Sound Production Treatment

W.C., a 26 year 11 month old woman, was brought to the Florida Atlantic University-Communication Disorders Clinic (FAU-CDC) by her boyfriend for a Speech-Language Evaluation. She was referred to the FAU-CDC by her neurologist for word finding difficulties and a possible articulation disorder after a left hemisphere hemorrhagic stroke one month ago. According to her boyfriend, W.C.’s symptoms began immediately following her stroke and are characterized by word finding difficulties, slowed and choppy speech, and mispronunciation of certain consonants that is affecting intelligibility along with a strained voice.

NSOMEs delineate from phonetic placement and sound modification procedures that are used in traditional articulation therapy due to the fact that they are not directly related to the act of speech (Muttiah, Georges, & Brackenbury, 2011). Phonetic treatments also target

Procedure. Movement of the articulators were examined using the EMA AG-200 system. Like the previous study, five sensors were attached to the participant’s articulators, including: the bridge of the nose, the maxilla above the upper central incisors, the jaw, tongue back, and tongue tip. The first two sensors were used as references to provide information about head movements. The participants were instructed to repeat the syllables /ta/ and /ka/ as fast as they could and as many times as they could on a single breath while maintaining

The purpose of this evidence based research paper is to evaluate the efficacy of the cycles approach when compared to the traditional articulation therapy approach in the treatment of children who are highly unintelligible. The Cycles Phonological Remediation Approach (Hodson, 2011) is a treatment method for children with severe speech sound disorders. This approach targets phonological pattern errors in a sequential manner. During each cycle, one or more phonological patterns are targeted and after each cycle is complete, another cycle begins. Recycling of phonological patterns continues until the targeted patterns are generalized into the child’s conversational speech. The cycles approach is meant to mirror typical phonological development in children (Hodson, 2011).

If my partner was an actual client, I would not recommend treatment based on her formal articulation assessment performance from the Arizona Articulation Proficiency Scale, Third Revision. The client’s hypothetical age was 3 years, 10 months, and 27 days old. This put her in the 3-11 age category. Although, my partner did produce some errors. She was intelligible, and scored 85.0 to 94 on the speech intelligibility interpretation values. According to her Arizona-3 total score, her level of articulatory impairment was within normal limits. The errors she produced consisted of instances of /f/ for / θ/, velar fronting with /k/ for /t/, gliding, and depalatization. She produced /tw/ for /tr/, /pw/ for /pl/, /w/ for /l/, /w/ for /r/, and /gw/ for

Studio technology has developed drastically over the years and has become ever more vital to the record producer within the music industry. Different producers make use of studio technology in different ways, often depending on the style of music that they are producing, their preferred method of production and the band 's preference of sound.

The objective of the therapy secession that took place on February 4, 2016 was to work on articulation and voice with E.S, who was eight years and five months. The severity of ES’s articulation and voice diagnosis was mild. The Clinician who led this therapy secession was Kasten. E.S was well behaved and engaged. She asked questions, and demonstrated knowledge of the objectives by acknowledging when she did something wrong and how she could correct it.

Clinical Implications: Minimal-contrast treatment is effective and efficient for treating children with phonological disability. Avoiding listener confusion is motivating for suppressing process use.

There are many different language delays and disorders found in the pediatric population. Childhood apraxia of speech (CAS) is one of the most common of these disorders. Dr. Libby Kumin defines CAS as “a motor speech disorder where children have difficulty planning, coordinating, producing and sequencing speech sounds” (Kumin, n.d.). Apraxia does not occur because of weakness or paralysis of facial and oral muscles. It occurs when a child’s brain cannot properly plan the movement of body parts necessary for normal speech production (“Childhood Apraxia,” 2011). Though CAS is the most common name for this specific disorder, it is also referred to as a variety of other names. Some of these names include: dyspraxia, developmental

We need to expand the Apraxia bubble to the parents who aren't affected by it, to the teachers who know nothing about it, and to the speech professionals who somehow do not know about it. The rewards alone in connecting the Apraxia community to the non-Apraxia community are incredible and slowly, but surely it CAN be done.

Dysarthrias are a group of motor speech disorders characterized by various forms of articulatory mistakes, and poor intelligibility. Dysarthrias typically include lots of speech errors. Apraxia of speech is the result of a brain injury (stroke, degenerative disease, TBI, anoxia and tumors). In apraxia of speech, the individual has a breakdown in motor planning and programming. The individual would have difficulty with voluntary movement for speech tasks. In apraxia of speech there is a deficit in prosody and articulation. The major difference between dysarthria and apraxia of speech is that dysarthria is a

In order to look at the efficacy of this treatment method a research study was selected that measured the results of using this treatment approach. Treating Speech Subsystems in Childhood Apraxia of Speech with Tactical Input: The Prompt Approach, written by Philip S. Dale and Deborah A. Hayden is a peer reviewed article published in 2013 in the American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. The study indicates that PROMPT based treatments yielded significant results. Children made advances in both the scores on the standardized tests and on the untreated items, demonstrating generalization. Tactile kinestetic cues added greatly to the motor speech training. This is a very complex training program that works to treat children with very complex disorders (Dale and Hayden, 2013).

Aphasia is a language disorder that can be the result of a brain injury. An individual that is suffering from aphasia may experience difficulty speaking, writing, reading, or comprehending. There are three different types of Aphasia that differ in various ways. First, Wernicke’s Aphasia is the inability to grasp the meaning of words and sentences that have been produced by another individual. This type of aphasia is also known as “fluent aphasia” or “receptive aphasia”. Wernicke patients’ speech may come across like a jumble of words or jargon, but it is very well articulated and they have no issue producing their own connected speech. If the patient is consecutively making errors, it is common for them to be unaware of their difficulties, and not realize that their sentences don’t make sense. The severity of the disorder varies depending on the patient, and the disorder results form damage in the left posterior temporal region of the brain, which is also known as Wernicke’s area.

It is often the case where stuttering can easily be controlled in therapy, however, in a naturalistic environment, where individuals are engaging in multiple tasks that might interfere with each other, controlling stuttering even with a fluency technique becomes a challenge. This is an important study for clinicians to be aware of in order to be able to assist PWS with managing fluent speech while they participate simultaneously in a higher cognitive or linguistic

Apraxia of speech is a disorder in which an individual has an unknown motor issue that affects their speech communication (Beathard & Robert, 2008). The extent and severity of the apraxia can vary from person to person. Apraxia of speech can occur in both children and adults. Childhood apraxia of speech (CAS) is a newer diagnosis and controversial because it does not have specific markers that differ from other speech acquisition disorders (Beathard & Robert, 2008). For an individual to be diagnosed with apraxia of speech or CAS they must meet 8 out of 11 features and not have structural problems in the speech organs, signs of dysarthric symptoms, hearing problems, and/or have at least average nonverbal intelligence (Martikainen & Korpilahit, 2011). The features of CAS are: limited consonant and vowel repertoire; frequent omission errors; high incidence of vowel errors; inconsistent articulation errors; increased difficulty imitating words and phrases; predominant use of simple syllable shapes; impaired volitional oral movements; reduced expressive language skills compared to receptive language skills; and incorrectness in producing multisyllabic sequences (Beathard & Robert, 2008;Martikainen & Korpilahit, 2011). The treatment options for apraxia of speech are limited. There has been no one treatment that has been found to be superior to others but researchers have been experimenting with different treatment options to see if one will help improve the features of