Efficacy of visual-acoustic biofeedback intervention for residual rhotic errors

A single-subject randomization study

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: This study documented the efficacy of visual- acoustic biofeedback intervention for residual rhotic errors, relative to a comparison condition involving traditional articulatory treatment. All participants received both treatments in a single-subject experimental design featuring alternating treatments with blocked randomization of sessions to treatment conditions. Method: Seven child and adolescent participants received 20 half-hour sessions of individual treatment over 10 weeks. Within each week, sessions were randomly assigned to feature traditional or biofeedback intervention. Perceptual accuracy of rhotic production was assessed in a blinded, randomized fashion. Each participant’s response to the combined treatment package was evaluated by using effect sizes and visual inspection. Differences in the magnitude of response to traditional versus biofeedback intervention were measured with individual randomization tests. Results: Four of 7 participants demonstrated a clinically meaningful response to the combined treatment package. Three of 7 participants showed a statistically significant difference between treatment conditions. In all 3 cases, the magnitude of within-session gains associated with biofeedback exceeded the gains associated with traditional treatment. Conclusions: These results suggest that the inclusion of visual-acoustic biofeedback can enhance the efficacy of intervention for some individuals with residual rhotic errors. Further research is needed to understand which participants represent better or poorer candidates for biofeedback treatment.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1175-1193
Number of pages19
JournalJournal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Volume60
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 2017

Fingerprint

Random Allocation
Acoustics
acoustics
Therapeutics
Efficacy
Randomization
Rhotics
candidacy
inclusion
adolescent
Research Design

ASJC Scopus subject areas

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

Cite this

@article{2ed70430aee24f3997d64bde5e685f33,
title = "Efficacy of visual-acoustic biofeedback intervention for residual rhotic errors: A single-subject randomization study",
abstract = "Purpose: This study documented the efficacy of visual- acoustic biofeedback intervention for residual rhotic errors, relative to a comparison condition involving traditional articulatory treatment. All participants received both treatments in a single-subject experimental design featuring alternating treatments with blocked randomization of sessions to treatment conditions. Method: Seven child and adolescent participants received 20 half-hour sessions of individual treatment over 10 weeks. Within each week, sessions were randomly assigned to feature traditional or biofeedback intervention. Perceptual accuracy of rhotic production was assessed in a blinded, randomized fashion. Each participant’s response to the combined treatment package was evaluated by using effect sizes and visual inspection. Differences in the magnitude of response to traditional versus biofeedback intervention were measured with individual randomization tests. Results: Four of 7 participants demonstrated a clinically meaningful response to the combined treatment package. Three of 7 participants showed a statistically significant difference between treatment conditions. In all 3 cases, the magnitude of within-session gains associated with biofeedback exceeded the gains associated with traditional treatment. Conclusions: These results suggest that the inclusion of visual-acoustic biofeedback can enhance the efficacy of intervention for some individuals with residual rhotic errors. Further research is needed to understand which participants represent better or poorer candidates for biofeedback treatment.",
author = "{McAllister Byun}, Tara",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1044/2016_JSLHR-S-16-0038",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "60",
pages = "1175--1193",
journal = "Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research",
issn = "1092-4388",
publisher = "American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA)",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Efficacy of visual-acoustic biofeedback intervention for residual rhotic errors

T2 - A single-subject randomization study

AU - McAllister Byun, Tara

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Purpose: This study documented the efficacy of visual- acoustic biofeedback intervention for residual rhotic errors, relative to a comparison condition involving traditional articulatory treatment. All participants received both treatments in a single-subject experimental design featuring alternating treatments with blocked randomization of sessions to treatment conditions. Method: Seven child and adolescent participants received 20 half-hour sessions of individual treatment over 10 weeks. Within each week, sessions were randomly assigned to feature traditional or biofeedback intervention. Perceptual accuracy of rhotic production was assessed in a blinded, randomized fashion. Each participant’s response to the combined treatment package was evaluated by using effect sizes and visual inspection. Differences in the magnitude of response to traditional versus biofeedback intervention were measured with individual randomization tests. Results: Four of 7 participants demonstrated a clinically meaningful response to the combined treatment package. Three of 7 participants showed a statistically significant difference between treatment conditions. In all 3 cases, the magnitude of within-session gains associated with biofeedback exceeded the gains associated with traditional treatment. Conclusions: These results suggest that the inclusion of visual-acoustic biofeedback can enhance the efficacy of intervention for some individuals with residual rhotic errors. Further research is needed to understand which participants represent better or poorer candidates for biofeedback treatment.

AB - Purpose: This study documented the efficacy of visual- acoustic biofeedback intervention for residual rhotic errors, relative to a comparison condition involving traditional articulatory treatment. All participants received both treatments in a single-subject experimental design featuring alternating treatments with blocked randomization of sessions to treatment conditions. Method: Seven child and adolescent participants received 20 half-hour sessions of individual treatment over 10 weeks. Within each week, sessions were randomly assigned to feature traditional or biofeedback intervention. Perceptual accuracy of rhotic production was assessed in a blinded, randomized fashion. Each participant’s response to the combined treatment package was evaluated by using effect sizes and visual inspection. Differences in the magnitude of response to traditional versus biofeedback intervention were measured with individual randomization tests. Results: Four of 7 participants demonstrated a clinically meaningful response to the combined treatment package. Three of 7 participants showed a statistically significant difference between treatment conditions. In all 3 cases, the magnitude of within-session gains associated with biofeedback exceeded the gains associated with traditional treatment. Conclusions: These results suggest that the inclusion of visual-acoustic biofeedback can enhance the efficacy of intervention for some individuals with residual rhotic errors. Further research is needed to understand which participants represent better or poorer candidates for biofeedback treatment.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85019728667&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85019728667&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1044/2016_JSLHR-S-16-0038

DO - 10.1044/2016_JSLHR-S-16-0038

M3 - Article

VL - 60

SP - 1175

EP - 1193

JO - Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

JF - Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

SN - 1092-4388

IS - 5

ER -