Remediating Residual Rhotic Errors With Traditional and Ultrasound-Enhanced Treatment: A Single-Case Experimental Study

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose The aim of the study was to examine how ultrasound visual feedback (UVF) treatment impacts speech sound learning in children with residual speech errors affecting /ɹ/. Method Twelve children, ages 9-14 years, received treatment for vocalic /ɹ/ errors in a multiple-baseline across-subjects design comparing 8 sessions of UVF treatment and 8 sessions of traditional (no-biofeedback) treatment. All participants were exposed to both treatment conditions, with order counterbalanced across participants. To monitor progress, naïve listeners rated the accuracy of vocalic /ɹ/ in untreated words. Results After the first 8 sessions, children who received UVF were judged to produce more accurate vocalic /ɹ/ than those who received traditional treatment. After the second 8 sessions, within-participant comparisons revealed individual variation in treatment response. However, group-level comparisons revealed greater accuracy in children whose treatment order was UVF followed by traditional treatment versus children who received the reverse treatment order. Conclusion On average, 8 sessions of UVF were more effective than 8 sessions of traditional treatment for remediating vocalic /ɹ/ errors. Better outcomes were also observed when UVF was provided in the early rather than later stages of learning. However, there remains a significant individual variation in response to UVF and traditional treatment, and larger group-level studies are needed. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.8206640.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1167-1183
Number of pages17
JournalAmerican journal of speech-language pathology
Volume28
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 9 2019

Fingerprint

Sensory Feedback
Therapeutics
listener
learning
Learning
Group
Phonetics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology
  • Linguistics and Language
  • Speech and Hearing

Cite this

Remediating Residual Rhotic Errors With Traditional and Ultrasound-Enhanced Treatment : A Single-Case Experimental Study. / Preston, Jonathan L.; McAllister Byun, Tara; Phillips, Emily; Boyce, Suzanne; Tiede, Mark; Kim, Jackie Sihyun; Whalen, Douglas H.

In: American journal of speech-language pathology, Vol. 28, No. 3, 09.08.2019, p. 1167-1183.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Preston, Jonathan L. ; McAllister Byun, Tara ; Phillips, Emily ; Boyce, Suzanne ; Tiede, Mark ; Kim, Jackie Sihyun ; Whalen, Douglas H. / Remediating Residual Rhotic Errors With Traditional and Ultrasound-Enhanced Treatment : A Single-Case Experimental Study. In: American journal of speech-language pathology. 2019 ; Vol. 28, No. 3. pp. 1167-1183.
@article{dafbc85887d247f4a63f695de5c8ba9d,
title = "Remediating Residual Rhotic Errors With Traditional and Ultrasound-Enhanced Treatment: A Single-Case Experimental Study",
abstract = "Purpose The aim of the study was to examine how ultrasound visual feedback (UVF) treatment impacts speech sound learning in children with residual speech errors affecting /ɹ/. Method Twelve children, ages 9-14 years, received treatment for vocalic /ɹ/ errors in a multiple-baseline across-subjects design comparing 8 sessions of UVF treatment and 8 sessions of traditional (no-biofeedback) treatment. All participants were exposed to both treatment conditions, with order counterbalanced across participants. To monitor progress, na{\"i}ve listeners rated the accuracy of vocalic /ɹ/ in untreated words. Results After the first 8 sessions, children who received UVF were judged to produce more accurate vocalic /ɹ/ than those who received traditional treatment. After the second 8 sessions, within-participant comparisons revealed individual variation in treatment response. However, group-level comparisons revealed greater accuracy in children whose treatment order was UVF followed by traditional treatment versus children who received the reverse treatment order. Conclusion On average, 8 sessions of UVF were more effective than 8 sessions of traditional treatment for remediating vocalic /ɹ/ errors. Better outcomes were also observed when UVF was provided in the early rather than later stages of learning. However, there remains a significant individual variation in response to UVF and traditional treatment, and larger group-level studies are needed. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.8206640.",
author = "Preston, {Jonathan L.} and {McAllister Byun}, Tara and Emily Phillips and Suzanne Boyce and Mark Tiede and Kim, {Jackie Sihyun} and Whalen, {Douglas H.}",
year = "2019",
month = "8",
day = "9",
doi = "10.1044/2019_AJSLP-18-0261",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "28",
pages = "1167--1183",
journal = "American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology",
issn = "1058-0360",
publisher = "American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA)",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Remediating Residual Rhotic Errors With Traditional and Ultrasound-Enhanced Treatment

T2 - A Single-Case Experimental Study

AU - Preston, Jonathan L.

AU - McAllister Byun, Tara

AU - Phillips, Emily

AU - Boyce, Suzanne

AU - Tiede, Mark

AU - Kim, Jackie Sihyun

AU - Whalen, Douglas H.

PY - 2019/8/9

Y1 - 2019/8/9

N2 - Purpose The aim of the study was to examine how ultrasound visual feedback (UVF) treatment impacts speech sound learning in children with residual speech errors affecting /ɹ/. Method Twelve children, ages 9-14 years, received treatment for vocalic /ɹ/ errors in a multiple-baseline across-subjects design comparing 8 sessions of UVF treatment and 8 sessions of traditional (no-biofeedback) treatment. All participants were exposed to both treatment conditions, with order counterbalanced across participants. To monitor progress, naïve listeners rated the accuracy of vocalic /ɹ/ in untreated words. Results After the first 8 sessions, children who received UVF were judged to produce more accurate vocalic /ɹ/ than those who received traditional treatment. After the second 8 sessions, within-participant comparisons revealed individual variation in treatment response. However, group-level comparisons revealed greater accuracy in children whose treatment order was UVF followed by traditional treatment versus children who received the reverse treatment order. Conclusion On average, 8 sessions of UVF were more effective than 8 sessions of traditional treatment for remediating vocalic /ɹ/ errors. Better outcomes were also observed when UVF was provided in the early rather than later stages of learning. However, there remains a significant individual variation in response to UVF and traditional treatment, and larger group-level studies are needed. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.8206640.

AB - Purpose The aim of the study was to examine how ultrasound visual feedback (UVF) treatment impacts speech sound learning in children with residual speech errors affecting /ɹ/. Method Twelve children, ages 9-14 years, received treatment for vocalic /ɹ/ errors in a multiple-baseline across-subjects design comparing 8 sessions of UVF treatment and 8 sessions of traditional (no-biofeedback) treatment. All participants were exposed to both treatment conditions, with order counterbalanced across participants. To monitor progress, naïve listeners rated the accuracy of vocalic /ɹ/ in untreated words. Results After the first 8 sessions, children who received UVF were judged to produce more accurate vocalic /ɹ/ than those who received traditional treatment. After the second 8 sessions, within-participant comparisons revealed individual variation in treatment response. However, group-level comparisons revealed greater accuracy in children whose treatment order was UVF followed by traditional treatment versus children who received the reverse treatment order. Conclusion On average, 8 sessions of UVF were more effective than 8 sessions of traditional treatment for remediating vocalic /ɹ/ errors. Better outcomes were also observed when UVF was provided in the early rather than later stages of learning. However, there remains a significant individual variation in response to UVF and traditional treatment, and larger group-level studies are needed. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.8206640.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85071349054&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85071349054&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1044/2019_AJSLP-18-0261

DO - 10.1044/2019_AJSLP-18-0261

M3 - Article

C2 - 31170355

AN - SCOPUS:85071349054

VL - 28

SP - 1167

EP - 1183

JO - American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology

JF - American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology

SN - 1058-0360

IS - 3

ER -