+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Impacto do uso do SpeechEasy® nos parâmetros acústicos e motores da fala de indivíduos com gagueira Translated title: The effect of the SpeechEasy® device on acoustic and speech motor parameters of adults who stutter


      Read this article at

          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.


          Objetivo Investigar variações nas habilidades motoras da fala em adultos com e sem gagueira, utilizando o dispositivo de alteração do feedback auditivo SpeechEasy®. Métodos Participaram 20 adultos, dez com gagueira (nove do gênero masculino e um do feminino – média 30,9 anos) e dez controles fluentes (nove do gênero masculino e um do feminino – média 25,2 anos). O estudo comparou o desempenho dos participantes em quatro tarefas: fala espontânea, diadococinesia alternada, diadococinesia sequencial e emissão de frase alvo, com e sem o dispositivo. Os aspectos analisados acusticamente foram: (1) tarefas de diadococinesia: duração das sílabas, período médio entre as sílabas, pico de intensidade e taxa de diadococinesia; (2) tarefa de emissão da frase alvo: tempo de reação, duração do voice onset time, duração total da emissão, frequência fundamental e intensidade. Resultados Tanto na comparação intragrupos quanto intergrupos, apenas a tarefa de fala espontânea apresentou diferenças significativas. Nesta tarefa, o uso do SpeechEasy® resultou em melhora significativa da fluência de fala, medida pela porcentagem de sílabas gaguejadas, para o grupo com gagueira. Para o grupo fluente, o dispositivo produziu o efeito oposto (aumento significativo na frequência de rupturas gagas com o dispositivo). Os resultados encontrados quanto aos aspectos acústicos das tarefas de diadococinesia e emissão da frase alvo não indicaram diferença significativa nas comparações intragrupos e intergrupos. Conclusão Os resultados indicaram que o uso do SpeechEasy® melhorou a fluência dos participantes com gagueira, sem parecer interferir na naturalidade de fala.

          Translated abstract

          Purpose To investigate variations in speech motor skills in adults who stutter and those who do not, using the SpeechEasy® altered auditory feedback device. Methods 1 2 Results The spontaneous speech task was the only task to show significant differences in both the intragroup and intergroup comparisons. In this task, the use of SpeechEasy® resulted in significant improvement in speech fluency, as measured by the percentage of stuttered syllables, for the group who stuttered. For the fluent group, the device produced the opposite effect: a significant increase in the frequency of stuttered disfluencies was observed with the device. No significant differences were found in either intragroup or intergroup comparisons relating to the acoustic aspects of the diadochokinesis and target phrase production tasks. Conclusion The results indicated that the use of SpeechEasy® improved the fluency of participants who stutter, without appearing to interfere with speech naturalness.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Voz: O livro do especialista

            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            A stuttering severity instrument for children and adults.

             Lisa Riley (1972)
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Nonword repetition and nonword reading abilities in adults who do and do not stutter.

              In the present study a nonword repetition and a nonword reading task were used to investigate the behavioral (speech accuracy) and speech kinematic (movement variability measured as lip aperture variability index; speech duration) profiles of groups of young adults who do (AWS) and do not stutter (control). Participants were 9 AWS (8 males, Mean age=32.2, SD=14.7) and 9 age- and sex-matched control participants (Mean age=31.8, SD=14.6). For the nonword repetition task, participants were administered the Nonword Repetition Test (Dollaghan & Campbell, 1998). For the reading task, participants were required to read out target nonwords varying in length (6 vs. 11 syllables). Repeated measures analyses of variance were conducted to compare the groups in percent speech accuracy for both tasks; only for the nonword reading task, the groups were compared in movement variability and speech duration. The groups were comparable in percent accuracy in nonword repetition. Findings from nonword reading revealed a trend for the AWS to show a lower percent of accurate productions compared to the control group. AWS also showed significantly higher movement variability and longer speech durations compared to the control group in nonword reading. Some preliminary evidence for group differences in practice effect (seen as differences between the early vs. later 5 trials) was evident in speech duration. Findings suggest differences between AWS and control groups in phonemic encoding and/or speech motor planning and production. Findings from nonword repetition vs. reading highlight the need for careful consideration of nonword properties. At the end of this activity the reader will be able to: (a) summarize the literature on nonword repetition skills in adults who stutter, (b) describe processes underlying nonword repetition and nonword reading, (c) summarize whether or not adults who stutter differ from those who do not in the behavioral and kinematic markers of nonword reading performance, (d) discuss future directions for research. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

                Author and article information

                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Audiology - Communication Research
                Audiol., Commun. Res.
                Academia Brasileira de Audiologia (São Paulo )
                March 2015
                : 20
                : 1
                : 1-9
                [1 ] Universidade de São Paulo Brazil
                [2 ] Universidade de São Paulo Brazil
                Product Information: website


                Comment on this article