Cited by 24

Treatment for Residual Rhotic Errors With High- and Low-Frequency Ultrasound Visual Feedback: A Single-Case Experimental Design.

Preston, Jonathan L., McAllister, Tara, Phillips, Emily, Boyce, Suzanne, Tiede, Mark, Kim, Jackie S., Whalen, Douglas H.·2018·Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to explore how the frequency with which ultrasound visual feedback (UVF) is provided during speech therapy affects speech sound learning. Method: Twelve children with residual speech errors affecting /ɹ/ participated in a multiple-baseline across-subjects design with 2 treatment conditions. One condition featured 8 hr of high-frequency UVF (HF; feedback on 89% of trials), whereas the other included 8 hr of lower-frequency UVF (LF; 44% of trials). The order of treatment conditions was counterbalanced across participants. All participants were treated on vocalic /ɹ/. Progress was tracked by measuring generalization on /ɹ/ in untreated words. Results: After the 1st treatment phase, participants who received the HF condition outperformed those who received LF. At the end of the 2-phase treatment, within-participant comparisons showed variability across individual outcomes in both HF and LF conditions. However, a group level analysis of this small sample suggested that participants whose treatment order was HF–LF made larger gains than those whose treatment order was LF–HF. Conclusions: The order HF–LF may represent a preferred order for UVF in speech therapy. This is consistent with empirical work and theoretical arguments suggesting that visual feedback may be particularly beneficial in the early stages of acquiring new speech targets.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1044/2018_jslhr-s-17-0441

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Preston, J. L., McAllister, T., Phillips, E., Boyce, S., Tiede, M., Kim, J. S., & Whalen, D. H.
Affiliations
  • Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Syracuse University, NY
  • Department of Communicative Sciences & Disorders, New York University, New York
  • Haskins Laboratories, New Haven, CT
  • Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Columbia University, New York, NY
  • Program in Speech-Language-Hearing Sciences, City University of New York Graduate Center, New York
Venue
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Published
2018-08-08
Volume
61
Issue
8
Pages
1875-1892
ISSN
  • 1092-4388
  • 1558-9102
Cited by
24
References
4
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review