Treatment for Residual Rhotic Errors With High- and Low-Frequency Ultrasound Visual Feedback: A Single-Case Experimental Design.
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The multiple-baseline across-subjects design involved random assignment of participants to baseline phases of different lengths, following Preston et al. (2018).
“The multiple‐baseline across‐subjects design involved random assignment of participants to baseline phases of different lengths, following the design in Preston et al. (2018).”
From Self‐Supervised App‐Based Speech Training for Children With Speech Sound Disorder—A Single‐Case Experimental Design Study (2026) · cites this paper as Preston et al. 2018
Cites
Guadagnoli, M. A., & Lee, T. D. (2004) · Journal of Motor Behavior · doi:10.3200/jmbr.36.2.212-224 · Cited by 1,534 · cited 2× · see citing works
“The adaptive structure of practice that we used is both theoretically grounded (e.g., Guadagnoli & Lee, 2004) and clinically defensible.”
BackgroundMethodPeabody Picture Vocabulary Test--Fourth Edition
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2012) · PsycTESTS Dataset · doi:10.1037/t15144-000 · Cited by 914 · see citing works
Evaluating Single-Subject Treatment Research: Lessons Learned from the Aphasia Literature
Beeson, P. M., & Robey, R. R. (2006) · Neuropsychology Review · doi:10.1007/s11065-006-9013-7 · Cited by 549 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Standardized effect sizes were computed using Busk and Serlin’s d2 statistic (Beeson & Robey, 2006), in which standard deviations are pooled across the two phases being compared.”
Method
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Strömbergsson, S., Edlund, E., Pettersson, M., Phan, N., & Kurimo, M. (2026) · International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders · doi:10.1111/1460-6984.70163
- 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