1992
DOI: 10.1075/sspcl.1.08yor
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

7. Intelligibility measurement as a tool in the clinical management of dysarthric speakers

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
176
2
4

Year Published

2000
2000
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 129 publications
(184 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
2
176
2
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Participants with ALS were grouped into three severity groups on the basis of speaking rate, which was measured using the Speech Intelligibility Test (Yorkston, 1993;Yorkston, Dowden, & Beukelman, 1992). The mild group included patients with speaking rates greater than 160 WPM; the moderate group included patients with speaking rates between 120 and 160 WPM; and the severe group of participants had a speaking rate less than 120 WPM.…”
Section: Participantsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Participants with ALS were grouped into three severity groups on the basis of speaking rate, which was measured using the Speech Intelligibility Test (Yorkston, 1993;Yorkston, Dowden, & Beukelman, 1992). The mild group included patients with speaking rates greater than 160 WPM; the moderate group included patients with speaking rates between 120 and 160 WPM; and the severe group of participants had a speaking rate less than 120 WPM.…”
Section: Participantsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Research into intelligibility of individuals who are hearing impaired or have motor speech disorders has shown that suprasegmental factors, such as phonatory control, timing, and speech rate, affect intelligibility (Olson Ramig, 1992;Weismer & Martin, 1992). Moreover, linguistic aspects such as context, redundancy, syntactic complexity of the utterance, and the use of ungrammatical structures may also influence speech intelligibility (Garcia & Dagenais, 1998;Yorkston, Dowden, & Breukelman, 1992). In addition, the relationship between intelligibility and articulation errors in cleft palate speech is not altogether clear (Subtelny, Van Hattum, & Myers, 1972).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Standard protocols containing speaker tasks, recording techniques, and listener response formats are employed to obtain a variety of intelligibility and communication efficiency measures. Yorkston and co-workers (1993) initially suggested that PALS speaking rate reduction precedes decreases in intelligibility; co-workers (2001, 2002) reported that speaking rate on the Speech Intelligibility Test -Sentence Subtest (Yorkston et al, 2007) is a relatively good predictor of PALS intelligibility deterioration. This computerized test supports the efficient measurement of speaking rate in clinical settings; it helps patients and their families monitor changes over time, and reinforces their understanding of speaking rate and intelligibility.…”
Section: Functional Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Indeed, appropriate timing of referral for AAC assessment and intervention continues to be a relevant clinical decision-making issue. The speaking rate should be clinically monitored so that the referral for an AAC intervention is initiated in a timely manner: co-workers (2001, 2002) recommend that patients be referred for AAC assessment when their speaking rates reach 125 words/min (normal value: 190 words/min) on the Speech Intelligibility Test -Sentence Subtest) (Yorkston et al, 2007). With sufficient education and preparation, PALS and their caregivers are ready to examine their AAC options timely: nevertheless, speech deterioration can be so rapid anyway that individuals can be left with limited communication options, if they are not really prepared to act in an opportune manner.…”
Section: Treatment Of Impaired Communicationmentioning
confidence: 99%