Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27973322›Full record

ArticleJournal of communication disorders

Acquisition, retention, and generalization of rhotics with and without ultrasound visual feedback.

Greta M Sjolie, Megan C Leece, Jonathan L Preston

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of communication disorders. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Tongue Part Movement Trajectories for /r/ Using Ultrasound.Perspectives of the ASHA special interest groups · 2019
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Do Participants Report Any Undesired Effects in Ultrasound Speech Therapy?American journal of speech-language pathology · 2018
    Article
  14. Review
  15. 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.

Greta M SjolieDepartment of Communication Sciences & Disorders, Syracuse University, 621 Skytop Rd., Suite 1200, Syracuse, NY 13244, United States.
Megan C LeeceDepartment of Communication Sciences & Disorders, Syracuse University, 621 Skytop Rd., Suite 1200, Syracuse, NY 13244, United States.
Jonathan L PrestonDepartment of Communication Sciences & Disorders, Syracuse University, 621 Skytop Rd., Suite 1200, Syracuse, NY 13244, United States; Haskins Laboratories, New Haven, CT, USA. Electronic address: jopresto@syr.edu.

Funding

Reduction in spread of excitation as predictor multi-channel spectral resolutionR01DC012152 · NIDCD · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI LANDSBERGER, DAVID M · 2012 to 2016
$2.1M
Ultrasound Biofeedback for Therapy-Resistant Speech Sound Disorders in ChildrenR03DC013152 · NIDCD · SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY · PI PRESTON, JONATHAN · 2013 to 2015
$497k
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC012152NIDCD NIH HHS R03 DC013152
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose was to provide a preliminary within-participant comparison of speech therapy with and without exposure to ultrasound visual feedback for postvocalic rhotics (/r/- colored vowels). Effects of the two treatments on acquisition, retention, and generalization were explored. It was hypothesized that treatment with ultrasound would facilitate acquisition but hinder retention and generalization.

methodsA single subject randomized block design was replicated across four American English-speaking participants ages 7-9 years. Each participant was trained on postvocalic /r/. Each week for seven weeks, one session with ultrasound visual feedback and one session with no ultrasound were randomly ordered. A Training Probe and Generalization Probe were used to measure acquisition within each session as well as retention and generalization between two consecutive sessions. Graphical displays of the data, effect size calculation, and statistical results from a randomization test were used to analyze the results.

resultsTwo participants showed essentially no evidence of acquisition, retention or generalization of rhotics (<5%). Of the two who showed evidence of acquisition, one participant showed a significant advantage and large effect size for ultrasound sessions over no ultrasound sessions in acquisition of rhotics. However, no participants showed differences between treatment conditions in generalization or retention of rhotics.

conclusionFor some children, acquisition may be facilitated by ultrasound visual feedback. Ultrasound visual feedback neither inhibited nor facilitated retention or generalization of rhotics. As a whole, the 14 treatment sessions (7 with ultrasound and 7 without) were effective for 2 of the 4 participants when comparing pre/post generalization scores. Future studies should evaluate the effectiveness of ultrasound visual feedback given a larger dose and differing age groups.

Indexed as

RhoticsSpeech sound disordersSpeech therapyUltrasoundVisual feedback

Identifiers

PMID27973322
PMCPMC5392178

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.