Speech Sound DisorderPhase 1C-RESULTSNCT03736213
Delineation of Sensorimotor Subtypes Underlying Residual Speech Errors
A Phase 1 study testing Visual-acoustic biofeedback and Ultrasound biofeedback in people with Speech Sound Disorder, run by New York University at 3 sites in United States.
Trial summary
Children with speech sound disorder show diminished accuracy and intelligibility in spoken communication and may thus be perceived as less capable or intelligent than peers, with negative consequences for both socioemotional and socioeconomic outcomes. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 9 to 15 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Speech Sound Disorder
- What is being tested?
- Visual-acoustic biofeedback and Ultrasound biofeedback
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 7 participants
- Where
- 3 sitesUnited States
- Study dates
- 1 Mar 2019to 1 Feb 2022
- Phase
- Phase 1
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 9 to 15 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child
Who may be able to join
- Must be between 9;0 and 15;11 years of age at the time of enrollment.
- Must speak English as the dominant language (i.e., must have begun learning English by age 2, per parent report).
- Must speak a rhotic dialect of English.
- Must pass a pure-tone hearing screening at 20 decibels (dB) Hearing Level (HL).
- Must pass a brief examination of oral structure and function.
- Must exhibit less than thirty percent accuracy, based on trained listener ratings, on a probe list eliciting /r/ in various phonetic contexts at the word level.
- Must show 0-5% accuracy in production of /r/ at the syllable level, based on treating clinicians' perceptual ratings, during an initial Dynamic Assessment phase consisting of 2 hours of traditional (non-biofeedback) instruction.
- Must fit one of two profiles: (1) primary auditory deficit (scores outside the normative predictive interval for auditory measures assessing identification and discrimination of synthetic speech stimuli, but within the normative predictive interval for measures of oral stereognosis and articulator placement awareness or (2) primary somatosensory deficit, with the reverse profile of spared/impaired sensory function.
Who cannot join
- Must not receive a T score more than 1.3 standard deviations (SD) below the mean on the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence-2 (WASI-2) Matrix Reasoning.
- Must not receive a standard score below 80 on the Core Language Index of the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-5 (CELF-5).
- Must not exhibit voice or fluency disorder of a severity judged likely to interfere with the ability to participate in study activities.
- Must not have an existing diagnosis of developmental disability, major neurobehavioral syndrome such as cerebral palsy, Down Syndrome, or Autism Spectrum Disorder, or major neural disorder (e.g., epilepsy, agenesis of the corpus callosum) or insult (e.g., traumatic brain injury, stroke, or tumor resection).
- Must not show clinically significant signs of apraxia of speech or dysarthria.
Trial locations and contacts
3 sites in 1 country.
United States3 sites
Montclair State University
Bloomfield, New Jersey, 07003
New York University
New York, New York, 10012
Syracuse University
Syracuse, New York, 13244
About this study
Official title: Correcting Residual Errors With Spectral, Ultrasound, and Traditional Speech Therapy: Delineation of Sensorimotor Subtypes
Children with speech sound disorder show diminished accuracy and intelligibility in spoken communication and may thus be perceived as less capable or intelligent than peers, with negative consequences for both socioemotional and socioeconomic outcomes. While most speech errors resolve by the late school-age years, between 2-5% of speakers exhibit residual speech errors (RSE) that persist through adolescence or even adulthood, reflecting about 6 million cases in the US. Both affected children/families and speech-language pathologists (SLPs) have highlighted the critical need for research to identify more effective forms of treatment for children with RSE. In a series of single-case experimental studies, research has found that treatment incorporating technologically enhanced sensory feedback (visual-acoustic biofeedback, ultrasound biofeedback) can improve speech in individuals with RSE who have not responded to previous intervention. Further research is needed to understand heterogeneity across individuals in the magnitude of response to biofeedback treatment.
The overall objective of this proposal is to conduct clinical research that will guide the evidence-based management of RSE while also providing novel insights into the sensorimotor underpinnings of speech. The central hypothesis is that individual deficit profiles will predict relative response to visual-acoustic vs ultrasound biofeedback. From the larger population of children with RSE evaluated as part of C-RESULTS-RCT (Correcting Residual Errors With Spectral, Ultrasound, Traditional Speech Therapy Randomized Controlled Trial), a subset of 8 children will be selected who show a deficit in one domain (auditory or somatosensory) and intact perception in the other. Single-case methods will be used to test the hypothesis that sensory deficit profiles differentially predict response to visual-acoustic vs ultrasound biofeedback.
Read the detailed description
Single-Case Randomization Component: At the group level, speakers with RSE show poorer auditory and oral somatosensory acuity than typically developing (TD) speakers, but individuals differ in the extent to which each sensory domain is impacted. The objective of this aim is to evaluate how distinct sensory profiles mediate relative response to different types of biofeedback, with the goal of optimizing treatment through personalized learning. This study will test the working hypothesis that visual-acoustic biofeedback will produce larger gains in children whose deficit primarily affects the specification of the auditory target, while ultrasound biofeedback will produce larger gains in children with a primary somatosensory deficit. The main approach to testing this hypothesis is to select, from the larger population of children with RSE evaluated as part of C-RESULTS-RCT, a subset of 8 children who show asymmetric sensory profiles (strong auditory and weak somatosensory acuity, or vice versa). These children will be enrolled in a single-case experimental design where individual treatment sessions are randomly assigned to feature visual-acoustic or ultrasound biofeedback. Participants will complete 20 hrs of treatment (10 days, 2 sessions per day) over a 5 week period. Acoustic measures will be used to evaluate /r/ production accuracy within each session. Randomization tests will be used to evaluate differences in accuracy between ultrasound and visual-acoustic biofeedback treatment conditions.
- Conditions
- Speech Sound Disorder
- Being tested
- Visual-acoustic biofeedback, Ultrasound biofeedback
- Keywords
- speech, articulation, motor development
- Medical subject headings
- Speech Sound Disorder, Speech
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Visual-acoustic biofeedbackBehavioural
In visual-acoustic biofeedback treatment, the elements of traditional articulatory treatment (i.e., auditory models and verbal descriptions of articulator placement) are enhanced with a dynamic display of the speech signal in the form of the real-time LPC spectrum. Because correct vs incorrect productions of /r/ contrast acoustically in the frequency of the third formant (F3), participants will be cued to make their real-time LPC spectrum match a visual target characterized by a low F3 frequency. I
Ultrasound biofeedbackBehavioural
In ultrasound biofeedback, the elements of traditional articulatory treatment are enhanced with a real-time ultrasound display of the shape and movements of the tongue. One or two target tongue shapes will be selected for each participant, and a trace of the selected target will be superimposed over the ultrasound screen. Participants will be cued to reshape the tongue to match this target during /r/ production.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Visual-acoustic biofeedback | Experimental | Visual-acoustic biofeedback treatment targeting /r/ distortions. Receives: Behavioral: Visual-acoustic biofeedback |
| Ultrasound biofeedback | Experimental | Ultrasound biofeedback treatment targeting /r/ distortions. Receives: Behavioral: Ultrasound biofeedback |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Normalized F3-F2 Distance, an Acoustic Measure That Correlates With Perceptual Accuracy of /r/, Measured From /r/ Sounds Produced in Treatment Sessions.
During treatment, one trial in each block of 10 was flagged for measurement and the first three formants (F1, F2, F3) were extracted from the center of the /r/ interval. The distance between the second and third formants (F3-F2) was converted to z-scores relative to normative data from age-matched children with typical speech (Lee et al., 1999). A z-score of 0 represents the mean F3-F2 distance for typical children; a z-score of 1 indicates one standard deviation of the normative sample above the sample mean. Because F3-F2 is small in perceptually accurate /r/, larger values indicate lower accuracy; z-scores above 2 are considered clinically atypical. Summary statistics report the mean and standard deviation of normalized F3-F2 distance for each treatment condition, pooled across participants and sessions. A two-tailed paired-samples t-test (superiority criterion) was used to compare mean normalized F3-F2 distance for each treatment condition across subjects.
Measured: Acoustic accuracy was measured in all ten sessions of each type of treatment, which were administered over five weeks.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted9 Nov 2018
- Study start1 Mar 2019
- Primary completion1 Feb 2022
- Study completion1 Feb 2022
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (20)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Speech Sound DisorderStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 1
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Model description
- In this single-case randomization design, each participant will receive an equal number of sessions of visual-acoustic and ultrasound biofeedback, with randomized allocation of treatment types to individual sessions. Treatment will last 20 hrs (10 days) over a 5 week period. Randomization will be blocked, with each day of treatment serving as a block; within each day, one hour of treatment will be randomly assigned to feature visual-acoustic and one to feature ultrasound treatment. A congruent condition and an incongruent condition will be defined for each participant based on their sensory profile, where the congruent condition is the biofeedback type that is expected to be more effective and the incongruent condition is the type expected to be less effective. Visual-acoustic biofeedback is defined as the congruent condition for individuals with a primary auditory deficit and ultrasound biofeedback is defined as congruent for individuals with a primary somatosensory deficit.
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 7 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- New York University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Syracuse University, Montclair State University, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD)
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03736213
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- C-RESULTS-SCED
- Other IDs
- R01DC017476
- Acronym
- C-RESULTS
- Status last verified
- Dec 2021
- First submitted
- 7 Nov 2018
- Last updated
- 11 Dec 2023
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Preston JL, McCabe P, Tiede M, Whalen DH. Tongue shapes for rhotics in school-age children with and without residual speech errors. Clin Linguist Phon. 2019;33(4):334-348. doi: 10.1080/02699206.2018.1517190. Epub 2018 Sep 10.
PubMed 30199271Preston JL, McAllister T, Phillips E, Boyce S, Tiede M, Kim JS, Whalen DH. Treatment for Residual Rhotic Errors With High- and Low-Frequency Ultrasound Visual Feedback: A Single-Case Experimental Design. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2018 Aug 8;61(8):1875-1892. doi: 10.1044/2018_JSLHR-S-17-0441.
PubMed 30073249Dugan SH, Silbert N, McAllister T, Preston JL, Sotto C, Boyce SE. Modelling category goodness judgments in children with residual sound errors. Clin Linguist Phon. 2019;33(4):295-315. doi: 10.1080/02699206.2018.1477834. Epub 2018 May 24.
PubMed 29792525Preston JL, Holliman-Lopez G, Leece MC. Do Participants Report Any Undesired Effects in Ultrasound Speech Therapy? Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2018 May 3;27(2):813-818. doi: 10.1044/2017_AJSLP-17-0121.
PubMed 29546269Preston JL, McAllister Byun T, Boyce SE, Hamilton S, Tiede M, Phillips E, Rivera-Campos A, Whalen DH. Ultrasound Images of the Tongue: A Tutorial for Assessment and Remediation of Speech Sound Errors. J Vis Exp. 2017 Jan 3;(119):55123. doi: 10.3791/55123.
PubMed 28117824Preston JL, Leece MC, Maas E. Motor-based treatment with and without ultrasound feedback for residual speech-sound errors. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2017 Jan;52(1):80-94. doi: 10.1111/1460-6984.12259. Epub 2016 Jun 14.
PubMed 27296780Campbell H, Harel D, Hitchcock E, McAllister Byun T. Selecting an acoustic correlate for automated measurement of American English rhotic production in children. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2018 Nov;20(6):635-643. doi: 10.1080/17549507.2017.1359334. Epub 2017 Aug 10.
PubMed 28795872Campbell H, McAllister Byun T. Deriving individualised /r/ targets from the acoustics of children's non-rhotic vowels. Clin Linguist Phon. 2018;32(1):70-87. doi: 10.1080/02699206.2017.1330898. Epub 2017 Jul 13.
PubMed 28703653McAllister Byun T. Efficacy of Visual-Acoustic Biofeedback Intervention for Residual Rhotic Errors: A Single-Subject Randomization Study. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2017 May 24;60(5):1175-1193. doi: 10.1044/2016_JSLHR-S-16-0038.
PubMed 28389677McAllister Byun T, Tiede M. Perception-production relations in later development of American English rhotics. PLoS One. 2017 Feb 16;12(2):e0172022. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172022. eCollection 2017.
PubMed 28207800McAllister Byun T, Campbell H. Differential Effects of Visual-Acoustic Biofeedback Intervention for Residual Speech Errors. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016 Nov 11;10:567. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00567. eCollection 2016.
PubMed 27891084McAllister Byun T, Halpin PF, Szeredi D. Online crowdsourcing for efficient rating of speech: a validation study. J Commun Disord. 2015 Jan-Feb;53:70-83. doi: 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2014.11.003. Epub 2014 Dec 15.
PubMed 25578293Hitchcock ER, Byun TM, Swartz M, Lazarus R. Efficacy of Electropalatography for Treating Misarticulation of /r/. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2017 Nov 8;26(4):1141-1158. doi: 10.1044/2017_AJSLP-16-0122.
PubMed 28834534Harel D, Hitchcock ER, Szeredi D, Ortiz J, McAllister Byun T. Finding the experts in the crowd: Validity and reliability of crowdsourced measures of children's gradient speech contrasts. Clin Linguist Phon. 2017;31(1):104-117. doi: 10.3109/02699206.2016.1174306. Epub 2016 Jun 7.
PubMed 27267258Hitchcock ER, Harel D, Byun TM. Social, Emotional, and Academic Impact of Residual Speech Errors in School-Aged Children: A Survey Study. Semin Speech Lang. 2015 Nov;36(4):283-94. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1562911. Epub 2015 Oct 12.
PubMed 26458203
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 11 Dec 2023. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Correcting Residual Errors With Spectral, Ultrasound, and Traditional Speech Therapy: Delineation of Sensorimotor Subtypes
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03736213
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- C-RESULTS / C-RESULTS-SCED
- Conditions
- Speech Sound Disorder
- Keywords
- speech, articulation, motor development
- Phase
- Phase 1
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 7 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- New York UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Syracuse University, Montclair State University, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD)
- Study start
- 1 Mar 2019 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Feb 2022 (actual)
- Study completion
- 1 Feb 2022 (actual)
- First posted
- 9 Nov 2018 (actual)
- Results
- Posted 29 Dec 2022
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Children with speech sound disorder show diminished accuracy and intelligibility in spoken communication and may thus be perceived as less capable or intelligent than peers, with negative consequences for both socioemotional and socioeconomic outcomes. While most speech errors resolve by the late school-age years, between 2-5% of speakers exhibit residual speech errors (RSE) that persist through adolescence or even adulthood, reflecting about 6 million cases in the US. Both affected children/families and speech-language pathologists (SLPs) have highlighted the critical need for research to identify more effective forms of treatment for children with RSE. In a series of single-case experimental studies, research has found that treatment incorporating technologically enhanced sensory feedback (visual-acoustic biofeedback, ultrasound biofeedback) can improve speech in individuals with RSE who have not responded to previous intervention. Further research is needed to understand heterogeneity across individuals in the magnitude of response to biofeedback treatment.
The overall objective of this proposal is to conduct clinical research that will guide the evidence-based management of RSE while also providing novel insights into the sensorimotor underpinnings of speech. The central hypothesis is that individual deficit profiles will predict relative response to visual-acoustic vs ultrasound biofeedback. From the larger population of children with RSE evaluated as part of C-RESULTS-RCT (Correcting Residual Errors With Spectral, Ultrasound, Traditional Speech Therapy Randomized Controlled Trial), a subset of 8 children will be selected who show a deficit in one domain (auditory or somatosensory) and intact perception in the other. Single-case methods will be used to test the hypothesis that sensory deficit profiles differentially predict response to visual-acoustic vs ultrasound biofeedback.
Detailed description
Single-Case Randomization Component: At the group level, speakers with RSE show poorer auditory and oral somatosensory acuity than typically developing (TD) speakers, but individuals differ in the extent to which each sensory domain is impacted. The objective of this aim is to evaluate how distinct sensory profiles mediate relative response to different types of biofeedback, with the goal of optimizing treatment through personalized learning. This study will test the working hypothesis that visual-acoustic biofeedback will produce larger gains in children whose deficit primarily affects the specification of the auditory target, while ultrasound biofeedback will produce larger gains in children with a primary somatosensory deficit. The main approach to testing this hypothesis is to select, from the larger population of children with RSE evaluated as part of C-RESULTS-RCT, a subset of 8 children who show asymmetric sensory profiles (strong auditory and weak somatosensory acuity, or vice versa). These children will be enrolled in a single-case experimental design where individual treatment sessions are randomly assigned to feature visual-acoustic or ultrasound biofeedback. Participants will complete 20 hrs of treatment (10 days, 2 sessions per day) over a 5 week period. Acoustic measures will be used to evaluate /r/ production accuracy within each session. Randomization tests will be used to evaluate differences in accuracy between ultrasound and visual-acoustic biofeedback treatment conditions.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- In this single-case randomization design, each participant will receive an equal number of sessions of visual-acoustic and ultrasound biofeedback, with randomized allocation of treatment types to individual sessions. Treatment will last 20 hrs (10 days) over a 5 week period. Randomization will be blocked, with each day of treatment serving as a block; within each day, one hour of treatment will be randomly assigned to feature visual-acoustic and one to feature ultrasound treatment. A congruent condition and an incongruent condition will be defined for each participant based on their sensory profile, where the congruent condition is the biofeedback type that is expected to be more effective and the incongruent condition is the type expected to be less effective. Visual-acoustic biofeedback is defined as the congruent condition for individuals with a primary auditory deficit and ultrasound biofeedback is defined as congruent for individuals with a primary somatosensory deficit.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Visual-acoustic biofeedback | Experimental | Behavioral: Visual-acoustic biofeedbackVisual-acoustic biofeedback treatment targeting /r/ distortions. |
| Ultrasound biofeedback | Experimental | Behavioral: Ultrasound biofeedbackUltrasound biofeedback treatment targeting /r/ distortions. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 9 to 15 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child
Key inclusion criteria (8 listed)
- Must be between 9;0 and 15;11 years of age at the time of enrollment.
- Must speak English as the dominant language (i.e., must have begun learning English by age 2, per parent report).
- Must speak a rhotic dialect of English.
- Must pass a pure-tone hearing screening at 20 decibels (dB) Hearing Level (HL).
- Must pass a brief examination of oral structure and function.
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Must not receive a T score more than 1.3 standard deviations (SD) below the mean on the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence-2 (WASI-2) Matrix Reasoning.
- Must not receive a standard score below 80 on the Core Language Index of the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-5 (CELF-5).
- Must not exhibit voice or fluency disorder of a severity judged likely to interfere with the ability to participate in study activities.
- Must not have an existing diagnosis of developmental disability, major neurobehavioral syndrome such as cerebral palsy, Down Syndrome, or Autism Spectrum Disorder, or major neural disorder (e.g., epilepsy, agenesis of the corpus callosum) or insult (e.g., traumatic brain injury, stroke, or tumor resection).
- Must not show clinically significant signs of apraxia of speech or dysarthria.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Visual-acoustic biofeedbackIn visual-acoustic biofeedback treatment, the elements of traditional articulatory treatment (i.e., auditory models and verbal descriptions of articulator placement) are enhanced with a dynamic display of the speech signal in the form of the real-time LPC spectrum. Because correct vs incorrect productions of /r/ contrast acoustically in the frequency of the third formant (F3), participants will be cued to make their real-time LPC spectrum match a visual target characterized by a low F3 frequency. I | Behavioural | Visual-acoustic biofeedback |
| Ultrasound biofeedbackIn ultrasound biofeedback, the elements of traditional articulatory treatment are enhanced with a real-time ultrasound display of the shape and movements of the tongue. One or two target tongue shapes will be selected for each participant, and a trace of the selected target will be superimposed over the ultrasound screen. Participants will be cued to reshape the tongue to match this target during /r/ production. | Behavioural | Ultrasound biofeedback |
Primary outcome
Normalized F3-F2 Distance, an Acoustic Measure That Correlates With Perceptual Accuracy of /r/, Measured From /r/ Sounds Produced in Treatment Sessions.
Time frame: Acoustic accuracy was measured in all ten sessions of each type of treatment, which were administered over five weeks.
During treatment, one trial in each block of 10 was flagged for measurement and the first three formants (F1, F2, F3) were extracted from the center of the /r/ interval. The distance between the second and third formants (F3-F2) was converted to z-scores relative to normative data from age-matched children with typical speech (Lee et al., 1999). A z-score of 0 represents the mean F3-F2 distance for typical children; a z-score of 1 indicates one standard deviation of the normative sample above the sample mean. Because F3-F2 is small in perceptually accurate /r/, larger values indicate lower accuracy; z-scores above 2 are considered clinically atypical. Summary statistics report the mean and standard deviation of normalized F3-F2 distance for each treatment condition, pooled across participants and sessions. A two-tailed paired-samples t-test (superiority criterion) was used to compare mean normalized F3-F2 distance for each treatment condition across subjects.
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 11 Dec 2023.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Background: PubMed 30199271Preston JL, McCabe P, Tiede M, Whalen DH. Tongue shapes for rhotics in school-age children with and without residual speech errors. Clin Linguist Phon. 2019;33(4):334-348. doi: 10.1080/02699206.2018.1517190. Epub 2018 Sep 10.
- Background: PubMed 30073249Preston JL, McAllister T, Phillips E, Boyce S, Tiede M, Kim JS, Whalen DH. Treatment for Residual Rhotic Errors With High- and Low-Frequency Ultrasound Visual Feedback: A Single-Case Experimental Design. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2018 Aug 8;61(8):1875-1892. doi: 10.1044/2018_JSLHR-S-17-0441.
- Background: PubMed 29792525Dugan SH, Silbert N, McAllister T, Preston JL, Sotto C, Boyce SE. Modelling category goodness judgments in children with residual sound errors. Clin Linguist Phon. 2019;33(4):295-315. doi: 10.1080/02699206.2018.1477834. Epub 2018 May 24.
- Background: PubMed 29546269Preston JL, Holliman-Lopez G, Leece MC. Do Participants Report Any Undesired Effects in Ultrasound Speech Therapy? Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2018 May 3;27(2):813-818. doi: 10.1044/2017_AJSLP-17-0121.
- Background: PubMed 28117824Preston JL, McAllister Byun T, Boyce SE, Hamilton S, Tiede M, Phillips E, Rivera-Campos A, Whalen DH. Ultrasound Images of the Tongue: A Tutorial for Assessment and Remediation of Speech Sound Errors. J Vis Exp. 2017 Jan 3;(119):55123. doi: 10.3791/55123.
- Background: PubMed 27296780Preston JL, Leece MC, Maas E. Motor-based treatment with and without ultrasound feedback for residual speech-sound errors. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2017 Jan;52(1):80-94. doi: 10.1111/1460-6984.12259. Epub 2016 Jun 14.
- Background: PubMed 28795872Campbell H, Harel D, Hitchcock E, McAllister Byun T. Selecting an acoustic correlate for automated measurement of American English rhotic production in children. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2018 Nov;20(6):635-643. doi: 10.1080/17549507.2017.1359334. Epub 2017 Aug 10.
- Background: PubMed 28703653Campbell H, McAllister Byun T. Deriving individualised /r/ targets from the acoustics of children's non-rhotic vowels. Clin Linguist Phon. 2018;32(1):70-87. doi: 10.1080/02699206.2017.1330898. Epub 2017 Jul 13.
- Background: PubMed 28389677McAllister Byun T. Efficacy of Visual-Acoustic Biofeedback Intervention for Residual Rhotic Errors: A Single-Subject Randomization Study. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2017 May 24;60(5):1175-1193. doi: 10.1044/2016_JSLHR-S-16-0038.
- Background: PubMed 28207800McAllister Byun T, Tiede M. Perception-production relations in later development of American English rhotics. PLoS One. 2017 Feb 16;12(2):e0172022. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172022. eCollection 2017.
- Background: PubMed 27891084McAllister Byun T, Campbell H. Differential Effects of Visual-Acoustic Biofeedback Intervention for Residual Speech Errors. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016 Nov 11;10:567. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00567. eCollection 2016.
- Background: PubMed 25578293McAllister Byun T, Halpin PF, Szeredi D. Online crowdsourcing for efficient rating of speech: a validation study. J Commun Disord. 2015 Jan-Feb;53:70-83. doi: 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2014.11.003. Epub 2014 Dec 15.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Speech Sound Disorder
Recruiting
Feasibility and Preliminary Effects of a Therapeutic Approach Using Ultrasound Visual Biofeedback in Children With AFI: a Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.
Childhood Apraxia of Speech, Speech Sound Disorders
Recruiting
Improving Spatial Perception and Speech Understanding in Multitalker Mixtures
Hearing Loss
Recruiting
BiOfeedback, Online for Sibilant Treatment
Speech Sound Disorder
Recruiting
Online Rotating Delivery of Perception/Production Enhanced Treatment for Rhotics
Speech Sound Disorder
Recruiting
High-intensity vs Low-intensity Speech Intervention in Children With Phonological Speech Sound Disorders
Speech Therapy, Speech Disorders in Children
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
3 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 1 study testing Visual-acoustic biofeedback and Ultrasound biofeedback in people with Speech Sound Disorder, run by New York University at 3 sites in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 8 inclusion and 5 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 11 Dec 2023. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 3 sites in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 1 studies test a treatment in a small group of people for the first time or in a new way, mainly to check safety and find the right dose.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 29 Dec 2022). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Normalized F3-F2 Distance, an Acoustic Measure That Correlates With Perceptual Accuracy of /r/, Measured From /r/ Sounds Produced in Treatment Sessions. (time frame: Acoustic accuracy was measured in all ten sessions of each type of treatment, which were administered over five weeks.). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03736213, which also lists 20 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 11 Dec 2023.