Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35254181›Full record

ArticleClinical linguistics & phonetics2023

Classification of accurate and misarticulated /

Sarah R Li, Sarah Dugan, Jack Masterson, Hannah Hudepohl, Colin Annand, Caroline Spencer, Renee Seward, Michael A Riley, Suzanne Boyce, T Douglas Mast

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical linguistics & phonetics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sarah R LiBiomedical Engineering, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8026-3414
Sarah DuganRehabilitation, Exercise, and Nutrition Sciences, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1063-7422
Jack MastersonBiomedical Engineering, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Hannah HudepohlBiomedical Engineering, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Colin AnnandThe Complexity Group, Department of Psychology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4730-1674
Caroline SpencerCommunication Sciences and Disorders, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6209-9518
Renee SewardDesign, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Michael A RileyRehabilitation, Exercise, and Nutrition Sciences, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3632-204X
Suzanne BoyceCommunication Sciences and Disorders, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2105-2486
T Douglas MastBiomedical Engineering, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5963-7335
University of Cincinnati · US

Funding

Improving clinical speech remediation with ultrasound technologyR01DC013668 · NIDCD · CUNY GRADUATE SCH AND UNIV CTR · PI BOYCE, SUZANNE ELIZABETH, WHALEN, DOUGLAS H · 2014 to 2018
$3.4M
Simplified Ultrasound Biofeedback for Speech RemediationR01DC017301 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI · PI BOYCE, SUZANNE ELIZABETH, MAST, T DOUGLAS · 2018 to 2022
$2.6M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC013668NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC017301
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ultrasound biofeedback therapy (UBT), which incorporates real-time imaging of tongue articulation, has demonstrated generally positive speech remediation outcomes for individuals with residual speech sound disorder (RSSD). However, UBT requires high attentional demands and may therefore benefit from a simplified display of articulation targets that are easily interpretable and can be compared to real-time articulation. Identifying such targets requires automatic quantification and analysis of movement features relevant to accurate speech production. Our image-analysis program TonguePART automatically quantifies tongue movement as tongue part displacement trajectories from midsagittal ultrasound videos of the tongue, with real-time capability. The present study uses such displacement trajectories to compare accurate and misarticulated American-English rhotic /ɑr/ productions from 40 children, with degree of accuracy determined by auditory perceptual ratings. To identify relevant features of accurate articulation, support vector machine (SVM) classifiers were trained and evaluated on several candidate data representations. Classification accuracy was up to 85%, indicating that quantification of tongue part displacement trajectories captured tongue articulation characteristics that distinguish accurate from misarticulated production of /ɑr/. Regression models for perceptual ratings were also compared. The simplest data representation that retained high predictive ability, demonstrated by high classification accuracy and strong correlation between observed and predicted ratings, was displacements at the midpoint of /r/ relative to /ɑ/ for the tongue dorsum and blade. This indicates that movements of the dorsum and blade are especially relevant to accurate production of /r/, suggesting that a predictive parameter and biofeedback target based on this data representation may be usable for simplified UBT.

Indexed as

Articulation DisordersSpeech Sound DisorderBiofeedback, PsychologyChildHumansPhoneticsSpeechTongueUltrasonographyarticulation errorschild speechrhoticstongueUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID35254181
PMCPMC9448831
OpenAlexW4220898184

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.