|
Format(s):
SIG Perspectives
This SIG 19 activity bundles four articles providing perspectives on a broad variety of topics in speech-language pathology. First, Bunta and Gósy discuss how speech-language pathologists and audiologists could utilize acoustic analyses in their clinical practice. They provide specific examples ranging from aphasia to speech sound disorders and various linguistic contexts to demonstrate the utility of these tools. The authors suggest acoustic analyses can be a valued supplement in clinical evaluations. Next, Diekhoff and Lulich examine speech-language pathology students’ conceptualization and description of American rhotic Sounds. They discuss the differences in descriptions of rhotic sounds by students who had experience with those sounds compared to those who did not have experience with those sounds. The role of direct instruction regarding rhotic shapes is highlighted. Then, Gurevich and Kim discuss quantifying allophonic coverage in commonly used reading passages. In summary, they suggest a need for new speech materials that could provide allophonic coverage. Finally, Jung, Jing, and Grigos investigate the accuracy and consistency of students’ perceptions/ratings of speech errors in children. They report that student clinicians’ ratings matched with expert speech-language pathologists’ ratings with training. The importance and need for listening training in speech-language pathology programs are also discussed.
Format(s):
SIG Perspectives
This SIG 19 activity bundles four articles providing perspectives on a broad variety of topics in speech-language pathology. First, Holt provides an overview of current and historical discussions of gender and race, challenging the reader to accept that one’s perspective is indebted to a specific belief system. Readers are to evaluate how gender and race are used to categorize people and examine whether a member of a marginalized or minoritized group affects that person’s access to or use of intervention services. Next, Cox and Koenig define speech privacy and provide a brief history and applications in the health care setting. A general perspective is outlined, including threats to speech privacy, and speakers who use an electrolarynx are used as an example to highlight specific issues clinicians may encounter. Ramanarayanan et al. discuss the use of speech as a biomarker in therapy and research. In summary, robustness of analytics—specificity, diversity, and physiological interpretability—must be further developed. Finally, Weerathunge, Tomassi, and Stepp review a number of populations with voice disorders that have been studied using altered auditory feedback. Many have hyperactive auditory feedback responses and the differing underling reasons are reviewed. Therapy considerations are also described.
Format(s):
SIG Perspectives
The first two articles in this SIG 19 activity provide information to better our assessment and treatment of individuals in the area of voice, while the latter two articles focus on treatment of individuals in the area of speech production. The authors for all four articles present a review of the literature as well as challenges and future directions. First, Van Hook and Duffy conducted a pilot study to trial the Gender Spectrum Voice Inventory. This article provides a review, discussion of validity, and speech-language pathologists’ perceptions of the inventory in an effort to address a gap in available clinical tools for transgender and nonbinary people. Next, Hammer reviews the relationship between air flow with sound pressure level during syllable production while holding fundamental frequency and subglottic air pressure constant. The results have clinical implications that stress the importance of an increase in air flow and focus on vocal fold contact. Then, Gritsyk et al. describe their study to determine which measures of somatosensory acuity best predicted change in production accuracy during vowel learning tasks while controlling auditory acuity. Results indicate only bite block adaptation with auditory masking was significantly associated with performance. Finally, Zajac et al. discuss their preliminary study that indicated cleft type contributes to production errors, specifically backing, in children with repaired cleft palate. Additionally, a history of otitis media affects the spectral contrast of alveolar consonants in children without clefts.
Format(s):
SIG Perspectives
This activity presents a diverse perspective, including four different speech science articles focused on a variety of topics. Kimball and Sayce discuss the pros and cons of research using behavior and functional assessment and treatment in the areas of speech science and voice, specifically their limitation in outlining etiology or explaining treatment resistance. They also provide an overview of genetic research approaches as a possible path forward to develop additional evidence-based treatment approaches. Neel reviews the production and perception of extralinguistic information regarding sex/gender, sexual orientation, age, non-native accent, regional and social dialect, and race and ethnicity. The article explores the literature in the above areas reviewing acoustical features and common misperceptions, concluding with instructional activities to enhance student awareness of indexical characteristics. McAllister et al. studied the effects of biofeedback for residual rhotic errors in a preliminary case series. Participants were five native English speakers who had not yet generalized rhotic production. Treatment consisted of either electropalatographic or visual-acoustic biofeedback using the Challenge Point Program software. Although participant responses to treatment were variable, the median effect size tended to exceed the minimum value considered clinically significant. Gritsyk et al. examined three measures to determine which best predicted change in production accuracy during a vowel learning task. Using 20 female college students, researchers administered three tasks: an oral stereognosis task, a bite block task using auditory making, and a new phonetic awareness task. The bite block task with auditory masking, measuring proprioceptive awareness, was the only task significantly related to performance in speech learning.
|
