Multi‐sensory treatment for children with developmental motor speech disorders

Square, Paula A.; Namasivayam, Aravind Kumar; Bose, Arpita; Goshulak, Debra; Hayden, Deborah

doi:10.1111/1460-6984.12083

Cited by 20 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Since the speech errors in SMD (or SSD-MSI in the current study) are not due to involuntary movements, deficits in muscle tone/reflexes or errors in higher level linguistic-symbolic/phonological planning, a taskoriented articulatory kinematic treatment of speech movement targets to improve articulatory accuracy and stability would be suitable (van der Merwe 2009). In line with this reasoning, a combination of modelling, imitation, integral stimulation, auditory, visual and tactilekinesthetic (e.g., phonetic placement) cues, repeated practice, and gradual fading of cues to improve accuracy and stability of speech production have been recommended and used with children with SSD-MSI (Hayden et al 2010, Namasivayam et al 2015b, Square et al 2014, Strand et al 2006). However, data on treatment outcomes, effectiveness and efficacy are limited for this population (e.g., Namasivayam et al 2015b).…”

Section: The Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Phase I studies focus on identifying treatment effects and estimating their magnitude on relatively small groups of patients to determine whether the treatment is appropriate for further refinement (Phase II) and clinical trials (Phase III). Two of the three studies reported for this population are single subject multiple probe design studies (N = 5 for Namasivayam et al 2015b, and N = 6 for Square et al 2014) and the third is a prospective single group pre-and post-test design study (N = 12 for Namasivayam et al 2013). From these sparse data available for this population, the multi-sensory treatment approaches have demonstrated preliminary, yet positive, improvements in accuracy of speech movement patterns, percentage of phonemes accurately produced, speech intelligibility and generalization of target features to untrained words (Namasivayam et al 2013, 2015b, Square et al 2014.…”

Section: The Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…, and N = 6 for Square et al . ) and the third is a prospective single group pre‐ and post‐test design study ( N = 12 for Namasivayam et al . ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Investigating intervention dose frequency for children with speech sound disorders and motor speech involvement

Namasivayam

Pukonen

Goshulak

et al. 2019

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Treatment outcome data for children with severe speech sound disorders with motor speech involvement (SSD‐MSI) are derived from Phase I clinical research studies. These studies have demonstrated positive improvements in speech production. Currently there is no research examining the optimal treatment dose frequency for this population. The results of this study, which is the first of its kind, will inform the delivery of effective services for this population. Aims To investigate optimal treatment dose frequency for the Motor Speech Treatment Protocol (MSTP) for children with SSD‐MSI. Methods & Procedures A total of 48 children (aged 43–47 months) with SSD‐MSI participated in the study. Participants received 45‐min MSTP intervention sessions either once per week (lower dose frequency) or twice per week (higher dose frequency) for a 10‐week period. Blinded outcome assessments were carried out at pre‐ and post‐intervention. Outcomes & Results Treatment‐related change was assessed at body structures, functions and activities participation level as per the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning framework: Children and Youth Version (ICF‐CY) framework WHO (2007). These measures are related to articulation, functional communication and speech intelligibility. One‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that for all variables the baseline scores were not statistically different (p > 0.05) between the two dose‐frequency groups. Overall, there was a significant main effect of Time (pre–post) across all variables (p < 0.01). However, repeated‐measures ANOVA did not result in any statistical interactions (Time × Dose frequency) for any of the variables tested (p > 0.05). Only marginal clinical advantages (< 4% change in intelligibility) were noted with the 10 extra sessions. Conclusions & Implications Overall, the MSTP intervention approach in conjunction with home practice led to significant positive changes for all measures in children with SSD‐MSI. No statistical differences between high‐ and low‐dose‐frequency groups were observed for any of the variables. Clinical effects were examined using effect sizes, as well as changes in articulation, speech intelligibility and functional communication; these differed marginally between the two dose frequencies. This suggests limited benefits of 10 additional sessions per block. Thus, it is recommended that caregivers, speech–language therapists and policy‐makers perform a cost–benefit analysis before determining the dose frequency, when considering additional sessions per block.

show abstract

Section: The Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Investigating intervention dose frequency for children with speech sound disorders and motor speech involvement

Namasivayam

Pukonen

Goshulak

et al. 2019

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A number of additional studies have examined PROMPT intervention in children with motor speech disorders, with sample sizes ranging from N=5 to N=12, although all of these studies explicitly excluded children with CAS [86–88]. Further, only one of these studies [87] used a design with experimental control measures, rather than uncontrolled pre-post designs which cannot support claims of efficacy. It should also be noted that all these studies were conducted by the same research group, affiliated with the PROMPT Institute.…”

Section: Motor-based Treatment Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motor-Based Intervention Protocols in Treatment of Childhood Apraxia of Speech (CAS)

Maas

Gildersleeve-Neumann

Jakielski

et al. 2014

Curr Dev Disord Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews current trends in treatment for childhood apraxia of speech (CAS), with a particular emphasis on motor-based intervention protocols. The paper first briefly discusses how CAS fits into the typology of speech sound disorders, followed by a discussion of the potential relevance of principles derived from the motor learning literature for CAS treatment. Next, different motor-based treatment protocols are reviewed, along with their evidence base. The paper concludes with a summary and discussion of future research needs.

show abstract

“…The Prompts for Restructuring Oral Muscular Phonetic Targets (PROMPT) approach indicated that the use of multisensory input through auditory, visual and tactile-kinaestheticproprioceptive cues triggering specific facial muscles for each phoneme leads to a greater impact on speech development compared with children lacking sensorimotor input. In recent studies with children that had motor control issues as part of their speech disorder such as jaw sliding, jaw over extension and inadequate lip rounding/retraction, the PROMPT treatment showed to have effect on treated and untreated words, development of speech sounds and speech motor control [124][125][126][127][128]. PROMPT also seems to support positive development of motor speech movement patterns and intelligibility for children with CP [129,130].…”

Section: Multisensory Cues For Muscles Used In Speechmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comorbidity of Motor and Sensory Functions in Childhood Motor Speech Disorders

Björelius¹,

Tükel²

2017

Advances in Speech-Language Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Subtypes of speech sound disorders (SSDs) with a sensorimotor origin are known as motor speech disorders (MSDs). The symptoms can be diverse, and the causes of the disorders in children are in many cases unknown. Examples of MSD are childhood apraxia of speech and dysarthria. MSD is often seen in neurodevelopmental disorders such as cerebral palsy, developmental coordination disorder (DCD) or autism spectrum disorders (ASD), or it is seen with no obvious diagnosis but usually with comorbid problems. Within all existing comorbidity dysfunctions, the motor and sensory systems are of interest for identifying possible underlying mechanisms of MSD. Namely, soft neurological signs such as hypotonia, decreased speed and low accuracy of motor skills and delayed motor development are given consideration by many researchers for better understanding of underlying motor mechanisms of MSD. Results from comorbidity studies highlight the relationship of MSD with complex sensorimotor tasks and sequential motor tasks. In this chapter, our aim is to frame findings from studies about comorbidity of sensory and motor dysfunctions in MSD in order to theorise affected mechanisms and propose an underlying global motor deficit. We will conclude with implications for therapy models.

show abstract

Multi‐sensory treatment for children with developmental motor speech disorders

Cited by 20 publications

References 23 publications

Investigating intervention dose frequency for children with speech sound disorders and motor speech involvement

Investigating intervention dose frequency for children with speech sound disorders and motor speech involvement

Motor-Based Intervention Protocols in Treatment of Childhood Apraxia of Speech (CAS)

Comorbidity of Motor and Sensory Functions in Childhood Motor Speech Disorders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About