The Articulatory Phonetics of /r/ for Residual Speech Errors

Boyce, Suzanne

doi:10.1055/s-0035-1562909

Cited by 43 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 29 publications

(44 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The class of SSD termed SE includes children who have histories of feature-limited speech sound distortions, generally on the most challenging manner classes of speech sounds in a language (e.g., fricatives, affricates, liquids), which for some speakers may persist for a lifetime with or without treatment (Boyce, 2015;Flipsen, 2015;Klein, Byun, Davidson, & Grigos, 2013;Preston & Edwards, 2007, 2009Preston, Hull, & Edwards, 2013;Shriberg, Gruber, & Kwiatkowski, 1994;Sjolie, Leece, & Preston, 2016;Van Borsel, Van Rentergem, & Verhaeghe, 2007;Wren, Miller, Peters, Emond, & Roulstone, 2016;Wren, Roulstone, & Miller, 2012;Zharkova, 2016). There is research support for sociodemographic differences between children who have experienced the across-the-board, age-inappropriate deletion and substitution errors that define SD (e.g., differences in sex; Shriberg, 2010) and children whose speech errors include only the feature-limited distortion errors that define SE.…”

Section: Sdcs Level IVmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Diagnostic Marker to Discriminate Childhood Apraxia of Speech From Speech Delay: I. Development and Description of the Pause Marker

Shriberg

Strand

Fourakis

et al. 2017

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The goal of this article (PM I) is to describe the rationale for and development of the Pause Marker (PM), a single-sign diagnostic marker proposed to discriminate early or persistent childhood apraxia of speech from speech delay. Method The authors describe and prioritize 7 criteria with which to evaluate the research and clinical utility of a diagnostic marker for childhood apraxia of speech, including evaluation of the present proposal. An overview is given of the Speech Disorders Classification System, including extensions completed in the same approximately 3-year period in which the PM was developed. Results The finalized Speech Disorders Classification System includes a nosology and cross-classification procedures for childhood and persistent speech disorders and motor speech disorders (Shriberg, Strand, & Mabie, 2017). A PM is developed that provides procedural and scoring information, and citations to papers and technical reports that include audio exemplars of the PM and reference data used to standardize PM scores are provided. Conclusions The PM described here is an acoustic-aided perceptual sign that quantifies one aspect of speech precision in the linguistic domain of phrasing. This diagnostic marker can be used to discriminate early or persistent childhood apraxia of speech from speech delay.

show abstract

Section: Sdcs Level IVmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Diagnostic Marker to Discriminate Childhood Apraxia of Speech From Speech Delay: I. Development and Description of the Pause Marker

Shriberg

Strand

Fourakis

et al. 2017

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1Because the present study focuses on visual-acoustic rather than articulatory biofeedback intervention for rhotic errors, we will not go into extensive detail regarding the articulatory characteristics of rhotics; readers are referred to Adler-Bock et al (2007), Klein et al (2013), or Boyce (2015) for in-depth discussion.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential Effects of Visual-Acoustic Biofeedback Intervention for Residual Speech Errors

Byun

Campbell

2016

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent evidence suggests that the incorporation of visual biofeedback technologies may enhance response to treatment in individuals with residual speech errors. However, there is a need for controlled research systematically comparing biofeedback versus non-biofeedback intervention approaches. This study implemented a single-subject experimental design with a crossover component to investigate the relative efficacy of visual-acoustic biofeedback and traditional articulatory treatment for residual rhotic errors. Eleven child/adolescent participants received ten sessions of visual-acoustic biofeedback and 10 sessions of traditional treatment, with the order of biofeedback and traditional phases counterbalanced across participants. Probe measures eliciting untreated rhotic words were administered in at least three sessions prior to the start of treatment (baseline), between the two treatment phases (midpoint), and after treatment ended (maintenance), as well as before and after each treatment session. Perceptual accuracy of rhotic production was assessed by outside listeners in a blinded, randomized fashion. Results were analyzed using a combination of visual inspection of treatment trajectories, individual effect sizes, and logistic mixed-effects regression. Effect sizes and visual inspection revealed that participants could be divided into categories of strong responders (n = 4), mixed/moderate responders (n = 3), and non-responders (n = 4). Individual results did not reveal a reliable pattern of stronger performance in biofeedback versus traditional blocks, or vice versa. Moreover, biofeedback versus traditional treatment was not a significant predictor of accuracy in the logistic mixed-effects model examining all within-treatment word probes. However, the interaction between treatment condition and treatment order was significant: biofeedback was more effective than traditional treatment in the first phase of treatment, and traditional treatment was more effective than biofeedback in the second phase. This is consistent with existing theory and data suggesting that detailed knowledge of performance feedback is most effective in the early stages of motor learning. Further research is needed to confirm that an initial phase of biofeedback has a facilitative effect, and to determine the optimal duration of biofeedback treatment. In addition, there is a strong need for correlational studies to examine which individuals with residual speech errors are most likely to respond to treatment.

show abstract

“…4. Introduce the participant to different tongue shapes for /r/ using drawings, ultrasound images, or magnetic resonance images 33 . Make it clear where the oral and pharyngeal constrictions are, but also acknowledge that every tongue shape is slightly different.…”

Section: Using Real-time Ultrasound Images For Feedback To Remediate mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultrasound Images of the Tongue: A Tutorial for Assessment and Remediation of Speech Sound Errors

Preston

Byun

Boyce

et al. 2017

JoVE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diagnostic ultrasound imaging has been a common tool in medical practice for several decades. It provides a safe and effective method for imaging structures internal to the body. There has been a recent increase in the use of ultrasound technology to visualize the shape and movements of the tongue during speech, both in typical speakers and in clinical populations. Ultrasound imaging of speech has greatly expanded our understanding of how sounds articulated with the tongue (lingual sounds) are produced. Such information can be particularly valuable for speech-language pathologists. Among other advantages, ultrasound images can be used during speech therapy to provide (1) illustrative models of typical (i.e. "correct") tongue configurations for speech sounds, and (2) a source of insight into the articulatory nature of deviant productions. The images can also be used as an additional source of feedback for clinical populations learning to distinguish their better productions from their incorrect productions, en route to establishing more effective articulatory habits.Ultrasound feedback is increasingly used by scientists and clinicians as both the expertise of the users increases and as the expense of the equipment declines. In this tutorial, procedures are presented for collecting ultrasound images of the tongue in a clinical context. We illustrate these procedures in an extended example featuring one common error sound, American English /r/. Images of correct and distorted /r/ are used to demonstrate (1) how to interpret ultrasound images, (2) how to assess tongue shape during production of speech sounds, (3), how to categorize tongue shape errors, and (4), how to provide visual feedback to elicit a more appropriate and functional tongue shape. We present a sample protocol for using real-time ultrasound images of the tongue for visual feedback to remediate speech sound errors. Additionally, example data are shown to illustrate outcomes with the procedure.

show abstract

The Articulatory Phonetics of /r/ for Residual Speech Errors

Cited by 43 publications

References 29 publications

A Diagnostic Marker to Discriminate Childhood Apraxia of Speech From Speech Delay: I. Development and Description of the Pause Marker

A Diagnostic Marker to Discriminate Childhood Apraxia of Speech From Speech Delay: I. Development and Description of the Pause Marker

Differential Effects of Visual-Acoustic Biofeedback Intervention for Residual Speech Errors

Ultrasound Images of the Tongue: A Tutorial for Assessment and Remediation of Speech Sound Errors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About