Ahead of maturation: Enhanced speech envelope training boosts rise time discrimination in pre‐readers at cognitive risk for dyslexia

Abstract

Dyslexia has frequently been related to atypical auditory temporal processing and speech perception. Results of studies emphasizing speech onset cues and reinforcing the temporal structure of the speech envelope, that is, envelope enhancement (EE), demonstrated reduced speech perception deficits in individuals with dyslexia. The use of this strategy as auditory intervention might thus reduce some of the deficits related to dyslexia. Importantly, reading-skill interventions are most effective when they are provided during kindergarten and first grade. Hence, we provided a tablet-based 12-week auditory and phonics-based intervention to pre-readers at cognitive risk for dyslexia and investigated the effect on auditory temporal processing with a rise time discrimination (RTD) task. Ninety-one pre-readers at cognitive risk for dyslexia (aged 5-6) were assigned to two groups receiving a phonics-based intervention and playing a story listening game either with (n = 31) or without (n = 31) EE or a third group playing control games and listening to non-enhanced stories (n = 29). RTD was measured directly before, directly after and 1 year after the intervention. While the groups listening to non-enhanced stories mainly improved after the intervention during first grade, the group listening to enhanced stories improved during the intervention in kindergarten and subsequently remained stable during first grade. Hence, an EE intervention improves auditory processing skills important for the development of phonological skills. This occurred before the onset of reading instruction, preceding the maturational improvement of these skills, hence potentially giving at risk children a head start when learning to read.

Feasibility, Enjoyment, and Language Comprehension Impact of a Tablet- and GameFlow-Based Story-Listening Game for Kindergarteners: Methodological and Mixed Methods Study

“…Typically developing children scored above percentile 40 on all reading precursors and were matched to the risk sample based on nonverbal reasoning ability, school environment, and gender. Consider the studies by Van Herck et al [ 49 ], Vanden Bempt et al [ 55 ], and Verwimp et al [ 60 ] for a more detailed description of the screening tasks, procedures, and participant selection. All the selected participants were in their third year of kindergarten, Flemish monolingual Dutch speaking, born in 2013, and had a schooling period of minimally 20 months.…”

“…The first group (GG-FL EE group; 31/91, 34%) played the story game with envelope-enhanced stories and combined it with a phonics-based GG-FL intervention [ 54 ]. For technical details of the EE algorithm, refer to the study by Van Herck et al [ 49 ]. The second group received the same intervention as the first, with the only difference being that no EE was applied to the stories in the story game (GG-FL nonenhanced group; 31/91, 34%).…”

Speech perception deficits and the effect of envelope-enhanced story listening combined with phonics intervention in pre-readers at risk for dyslexia

“…Whereas they first showed speech-in-noise perception delays in children and adults with dyslexia compared to typically developing controls in non-enhanced vocoded and natural speech, they subsequently demonstrated an instant closure of the gap when EE was applied in both speech conditions. Based on these observed benefits, Van Herck et al (2021) explored the impact of a preventive auditory intervention on rise time sensitivity by applying EE to age-appropriate children story recordings, embedded in a tablet-based gaming context ( Vanden Bempt et al, 2022 ). When they combined the auditory EE-intervention with a 12-week tablet-based phonics intervention, i.e., GraphoGame Flemish (GG-FL; Glatz et al, 2021 ), provided in the second half of the third kindergarten year, pre-readers at cognitive risk for dyslexia showed a head start in rise time sensitivity immediately after the intervention period, compared to (1) at-risk peers who combined GG-FL with listening to non-enhanced stories and (2) an at-risk active control group who combined listening to non-enhanced stories with tablet-based Lego and Playmobil applications.…”

“…Given the widely reported cross-sectional speech-in-noise perception problems in adults ( Dole et al, 2012 ) and children with dyslexia ( Ziegler et al, 2009 ; Poelmans et al, 2011 ; Calcus et al, 2016 , 2018 ) and in at-risk pre-readers who just started the last kindergarten year ( Boets et al, 2011 ), we hypothesized to find a deviant deficit at all time points, but also a slower speech-in-noise perception development in at-risk compared to typically developing children. Second, we aimed to extend the finding of Van Herck et al (2021) by exploring the added value of the auditory EE intervention on top of phonics instruction with regard to speech-in-noise perception, phonological awareness, and letter knowledge in at-risk children. To this end, we compared the growth of these measures among the two at-risk groups, also included in the study of Van Herck et al (2021) , who received the preventive 12-week tablet-based GG-FL intervention combined with either the envelope-enhanced (GG-FL_EE group) or the non-enhanced (GG-FL_NE group) auditory (story listening) intervention.…”

“…Second, we aimed to extend the finding of Van Herck et al (2021) by exploring the added value of the auditory EE intervention on top of phonics instruction with regard to speech-in-noise perception, phonological awareness, and letter knowledge in at-risk children. To this end, we compared the growth of these measures among the two at-risk groups, also included in the study of Van Herck et al (2021) , who received the preventive 12-week tablet-based GG-FL intervention combined with either the envelope-enhanced (GG-FL_EE group) or the non-enhanced (GG-FL_NE group) auditory (story listening) intervention. Given the short-term head start concerning rise time sensitivity in the GG-FL_EE group ( Van Herck et al, 2021 ), we hypothesized to also find greater improvements from pre- to post-intervention with respect to speech-in-noise perception, phonological awareness, and letter knowledge compared to the GG-FL_NE group.…”