Treatment for residual rhotic errors with high-and low-frequency ultrasound visual feedback

A single-case experimental design

Jonathan Preston, Tara McAllister, Emily Phillips, Suzanne Boyce, Mark Tiede, Jackie S. Kim, Douglas H. Whalen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to explore how the frequency with which ultrasound visual feedback (UVF) is provided during speech therapy affects speech sound learning. Method: Twelve children with residual speech errors affecting/ɹ/ participated in a multiple-baseline across-subjects design with 2 treatment conditions. One condition featured 8 hr of high-frequency UVF (HF; feedback on 89% of trials), whereas the other included 8 hr of lower-frequency UVF (LF; 44% of trials). The order of treatment conditions was counterbalanced across participants. All participants were treated on vocalic/ɹ/. Progress was tracked by measuring generalization on/ɹ/ in untreated words. Results: After the 1st treatment phase, participants who received the HF condition outperformed those who received LF. At the end of the 2-phase treatment, within-participant comparisons showed variability across individual outcomes in both HF and LF conditions. However, a group level analysis of this small sample suggested that participants whose treatment order was HF–LF made larger gains than those whose treatment order was LF–HF. Conclusions: The order HF–LF may represent a preferred order for UVF in speech therapy. This is consistent with empirical work and theoretical arguments suggesting that visual feedback may be particularly beneficial in the early stages of acquiring new speech targets.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1875-1892
Number of pages18
JournalJournal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Volume61
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2018

Fingerprint

Sensory Feedback
Research Design
speech therapy
Speech Therapy
Therapeutics
Phonetics
Ultrasound
Experimental Design
Rhotics
Learning
learning
Group

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Language and Linguistics
  • Linguistics and Language
  • Speech and Hearing

Cite this

Treatment for residual rhotic errors with high-and low-frequency ultrasound visual feedback : A single-case experimental design. / Preston, Jonathan; McAllister, Tara; Phillips, Emily; Boyce, Suzanne; Tiede, Mark; Kim, Jackie S.; Whalen, Douglas H.

In: Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, Vol. 61, No. 8, 01.08.2018, p. 1875-1892.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Preston, Jonathan ; McAllister, Tara ; Phillips, Emily ; Boyce, Suzanne ; Tiede, Mark ; Kim, Jackie S. ; Whalen, Douglas H. / Treatment for residual rhotic errors with high-and low-frequency ultrasound visual feedback : A single-case experimental design. In: Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 2018 ; Vol. 61, No. 8. pp. 1875-1892.
@article{a0edecd08766448c97ad453d5b6c5a1f,
title = "Treatment for residual rhotic errors with high-and low-frequency ultrasound visual feedback: A single-case experimental design",
abstract = "Purpose: The aim of this study was to explore how the frequency with which ultrasound visual feedback (UVF) is provided during speech therapy affects speech sound learning. Method: Twelve children with residual speech errors affecting/ɹ/ participated in a multiple-baseline across-subjects design with 2 treatment conditions. One condition featured 8 hr of high-frequency UVF (HF; feedback on 89{\%} of trials), whereas the other included 8 hr of lower-frequency UVF (LF; 44{\%} of trials). The order of treatment conditions was counterbalanced across participants. All participants were treated on vocalic/ɹ/. Progress was tracked by measuring generalization on/ɹ/ in untreated words. Results: After the 1st treatment phase, participants who received the HF condition outperformed those who received LF. At the end of the 2-phase treatment, within-participant comparisons showed variability across individual outcomes in both HF and LF conditions. However, a group level analysis of this small sample suggested that participants whose treatment order was HF–LF made larger gains than those whose treatment order was LF–HF. Conclusions: The order HF–LF may represent a preferred order for UVF in speech therapy. This is consistent with empirical work and theoretical arguments suggesting that visual feedback may be particularly beneficial in the early stages of acquiring new speech targets.",
author = "Jonathan Preston and Tara McAllister and Emily Phillips and Suzanne Boyce and Mark Tiede and Kim, {Jackie S.} and Whalen, {Douglas H.}",
year = "2018",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1044/2018_JSLHR-S-17-0441",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "61",
pages = "1875--1892",
journal = "Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research",
issn = "1092-4388",
publisher = "American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA)",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Treatment for residual rhotic errors with high-and low-frequency ultrasound visual feedback

T2 - A single-case experimental design

AU - Preston, Jonathan

AU - McAllister, Tara

AU - Phillips, Emily

AU - Boyce, Suzanne

AU - Tiede, Mark

AU - Kim, Jackie S.

AU - Whalen, Douglas H.

PY - 2018/8/1

Y1 - 2018/8/1

N2 - Purpose: The aim of this study was to explore how the frequency with which ultrasound visual feedback (UVF) is provided during speech therapy affects speech sound learning. Method: Twelve children with residual speech errors affecting/ɹ/ participated in a multiple-baseline across-subjects design with 2 treatment conditions. One condition featured 8 hr of high-frequency UVF (HF; feedback on 89% of trials), whereas the other included 8 hr of lower-frequency UVF (LF; 44% of trials). The order of treatment conditions was counterbalanced across participants. All participants were treated on vocalic/ɹ/. Progress was tracked by measuring generalization on/ɹ/ in untreated words. Results: After the 1st treatment phase, participants who received the HF condition outperformed those who received LF. At the end of the 2-phase treatment, within-participant comparisons showed variability across individual outcomes in both HF and LF conditions. However, a group level analysis of this small sample suggested that participants whose treatment order was HF–LF made larger gains than those whose treatment order was LF–HF. Conclusions: The order HF–LF may represent a preferred order for UVF in speech therapy. This is consistent with empirical work and theoretical arguments suggesting that visual feedback may be particularly beneficial in the early stages of acquiring new speech targets.

AB - Purpose: The aim of this study was to explore how the frequency with which ultrasound visual feedback (UVF) is provided during speech therapy affects speech sound learning. Method: Twelve children with residual speech errors affecting/ɹ/ participated in a multiple-baseline across-subjects design with 2 treatment conditions. One condition featured 8 hr of high-frequency UVF (HF; feedback on 89% of trials), whereas the other included 8 hr of lower-frequency UVF (LF; 44% of trials). The order of treatment conditions was counterbalanced across participants. All participants were treated on vocalic/ɹ/. Progress was tracked by measuring generalization on/ɹ/ in untreated words. Results: After the 1st treatment phase, participants who received the HF condition outperformed those who received LF. At the end of the 2-phase treatment, within-participant comparisons showed variability across individual outcomes in both HF and LF conditions. However, a group level analysis of this small sample suggested that participants whose treatment order was HF–LF made larger gains than those whose treatment order was LF–HF. Conclusions: The order HF–LF may represent a preferred order for UVF in speech therapy. This is consistent with empirical work and theoretical arguments suggesting that visual feedback may be particularly beneficial in the early stages of acquiring new speech targets.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85051475583&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85051475583&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1044/2018_JSLHR-S-17-0441

DO - 10.1044/2018_JSLHR-S-17-0441

M3 - Article

VL - 61

SP - 1875

EP - 1892

JO - Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

JF - Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

SN - 1092-4388

IS - 8

ER -