Learning trajectories for speech motor performance in children with specific language impairment

Richtsmeier, Peter T.; Goffman, Lisa

doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2015.02.001

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The across-trial changes in speech accuracy and performance during the control condition provided a reference for evaluating the potential facilitating or interfering effects of continuous chewing and speaking on the speech motor learning task. During the control condition, production accuracy steadily increased over the repetitions while production duration decreased, findings that agree with previous work on speech motor learning (Richtsmeier and Goffman 2015 ; Sadagopan and Smith 2013 ; Sasisekaran et al 2010 ; Whitfield and Goberman 2017a ). Articulation accuracy was arguably the primary goal of the task as participants were verbally instructed to attend to accuracy before attending to speed.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

The effects of continuous oromotor activity on speech motor learning: speech biomechanics and neurophysiologic correlates

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sustained limb motor activity has been used as a therapeutic tool for improving rehabilitation outcomes and is thought to be mediated by neuroplastic changes associated with activity-induced cortical excitability. Although prior research has reported enhancing effects of continuous chewing and swallowing activity on learning, the potential beneficial effects of sustained oromotor activity on speech improvements is not well-documented. This exploratory study was designed to examine the effects of continuous oromotor activity on subsequent speech learning. Twenty neurologically healthy young adults engaged in periods of continuous chewing and speech after which they completed a novel speech motor learning task. The motor learning task was designed to elicit improvements in accuracy and efficiency of speech performance across repetitions of eight-syllable nonwords. In addition, transcranial magnetic stimulation was used to measure the cortical silent period (cSP) of the lip motor cortex before and after the periods of continuous oromotor behaviors. All repetitions of the nonword task were recorded acoustically and kinematically using a three-dimensional motion capture system. Productions were analyzed for accuracy and duration, as well as lip movement distance and speed. A control condition estimated baseline improvement rates in speech performance. Results revealed improved speech performance following 10 min of chewing. In contrast, speech performance following 10 min of continuous speech was degraded. There was no change in the cSP as a result of either oromotor activity. The clinical implications of these findings are discussed in the context of speech rehabilitation and neuromodulation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

The effects of continuous oromotor activity on speech motor learning: speech biomechanics and neurophysiologic correlates

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A central question for research and practice is whether a nosological classification is needed for children whose assessment findings are consistent with some type of motor component that does not meet standardized criteria for CD or CAS. Some examples of research and reviews of research relevant to the motor speech characteristic of children with idiopathic speech-language impairment include Archibald and Alloway (2008); Bradford, Murdoch, Thompson, and Stokes (1997); Cermak, Ward, and Ward (1986); Cheng, Chen, Tsai, Chen, and Cherng (2009); Flipsen (2003); Gaines and Missiuna (2007); Goffman (1999); Goozée et al (2007); Hill (2001); Newmeyer et al (2007); Nip, Green, and Marx (2011); Owen and McKinlay (1997); Powell and Bishop (1992); Rechetnikov and Maitra (2009); Redle et al (2015); Richtsmeier and Goffman (2015); Vick et al (2014); Visscher et al (2010); Visscher, Houwen, Scherder, Moolenaar, and Hartman (2007); Webster et al (2006); Zelaznik and Goffman (2010); and Zwicker, Missiuna, and Boyd (2009).…”

Section: Speech Sound Disorders In Childrenmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimates of the prevalence of motor speech disorders in children with idiopathic speech delay

Shriberg

Kwiatkowski

Mabie

2019

Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goal of this research was to obtain initial estimates of the prevalence of each of four types of motor speech disorders in children with idiopathic Speech Delay (SD) and to use findings to estimate the population-based prevalence of each disorder. Analyses were completed on audio-recorded conversational speech samples from 415 children recruited for research in idiopathic SD in six USA cities during the past three decades. The speech and motor speech status of each participant was cross-classified using standardized measures in the finalized version of the Speech Disorders Classification System described in the Supplement. Population-based prevalence estimates for the four motor speech disorders were calculated from epidemiological studies of SD conducted in Australia, England, and the USA. A total of 82.2% of the 415 participants with SD met criteria for No Motor Speech Disorder at assessment, 12% met criteria for Speech Motor Delay, 3.4% met criteria for Childhood Dysarthria, 2.4% met criteria for Childhood Apraxia of Speech, and 0% met criteria for concurrent Childhood Dysarthria and Childhood Apraxia of Speech. The estimated population-based prevalence of each of the first three motor speech disorders at 4 to 8 years of age were Speech Motor Delay: 4 children per 1,000; Childhood Dysarthria: 1 child per 1,000; and Childhood Apraxia of Speech: 1 child per 1,000. The latter finding cross-validates a prior prevalence estimate for Childhood Apraxia of Speech of 1–2 children per 1,000. Findings are interpreted to indicate a substantial prevalence of motor speech disorders in children with idiopathic SD.

show abstract

“…However, they reported that tasks on motoric timing and communicative gesturing were relatively unimpaired in children with SLI. Richtsmeier and Goffman (2015) also reported that children with SLI had similar results to typically developing peers when learning a speech motor task (i.e., nonword repetition).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…However, they reported that tasks on motoric timing and communicative gesturing were relatively unimpaired in children with SLI. Richtsmeier and Goffman () also reported that children with SLI had similar results to typically developing peers when learning a speech motor task (i.e., nonword repetition). However, Vuolo, Goffman, and Zelaznik () found that children with SLI had no problem when tested on a unimanual timing task, however they had significantly more problems with a bimanual timing test.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Children with specific language impairment are more likely to reach motor milestones late

Diepeveen

Dommelen

Oudesluys‐Murphy

et al. 2018

Child

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Learning trajectories for speech motor performance in children with specific language impairment

Cited by 7 publications

References 42 publications

The effects of continuous oromotor activity on speech motor learning: speech biomechanics and neurophysiologic correlates

The effects of continuous oromotor activity on speech motor learning: speech biomechanics and neurophysiologic correlates

Estimates of the prevalence of motor speech disorders in children with idiopathic speech delay

Children with specific language impairment are more likely to reach motor milestones late

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About