TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparing biofeedback types for children with residual /ɹ/ errors in american english
T2 - A single-case randomization design
AU - Benway, Nina R.
AU - Hitchcock, Elaine R.
AU - McAllister, Tara
AU - Feeny, Graham Tomkins
AU - Hill, Jennifer
AU - Preston, Jonathan L.
N1 - Funding Information:
This project is funded by the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIH R01DC017476). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The authors would like to thank the participants and families for their time and participation in the study. The authors also gratefully acknowledge Megan Leece, Michelle Turner Swartz, and Laura Ochs for their ongoing contributions to project oversight and treatment, as well as the following individuals involved in data processing and analysis: Sam Ayala, Lauren Bergman, Twylah Campbell, Kelly Garcia, Olesia Gritsyk, Lynne Harris, Benny Herbst, Heather Kabakoff, Maya Kumar, Robbie Lazarus, Haley Rankin-Bauer, and members of NYU BITS Lab. We also appreciate the contributions of study consultants Frank Guenther, Doug Shiller, and Jose Ortiz.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
PY - 2021/7
Y1 - 2021/7
N2 - Purpose: Research comparing different biofeedback types could lead to individualized treatments for those with residual speech errors. This study examines within-treatment response to ultrasound and visual-acoustic biofeedback, as well as generalization to untrained words, for errors affecting the American English rhotic /ɹ/. We investigated whether some children demonstrated greater improvement in /ɹ/ during ultrasound or visual-acoustic biofeedback. Each participant received both biofeedback types. Individual predictors of treatment response (i.e., age, auditory-perceptual skill, oral somatosensory skill, and growth mindset) were also explored. Method: Seven children ages 9–16 years with residual rhotic errors participated in 10 treatment visits. Each visit consisted of two conditions: 45 min of ultrasound biofeedback and 45 min of visual-acoustic biofeedback. The order of biofeedback conditions was randomized within a single-case experimental design. Acquisition of /ɹ/ was evaluated through acoustic measurements (normalized F3–F2 difference) of selected nonbiofeedback productions during practice. Generalization of /ɹ/ was evaluated through acoustic measurements and perceptual ratings of pretreatment/ posttreatment probes. Results: Five participants demonstrated acquisition of practiced words during the combined treatment package. Three participants demonstrated a clinically significant degree of generalization to untreated words on posttreatment probes. Randomization tests indicated one participant demonstrated a significant advantage for visual-acoustic over ultrasound biofeedback. Participants’ auditory-perceptual acuity on an /ɹ/−/w/ identification task was identified as a possible correlate of generalization following treatment. Conclusions: Most participants did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in acoustic productions between the ultrasound and visual-acoustic conditions, but one participant showed greater improvement in /ɹ/ during visual-acoustic biofeedback.
AB - Purpose: Research comparing different biofeedback types could lead to individualized treatments for those with residual speech errors. This study examines within-treatment response to ultrasound and visual-acoustic biofeedback, as well as generalization to untrained words, for errors affecting the American English rhotic /ɹ/. We investigated whether some children demonstrated greater improvement in /ɹ/ during ultrasound or visual-acoustic biofeedback. Each participant received both biofeedback types. Individual predictors of treatment response (i.e., age, auditory-perceptual skill, oral somatosensory skill, and growth mindset) were also explored. Method: Seven children ages 9–16 years with residual rhotic errors participated in 10 treatment visits. Each visit consisted of two conditions: 45 min of ultrasound biofeedback and 45 min of visual-acoustic biofeedback. The order of biofeedback conditions was randomized within a single-case experimental design. Acquisition of /ɹ/ was evaluated through acoustic measurements (normalized F3–F2 difference) of selected nonbiofeedback productions during practice. Generalization of /ɹ/ was evaluated through acoustic measurements and perceptual ratings of pretreatment/ posttreatment probes. Results: Five participants demonstrated acquisition of practiced words during the combined treatment package. Three participants demonstrated a clinically significant degree of generalization to untreated words on posttreatment probes. Randomization tests indicated one participant demonstrated a significant advantage for visual-acoustic over ultrasound biofeedback. Participants’ auditory-perceptual acuity on an /ɹ/−/w/ identification task was identified as a possible correlate of generalization following treatment. Conclusions: Most participants did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in acoustic productions between the ultrasound and visual-acoustic conditions, but one participant showed greater improvement in /ɹ/ during visual-acoustic biofeedback.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85111163917&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85111163917&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1044/2021_AJSLP-20-00216
DO - 10.1044/2021_AJSLP-20-00216
M3 - Article
C2 - 34232693
AN - SCOPUS:85111163917
SN - 1058-0360
VL - 30
SP - 1819
EP - 1845
JO - American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology
JF - American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology
IS - 4
ER -