Epilogue: What We Know about Nonspeech Oral Motor Exercises

Watson, Maggie; Lof, Gregory L.

doi:10.1055/s-0028-1103398

Cited by 14 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since the publications of Ziegler [9,14] and Weismer [6], several publications [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] point to the frequent use of oromotor nonverbal tasks in clinical settings, while acknowledging the absence of empirical evidence to support their use for speech production. Surveys of the use of NSOM tasks reported by previous researchers [15,17,24], while a decade or more old, are consistent with opinions offered in the studies cited above that the clinical use of NSOM tasks continues with essentially no empirical support. The issue continues to be debated in more recent literature [19,[25][26][27].…”

Section: Purposes Of the Present Papermentioning

confidence: 99%

Oromotor Nonverbal Performance and Speech Motor Control: Theory and Review of Empirical Evidence

Weismer

2023

Brain Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This position paper offers a perspective on the long-standing debate concerning the role of oromotor, nonverbal gestures in understanding typical and disordered speech motor control secondary to neurological disease. Oromotor nonverbal tasks are employed routinely in clinical and research settings, but a coherent rationale for their use is needed. The use of oromotor nonverbal performance to diagnose disease or dysarthria type, versus specific aspects of speech production deficits that contribute to loss of speech intelligibility, is argued to be an important part of the debate. Framing these issues are two models of speech motor control, the Integrative Model (IM) and Task-Dependent Model (TDM), which yield contrasting predictions of the relationship between oromotor nonverbal performance and speech motor control. Theoretical and empirical literature on task specificity in limb, hand, and eye motor control is reviewed to demonstrate its relevance to speech motor control. The IM rejects task specificity in speech motor control, whereas the TDM is defined by it. The theoretical claim of the IM proponents that the TDM requires a special, dedicated neural mechanism for speech production is rejected. Based on theoretical and empirical information, the utility of oromotor nonverbal tasks as a window into speech motor control is questionable.

show abstract

Section: Purposes Of the Present Papermentioning

confidence: 99%

Oromotor Nonverbal Performance and Speech Motor Control: Theory and Review of Empirical Evidence

Weismer

2023

Brain Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This therapy is critical but in addition, the child needs to receive language therapy at the same rate and intensity as he/she would have received it had feeding therapy not been needed. Appropriate non-speech oral-motor therapy has its function for children with dysphagia, but there is no evidence that it will positively impact speech production (Watson & Lof, 2008). With respect to speech production, special attention should be paid to consonant variety and the production of words that are more than one syllable in length.…”

Section: Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Children With Williams Syndrome: Language, Cognitive, and Behavioral Characteristics and Their Implications for Intervention

Mervis

Velleman

2011

Perspect Lang Learn Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Williams syndrome (WS) is a rare genetic disorder characterized by heart disease, failure to thrive, hearing loss, intellectual or learning disability, speech and language delay, gregariousness, and non-social anxiety. The WS psycholinguistic profile is complex, including relative strengths in concrete vocabulary, phonological processing, and verbal short-term memory and relative weaknesses in relational/conceptual language, reading comprehension, and pragmatics. Many children evidence difficulties with finiteness marking and complex grammatical constructions. Speech-language intervention, support, and advocacy are crucial.

show abstract

“…While some studies have described feeding, NNS and anatomical development in terms of atypical dentition and general oral development [18], the evidence of the relationships between the effects of feeding, NNS and speech sound development requires specific exploration to inform our understanding of these closely associated physical mechanisms. Many studies report evidence against a relationship between speech and non-speech mechanisms [19][20][21][22][23]. However, the individual work undertaken in such laboratory or clinic-based pieces of research are not compatible with understanding the complex development of that skillset in the very young child.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Relationship between Feeding and Non-Nutritive Sucking Behaviours and Speech Sound Development: A Systematic Review

Burr

Harding

Wren

et al. 2020

Folia Phoniatr Logop

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Children with and without speech sound disorders (SSDs) are exposed to different patterns of infant feeding (breast/bottle-feeding) and may or may not engage in non-nutritive sucking (NNS) (pacifier/digit-sucking). Sucking and speech use similar oral musculature and structures, therefore it is possible that early sucking patterns may impact early speech sound development. The objective of this review is to synthesise the current evidence on the influence of feeding and NNS on the speech sound development of healthy full-term children. Summary: Electronic databases (PubMed, NHS CRD, EMBASE, MEDLINE) were searched using terms specific to feeding, NNS and speech sound development. All methodologies were considered. Studies were assessed for inclusion and quality by 2 reviewers. Of 1,031 initial results, 751 records were screened, and 5 primary studies were assessed for eligibility, 4 of which were included in the review. Evidence from the available literature on the relationship between feeding, NNS and speech sound development was inconsistent and inconclusive. An association between NNS duration and SSDs was the most consistent finding, reported by 3 of the 4 studies. Quality appraisal was carried out using the Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS). The included studies were found to be of moderate quality. Key Messages: This review found there is currently limited evidence on the relationship between feeding, NNS and speech sound development. Exploring this unclear relationship is important because of the overlapping physical mechanisms for feeding, NNS and speech production, and therefore the possibility that feeding and/or sucking behaviours may have the potential to impact on speech sound development. Further high-quality research into specific types of SSD using coherent clinically relevant assessment measures is needed to clarify the nature of the association between feeding, NNS and speech sound development, in order to inform and support families and health care professionals.

show abstract

Epilogue: What We Know about Nonspeech Oral Motor Exercises

Cited by 14 publications

References 19 publications

Oromotor Nonverbal Performance and Speech Motor Control: Theory and Review of Empirical Evidence

Oromotor Nonverbal Performance and Speech Motor Control: Theory and Review of Empirical Evidence

Children With Williams Syndrome: Language, Cognitive, and Behavioral Characteristics and Their Implications for Intervention

The Relationship between Feeding and Non-Nutritive Sucking Behaviours and Speech Sound Development: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About