Trial reportJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2026
Rhotic Generalization Is More Rapid in Biofeedback Than Motor-Based Treatment for Residual Speech Sound Disorder: Secondary Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2026. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study examined the effects of visual biofeedback approaches and nonbiofeedback motor-based treatment on generalization outcomes following speech therapy for children with residual speech sound disorders (RSSDs).
methodA total of 108 children aged 9-15 years with RSSD affecting American English /ɹ/ were randomly assigned to receive 19 motor-based speech treatment sessions, with or without visual biofeedback (divided into ultrasound or visual-acoustic biofeedback). The treatment included practice designed to implement several motor learning principles, with task difficulty systematically adjusted based on the child's performance. Children's /ɹ/ accuracy on untreated words before and after treatment was rated as correct or incorrect by lay listeners who were blinded to participant characteristics, treatment conditions, and time points.
resultsThe mixed-effects regression model revealed a statistically significant interaction between treatment type and time point. Specifically, both the biofeedback and nonbiofeedback motor-based treatment groups made progress over time, but the amount of generalization to untreated words was significantly greater in the biofeedback condition than in the motor-based treatment. In a subanalysis comparing biofeedback types, greater generalization was observed following ultrasound biofeedback than visual-acoustic biofeedback, although this effect was strongest at one treatment site. DISCUSSION: This randomized controlled trial found that adding biofeedback to motor-based treatment can increase the rate of accurate production of the American English /ɹ/ in untreated words.
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.