ArticleAphasiology2022
Contribution of acoustic analysis to the detection of vocoid epenthesis in apraxia of speech and other motor speech disorders.
Article in Aphasiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Vocoid epenthesis within consonant clusters has been claimed to contribute to the diagnosis of apraxia of speech. In clinical practice, the clinicians often doubt about the correct production of clusters as the C-C transition may be minimally disrupted. Aims: To demonstrate the value of acoustic analysis in clinical practice as a reliable complement to perceptive judgment. Methods & Procedures: We compared the acoustic signature and the perceptive detection of vocoid epentheses in unvoiced consonant clusters within pseudo-words produced by 40 participants presenting different subtypes of motor speech disorders (including apraxia of speech (AoS) and dysarthria) and matched neurotypical controls. Outcomes & Results: The results indicate that vocoid epenthesis was acoustically visible in 3 out of 10 participants with AoS, and in one out of 30 participants with dysarthria. One-quarter of these vocoid epentheses was not detected via auditory perception by expert listeners (speech and language therapists) who also made false detections. Conclusions: The current results indicate that vocoid epenthesis is not systematic at least in mild AoS. Moreover, an important proportion is misdetected by ear, even by expert clinicians, meaning that visualisation of the acoustic signal can be of precious help.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.