Multiple phonetically trained-listener comparisons of speech before and after articulatory intervention in two children with repaired submucous cleft palate

Abstract

In Cleft Palate (CP) assessments based on phonetic transcription are the "gold standard" therapy outcome measure, despite reliability difficulties. Here we propose a novel perceptual evaluation, applied to ultrasound-visual biofeedback (U-VBF) therapy and therapy using visual articulatory models (VAMs) for two children with repaired submucous CP.Three comparisons were made: post VAM, post U-VBF and overall pre-and post-therapy. Twentytwo phonetically-trained listeners were asked to determine whether pre-or post-therapy recordings sounded "closer to the English target", using their own implicit stored knowledge (prompted via orthographic representation) as a comparison. Results are compared with segment-oriented percent target consonant correct (PTCC) derived from phonetic transcriptions by the authors.Listener judgements and PTCC suggest that both children made improvements using both VAM and U-VBF. Statistical analysis showed listener agreement across all three comparisons, despite agreement being poor. This perceptual evaluation offers a straightforward method of evaluating the effectiveness of interventions and can be used by phonetically trained or lay listeners.

Rehabilitation of speech disorders following glossectomy, based on ultrasound visual illustration and feedback

“…A third blind-SLP was in charge of the reassessment of the 10 patients based on the audio records, so that the inter-rater reliability could be evaluated. The results show various degrees of agreement between the two raters, consistent with the findings of Roxburgh et al (2016) who reported a statistically weak agreement between the scores of 22 phonetically-trained listeners for the same patients.…”

“…More than three decades ago, Shawker & Sonies (1985) suggested to use ultrasound images of the tongue for the rehabilitation of English /ɹ/ for a nine year old patient. Since this first case study, English /ɹ/ rehabilitation with ultrasound remains a widely studied topic (Adler-Bock, Bernhardt, Gick et al (2003) or Gallagher (2013)), Down syndrome (Fawcett, Bacsfalvi et al (2008)), cleft palate (Roxburgh, Cleland et al (2016)), acquired apraxia of speech post stroke (Jonathan L Preston & Leaman (2014), Acher, Fabre et al (2016) and Haldin, Acher et al (2017)) or partial glossectomy (Blyth, McCabe et al (2016)).…”

“…Moreover, the performance was mostly evaluated through speech assessments although acoustic (audio recordings) or articulatory (contours segmentation of images) analyses sometimes supplement these reports (Joanne Cleland, James M Scobbie et al (2015)). Besides, the experimental designs differed from one study to another: while Bernhardt, Bacsfalvi et al (2008) alternated traditional rehabilitation and ultrasound visual feedback, Roxburgh et al (2016) proposed a comparative study between the ultrasound visual feedback and the illustration by an articulatory talking head, whereas Cleland, McCron et al (2013) and Bacsfalvi, Bernhardt et al (2007) aimed to compare two main visual feedback devices, EPG and ultrasound. As a matter of fact, the recent study by Jonathan L , aiming to compare two types of ultrasound biofeedback, is the only one that led to a statistical analysis of the outcomes.…”

Systematic review of ultrasound visual biofeedback in intervention for speech sound disorders

“…), repaired submucous cleft palate (e.g., Roxburgh et al . ), or Down syndrome (e.g., Fawcett et al . ).…”

“…, Roxburgh et al . ), but diversity in study design and quality, varied responses to intervention, and low participant numbers hamper interpretation of these studies. Unfortunately, no large randomised‐controlled trials comparing approaches met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review.…”