10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Efficacy of Visual–Acoustic Biofeedback Intervention for Residual Rhotic Errors: A Single-Subject Randomization Study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          This study documented the efficacy of visual–acoustic biofeedback intervention for residual rhotic errors, relative to a comparison condition involving traditional articulatory treatment. All participants received both treatments in a single-subject experimental design featuring alternating treatments with blocked randomization of sessions to treatment conditions.

          Method

          Seven child and adolescent participants received 20 half-hour sessions of individual treatment over 10 weeks. Within each week, sessions were randomly assigned to feature traditional or biofeedback intervention. Perceptual accuracy of rhotic production was assessed in a blinded, randomized fashion. Each participant's response to the combined treatment package was evaluated by using effect sizes and visual inspection. Differences in the magnitude of response to traditional versus biofeedback intervention were measured with individual randomization tests.

          Results

          Four of 7 participants demonstrated a clinically meaningful response to the combined treatment package. Three of 7 participants showed a statistically significant difference between treatment conditions. In all 3 cases, the magnitude of within-session gains associated with biofeedback exceeded the gains associated with traditional treatment.

          Conclusions

          These results suggest that the inclusion of visual–acoustic biofeedback can enhance the efficacy of intervention for some individuals with residual rhotic errors. Further research is needed to understand which participants represent better or poorer candidates for biofeedback treatment.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          J Speech Lang Hear Res
          J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res
          JSLHR
          Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research : JSLHR
          American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
          1092-4388
          1558-9102
          May 2017
          24 May 2017
          1 November 2017
          : 60
          : 5
          : 1175-1193
          Affiliations
          [a ]Department of Communicative Sciences and Disorders, New York University
          Author notes

          Disclosure: The author has declared that no competing interests existed at the time of publication.

          Correspondence to Tara McAllister Byun: tara.byun@ 123456nyu.edu

          Editor: Julie Liss

          Associate Editor: Tanya Eadie

          Article
          PMC5755545 PMC5755545 5755545 10924388006000051175
          10.1044/2016_JSLHR-S-16-0038
          5755545
          28389677
          7ea36d71-456b-4e9c-acac-6189370c8a41
          Copyright © 2017 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
          History
          : 31 January 2016
          : 20 May 2016
          : 28 August 2016
          Page count
          Pages: 19
          Funding
          The author acknowledges support for this research by the National Institutes of Health Grant NIH R03DC 012883 and also by a travel fellowship to attend the Institute of Education Sciences Single-Case Design and Analysis Institute 2014.
          Categories
          Speech
          Research Articles

          Comments

          Comment on this article