460-6984.12259 pmid:27296780 pmcid:PMC5156595 fatcat:zlvibnqgdvc7xdjqs3lmfkc54q