Use Of Biofeedback Machine To Improve Sound Production (Research Proposal Sample)

Use of biofeedback machine to improve sound production
Name
Institution
Background
Studies indicate that speech sound malady affects approximately, ten percent of the children who are school-aged and pre-schooled. Conceptually, untypical speech might present an obstacle to the social and scholastic involvement of a child, with prospectively life-long aftermath for their professional and academic outcome (McCormack, Mc ALLISTER, McLeod and Harrison, 2009). Multiple progressive speech errors reduce at the age of 8-9 years in children. Whenever anomalous speech patterns endure past this specific time setting, they are usually regarded as residual speech errors. Residual speech sound errors relates to a sub-type of SSD whereby sounds prevail in error past the quintessential acquisition age (Preston and Edwards, 2007). People suffering from RSSEs are past the developmental window whereby the normalization of speech sound is likely to transpire spontaneously.
Incessant errors often pose a specific problem for the speech-language pathologists since numerous clients are usually discharged with the uncorrected residual errors. Previous studies have attempted to present an increasingly solid proof regarding the ability of biofeedback intervention in prompting effective results in the treatment of speech errors among children who have not reacted positively to alternative treatment types (Adler-Bock, Bernhardt, Gick, & Bacsfalvi, 2007; McAllister Byun & Hitchcock, 2012). However other studies have attempted to identify a limitation associated with the use of biofeedback treatment. The limitation is linked to the generalization of achievements in the treatment that are not automatic since some individuals continue to depend on the consistent visual feedback availability to attain the effective speech sound target production. (McAllister Byun & Hitchcock, 2012). Research regarding this particular challenge imparts that the generalization of motor education could be facilitated by scheduling treatment for the learners to be effectively challenged.
There are a diverse grouping with dissimilar diagnoses for instance, phonological affliction/ delay, articulation affliction/delay, and childhood apraxia of speech. Although there exists proof regarding the susceptibility of SSDs particularly the phonological affliction/impediment, towards remediation utilizing auditory-based procedures for example core vocabulary and minimum pairs therapy (Broomfield and Dodd, 2011) there is a portion of children who do not respond positively to conventional intervention. These diseases are referred to as intractable SSD or persistent SSD. For these particular children, the methods of visual biofeedback such as ultra-sound biofeedback (U-VBF) and electropalatography (EPG) often attempt to make internal prompts such as position explicit and tongue shape thereby allowing these particular children to grasp the articulation sequence and new articulations. Various studies indicate that EPG is prospectively efficient in remediating intractable SSDs (Gibbon, 2013).
Biofeedback intervention
Biofeedback relates to an instrumental feedback of a function that is physiological; it works by providing visual information or data about the performance of an individual. In biofeedback intercession or intervention the attention of the client is usually guided accordingly with regards to towards real-time optical illustration of the speech sound. Under the counsel of a practitioner, the patient watches the display as he tries to produce or create the target sounds. Utilizing both the data from the optical speech sound illustration and prompts from the clinician, the patient is instructed to adjust his outcome in an attempt to attain a precise duplicate with the optical replica. Biofeedback could be presented with a variety of mechanizations for instance electropalatography or spectrographic or spectral displays (Hitchcock and McAllister Byun, 2015). The current study utilizes imaging of ultrasound as a technique of biofeedback articulation. A probe of the ultra-sound located under the patient’s chin sanctions the patient to see the movements and shape of her tongue that she tries to adjust for a precise match or duplicate with an optical design illustrating the accurate vocalization of the sound /l/.
Ultrasound is characterized by the advantage of offering a clear image of the configuration of the tongue in real-time and it can therefore, be utilized to prompt the client to adjust the position of his tongue while generating lingual sounds. The images by ultrasound offer a ‘moving line’ which represents the tongue contour. The transducer is usually angled slightly backward or forward since the tongue cannot be viewed in a single image. Whenever it is angled forward, the blade of the tongue is often visible and whenever it is angled backwards, the root of the tongue is usually viewed. A silhoette usually appears on the image because of the bone of the hyoid. Studies carried out on the treatment of residual errors that affect /r/ using ultrasound biofeedback indicate that this procedure is effective. The evidence of the therapy using U-VBF is minimal but promising. Multiple researches originate from Canada and U.S.A with previous studies basing on young individuals and children with impaired hearing (Bacsfalvi, Bernhardt and Gick, 2007). Therapy essentially addresses the pronunciation of the /r/ consonant. However, the use of this therapy with alternative lingual speech sounds is uncommon and the assumptions that techniques effectual for /r/ mis-articulation will effectively translate to other types of error is wrong ((Gick, Bernhardt, Bacsfalvi and Wilson, 2008).
To date, various case studies indicate that ultrasound biofeedback is effective in enhancing the accuracy of phonetics for individuals with an impaired hearing and articulation disorders that are persistent (Bacsfalvi and Bernhardt, 2011). Various research have reported significant gains in the precision of rhotics in 2 children aged 14 and 12 years whose errors in speech had been immune to the previous treatments (Adler-Bock, Gick, and Bacsfalvi, 2007). Other studies indicate that adolescents whose hearing have been impaired and they experience problems of residual articulation learned lingual affricates and fricatives, liquids and vowels using the ultrasound biofeedback (Bernhardt, 2010). The study mainly focuses on the effectiveness of biofeedback intervention in enhancing the utterance of the consonant /l/.
Purpose of study
The main justification of the dissertation is to assess whether the theraputic technique which entails the use of biofeedback intervention would better the accuracy of the sequences of target speech /l/ in clients that are school-aged. I hypothesize that my client’s /l/ will improve with the utilization of an ultrasound machine. Through educating my clients on articulator targets via tongue movements using visual feedback and by sequencing these particular movements in the letter /l/, the relationship between actual movements and plan of speech motor will be developed.
Research question
 Will my clients’ /l/ sound improve by using the biofeedback ultrasound machine?
Hypothesis
 I believe my client /l/ sound will improve with the use of ultrasound machine.
Methodology
Participants
1 participant aged six and with a primary persistent SSD will be recruited from the local language and speech therapist. The child should depict the effects of lingual constrictions of the sound /l/ that has been unresponsive to various treatments. The participant should be an English monolingual speaker who possesses an extended history of SSD diagnosis based on the report from the clinician and the parent and the child should have been enrolled to receiver services in speech language since the age of between 2-3 years. Reports should indicate that the child has been making finite advancements in his accuracy in speech sound and that he has been enrolled in treatment of speech language through school during study time. To assert the SSD diagnosis, a speech-language pathologist who is licensed will assess the described protocol. The first author, a clinician who is licensed will also be present to observe the evaluation. The first author and the SLP are to agree on a common ground regarding the observation of SSD signs.
Intervention probes, target sequence and design
A diverse baseline over the intended behaviors will be utilized. 8 target excerpt will be chosen per child to be probed at each session. 1 target sequence will be chosen for treatment following the 3 probes of baseline pre-treatment. The other baseline pre-treatment probes will remain untreated. A 2nd target sequence will be added after 2-4 sessions, the remaining sessions will involve the treatment of 2 target sequences. If the child attains an accuracy of 80% following a treated target sequence on 2 successive probes the process of treatment will be discontinued on the specific target sequence and replaced with another target sequence. If a zero percent improvement will be observed following 6 progressive sessions, the target will also be discontinued and replaced with a new target. Treatment will be offered for eighteen sessions with not less than 2 targets in the treatment process being attended to at a single session.
Probe data regarding sound sequences: Focusing on the pre-treatment information or data, the sound sequence that entailed errors regarding lingual sounds will be identified for the participant. 8 words linked to the target sequence will be probed at the termination of every session. The 8 words associated with a particular target sequence will include 4-5 words that are multisyllabic and 3-4 words that are monosyllabic; treatment will be focused on a section of the vocabulary or words included on the pro...