↓ Skip to main content

Intensive Treatment with Ultrasound Visual Feedback for Speech Sound Errors in Childhood Apraxia

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Intensive Treatment with Ultrasound Visual Feedback for Speech Sound Errors in Childhood Apraxia
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, August 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00440
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan L. Preston, Megan C. Leece, Edwin Maas

Abstract

Ultrasound imaging is an adjunct to traditional speech therapy that has shown to be beneficial in the remediation of speech sound errors. Ultrasound biofeedback can be utilized during therapy to provide clients with additional knowledge about their tongue shapes when attempting to produce sounds that are erroneous. The additional feedback may assist children with childhood apraxia of speech (CAS) in stabilizing motor patterns, thereby facilitating more consistent and accurate productions of sounds and syllables. However, due to its specialized nature, ultrasound visual feedback is a technology that is not widely available to clients. Short-term intensive treatment programs are one option that can be utilized to expand access to ultrasound biofeedback. Schema-based motor learning theory suggests that short-term intensive treatment programs (massed practice) may assist children in acquiring more accurate motor patterns. In this case series, three participants ages 10-14 years diagnosed with CAS attended 16 h of speech therapy over a 2-week period to address residual speech sound errors. Two participants had distortions on rhotic sounds, while the third participant demonstrated lateralization of sibilant sounds. During therapy, cues were provided to assist participants in obtaining a tongue shape that facilitated a correct production of the erred sound. Additional practice without ultrasound was also included. Results suggested that all participants showed signs of acquisition of sounds in error. Generalization and retention results were mixed. One participant showed generalization and retention of sounds that were treated; one showed generalization but limited retention; and the third showed no evidence of generalization or retention. Individual characteristics that may facilitate generalization are discussed. Short-term intensive treatment programs using ultrasound biofeedback may result in the acquisition of more accurate motor patterns and improved articulation of sounds previously in error, with varying levels of generalization and retention.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 97 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 12%
Researcher 7 7%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Lecturer 6 6%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 32 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 19 20%
Linguistics 12 12%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Neuroscience 6 6%
Psychology 5 5%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 39 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 February 2020.
All research outputs
#3,881,433
of 23,344,526 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#1,813
of 7,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,429
of 338,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#27
of 147 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,344,526 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,271 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 338,479 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 147 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.