Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27296780›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of language & communication disorders2017

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

Jonathan L Preston, Megan C Leece, Edwin Maas

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of language & communication disorders, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03736213 phase1completednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Correcting Residual Errors With Spectral, Ultrasound, and Traditional Speech Therapy: Delineation of Sensorimotor Subtypes

TypeinterventionalSponsorNew York UniversityRan2019 to 2022Enrolled7ConditionsSpeech Sound DisorderArmsVisual-acoustic biofeedback, Ultrasound biofeedback
NCT03737318 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Correcting Residual Errors With Spectral, Ultrasound, and Traditional Speech Therapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorNew York UniversityRan2019 to 2024Enrolled108ConditionsSpeech Sound DisorderArmsBiofeedback-ultrasound, Biofeedback--visual-acoustic, Traditional articulation treatment
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Interventions for childhood apraxia of speech.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Tutorial: Motor-Based Treatment Strategies for /r/ Distortions.Language, speech, and hearing services in schools · 2020
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jonathan L PrestonDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY and Haskins Laboratories, New Haven, CT, USA.
Megan C LeeceSyracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA.
Edwin MaasTemple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Funding

Ultrasound Biofeedback for Therapy-Resistant Speech Sound Disorders in ChildrenR03DC013152 · NIDCD · SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY · PI PRESTON, JONATHAN · 2013 to 2015
$497k
NIDCD NIH HHS R03 DC013152
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere 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 r-family 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.

aimsAlthough prior studies have shown that children with RSSEs acquire rhotics and generalize to untrained words with ultrasound visual feedback treatment, predictions from schema-based motor learning theory suggest that visual feedback might impede generalization. Therefore, the primary aim was to compare the generalization of rhotics treated with and without ultrasound in children with RSSEs. METHODS & PROCEDURES: Twelve children aged 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 7 h-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 &

resultsOn average, both treatments resulted in an 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 responded well to both interventions, and some responded minimally to both interventions. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: Motor-based treatment with and without ultrasound visual feedback of the tongue may aid in speech-sound acquisition for children with RSSEs. Both approaches may be viable options for some children. Future research is necessary to determine which children are the best candidates for interventions with and without ultrasound visual feedback.

Indexed as

Feedback, SensoryUltrasonographyAdolescentChildFemaleHumansKnowledge of Results, PsychologicalMaleOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CareSpeech Production MeasurementSpeech Sound DisorderSpeech TherapyTonguemotor learningresidual speech-sound errorsrhoticsultrasound

Identifiers

PMID27296780
PMCPMC5156595

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.