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

• Published in: American journal of speech-language pathology Vol. 28; no. 3; pp. 1167 - 1183
• Main Authors: Preston, Jonathan L., McAllister, Tara, Phillips, Emily, Boyce, Suzanne, Tiede, Mark, Kim, Jackie Sihyun, Whalen, Douglas H.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 01.08.2019
• Subjects: Adolescent; Analysis; Biofeedback; Biofeedback, Psychology - methods; Child; Children; Children & youth; English; Feedback; Feedback (Response); Feedback, Sensory; Female; Humans; Individual differences; Learning; Male; North American English; Phonetics; Phonology; Rhotics; Sound; Speech; Speech - physiology; Speech errors; Speech Sound Disorder - therapy; Speech therapy; Speech Therapy - methods; Treatment Outcome; Ultrasonic imaging; United Kingdom
• ISSN: 1058-0360; 1558-9110; 1558-9110
• DOI: 10.1044/2019_AJSLP-18-0261

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.