Sound Production Treatment: Effects of Blocked and Random Practice

Wambaugh, Julie L.; Nessler, Christina; Wright, Sandra; Mauszycki, Shannon C.

doi:10.1044/2014_ajslp-13-0072

Cited by 33 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, there is evidence that these approaches are effective when practice and feedback are structured in accordance with general principles of motor learning (Bislick, Weir, Spencer, Kendall, & Yorkston, 2012;Maas et al, 2008;Wambaugh, Mauszycki, & Ballard, 2013;Wambaugh, Nessler, Wright, & Mauszycki, 2014;Wambaugh, Nessler, Wright, Mauszycki, & DeLong, 2016). Our approach discussed below is consistent with these results, as we find a decrease in motor planning errors following repetition-based practice structured according to principles of motor learning.…”

Section: Acquired Sound Production Impairmentsupporting

confidence: 81%

Identification and Remediation of Phonological and Motor Errors in Acquired Sound Production Impairment

Buchwald

Gagnon

Miozzo

2017

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

,d Purpose: This study aimed to test whether an approach to distinguishing errors arising in phonological processing from those arising in motor planning also predicts the extent to which repetition-based training can lead to improved production of difficult sound sequences. Method: Four individuals with acquired speech production impairment who produced consonant cluster errors involving deletion were examined using a repetition task. We compared the acoustic details of productions with deletion errors in target consonant clusters to singleton consonants. Changes in accuracy over the course of the study were also compared.Results: Two individuals produced deletion errors consistent with a phonological locus of the errors, and 2 individuals produced errors consistent with a motoric locus of the errors. The 2 individuals who made phonologically driven errors showed no change in performance on a repetition training task, whereas the 2 individuals with motoric errors improved in their production of both trained and untrained items. Conclusions:The results extend previous findings about a metric for identifying the source of sound production errors in individuals with both apraxia of speech and aphasia. In particular, this work may provide a tool for identifying predominant error types in individuals with complex deficits.

show abstract

Section: Acquired Sound Production Impairmentsupporting

confidence: 81%

Identification and Remediation of Phonological and Motor Errors in Acquired Sound Production Impairment

Buchwald

Gagnon

Miozzo

2017

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For motor learning this finding is robust having been observed for a wide variety of laboratory tasks (Pauwels, Swinnen, & Beets, 2014;Shea & Morgan, 1979; and in many applied situations (Goode & Magill, 1986;Ollis, Button, & Fairweather, 2005;Smith & Davies, 1995). The efficacy of a high CI practice schedule for improved retention and transfer benefit has been demonstrated for a variety of subject populations (Del Rey, 1982;Porretta & Obrien, 1991), and has been used in the clinical domain with some success (Adams & Page, 2000;Knock, Ballard, Robin, & Schmidt, 2000;Wambaugh, Nessler, Wright, & Mauszycki, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…For example a serial practice has been adopted in a number of studies (e.g., Lee & Magill, 1983). recognized as a critical category of skilled motor behavior that needs to be considered when describing the process of motor learning (Doyon et al, 2009). Indeed, for the purpose of the present work it is assumed that a wide range of tasks from variations of the discrete sequence production task (Abrahamse, Ruitenberg, de Kleine, & Verwey, 2013), to basketball (Porter & Magill, 2010), surgical (Dubrowski, Backstein, Abughaduma, Leidl, & Carnahan, 2005) or speech skills (Wambaugh et al, 2014) can be characterized as motor sequence tasks. It is further assumed that the present account of how CI impacts learning extends across the entire range of motor sequence tasks.…”

Section: Scope and Limitations Of The Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consolidating behavioral and neurophysiologic findings to explain the influence of contextual interference during motor sequence learning

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Motor sequence learning under high levels of contextual interference (CI) disrupts initial performance but supports delayed test and transfer performance when compared to learning under low CI. Integrating findings from early behavioral work and more recent experimental efforts that incorporated neurophysiologic measures led to a novel account of the role of CI during motor sequence learning. This account focuses on important contributions from two neural regions-the dorsal premotor area and the SMA complex-that are recruited earlier and more extensively during the planning of a motor sequence in a high CI context. It is proposed that activation of these regions is critical to early adaptation of sequence structure amenable to long-term storage. Moreover, greater CI enhances access to newly acquired motor sequence knowledge through (1) the emergence of temporary functional connectivity between neural sites previously described as crucial to successful longterm performance of sequential behaviors, and (2) heightened excitability of M1-a key constituent of the temporary coupled neural circuits, and the primary candidate for storage of motor memory.

show abstract

“…This is unfortunate because various therapies, including SPT, have shown promise as effective treatments for chronic AOS. However, replications of the effects of SPT since the publication of these reviews have increased its evidence base sufficiently to now warrant a meta-analysis focused on SPT as a specific technique (Wambaugh & Mauszycki, 2010;Wambaugh et al, 2013Wambaugh et al, , 2014). Data are available from 24 participants across 10 research reports.…”

Section: Sound Production Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…SPT research has recently been directed toward the examination of the effects of practice schedule and treatment intensity, with participants showing improved sound production as a result of both blocked and random practice schedules (Wambaugh et al, 2014) and in both intensive and traditional (nonintensive) treatment applications (Wambaugh et al, 2013).…”

Section: Sound Production Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sound Production Treatment: Synthesis and Quantification of Outcomes

Bailey

Eatchel

Wambaugh

2015

Am J Speech Lang Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a,bPurpose: This investigation was designed to provide a quantification and synthesis of a series of single-case experimental design investigations into the effects of sound production treatment, an articulatory-kinematic treatment for acquired apraxia of speech (AOS). The main purpose was to perform a meta-analysis of aggregated sound production treatment data in order to provide benchmarks to serve as indicators of magnitude of change. Additional analyses explored various factors influencing effect sizes and level of performance. Method: Effect sizes were calculated for treated and untreated items for 24 participants across 10 investigations. Benchmarks were calculated as the quartiles of the distributions of the effect sizes. Correlational analyses were performed to examine (a) end-of-treatment performance relative to follow-up performance, (b) response of trained items relative to untrained items, and (c) effect size relative to participant variables. Results: Effect sizes were predominantly large and positive; benchmarks for treated items were larger than those for untreated items. End of treatment and follow-up performance were positively correlated, and response generalization was positively correlated with AOS severity. Conclusion: These benchmarks may assist in evaluating the effects of interventions for individuals with AOS utilizing similar outcome measures in both clinical and research settings.

show abstract

Sound Production Treatment: Effects of Blocked and Random Practice

Abstract: There may be an advantage for SPT-random for some speakers with AOS. Findings from the nonspeech motor learning literature may not translate directly to the treatment of AOS.

Cited by 33 publications

References 29 publications

Identification and Remediation of Phonological and Motor Errors in Acquired Sound Production Impairment

Identification and Remediation of Phonological and Motor Errors in Acquired Sound Production Impairment

Consolidating behavioral and neurophysiologic findings to explain the influence of contextual interference during motor sequence learning

Sound Production Treatment: Synthesis and Quantification of Outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About