Speech Science Views and News
Already an ASHA Learning Pass subscriber?
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.
will be able to:
- describe the pros and cons of behavior and functional assessment and treatment in the areas of speech science and voice
- describe at least one articulatory, phonatory, or prosodic characteristic of speech associated with gender, sexual orientation, age, accent, dialect, race, and ethnicity
- discuss the rationale for incorporating a computer-based adaptive complexity hierarchy in treatment for residual rhotic errors
- compare tasks that measure tactile versus proprioceptive aspects of oral somatosensory acuity
about what you learned and report on the Completion Form how you will use your
in This Course
- Research in Speech Science and Voice Disorders: The Promise of Modern Genetic Approaches in Improving Clinical Diagnosis and Treatment by Emily E. Kimballa and Lea Sayce, published in SIG 19, Volume 5, Issue 6, December 17, 2020
- Promoting Cultural and Linguistic Competence in Speech Science Courses by Amy T. Neel, published in SIG 19, Volume 6, Issue 1, February 23, 2021
- Computer-Assisted Challenge Point Intervention for Residual Speech Errors by Tara McAllister, Elaine R. Hitchcock, and José A. Ortiz, published in SIG 19, Volume 6, Issue 1, February 23, 2021
- Toward an Index of Oral Somatosensory Acuity: Comparison of Three Measures in Adults by Olesia Gritsyk, Heather Kabakoff, Joanne Jingwen Li, Samantha Ayala, Douglas M. Shiller, and Tara McAllister, published in SIG 19, March 30, 2021