Use of Electropalatography to Improve Speech Sound Production
NCT ID: NCT04055987
Last Updated: 2019-09-30
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
WITHDRAWN
NA
INTERVENTIONAL
2019-09-30
2020-06-01
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Cochlear Implant Speech and Non-speech Sound Recognition
NCT03661970
Perceptual Consequences of Cochlear Implant Electrode-neuron Interfaces
NCT05867173
Improved Speech Recognition Performance in Noise by Encoding Binaural Spatial Cues to the Cochlear Implant User.
NCT04357704
Electrophysiological Study of Interindividual Differences in Speech-understanding Among Cochlear Implant Patients
NCT01805167
Improving Spatial Perception and Speech Understanding in Multitalker Mixtures
NCT05260307
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
NON_RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Congenitally deaf
Prior and post speech training, participants will read aloud a standard paragraph (Rainbow passage), complete a traditional speech test (Goldman Fristoe Test of Articulation - 3) to assess the sounds of the English language in all word positions (initial, medial, final) and read a list of consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) combinations. Individual treatment will be provided once a week for 10 consecutive weeks. Traditional speech intervention with visual biofeedback from the EPG will be used. Auditory feedback will be provided through the participants own cochlear implant.
Visual biofeedback, auditory feedback and models
The EPG software program allows the speech clinician to model and comment upon the visual patterns during tongue/palate contact and to replay the participant's production for additional correction or reinforcement productions. Auditory feedback will be used to facilitate participant's perception of differences in production.
Adventitiously deaf
Prior and post speech training, participants will read aloud a standard paragraph (Rainbow passage), complete a traditional speech test (Goldman Fristoe Test of Articulation - 3) to assess the sounds of the English language in all word positions (initial, medial, final) and read a list of CVC combinations. Individual treatment will be provided once a week for 10 consecutive weeks. Traditional speech intervention with visual biofeedback from the EPG will be used. Auditory feedback will be provided through the participants own cochlear implant.
Visual biofeedback, auditory feedback and models
The EPG software program allows the speech clinician to model and comment upon the visual patterns during tongue/palate contact and to replay the participant's production for additional correction or reinforcement productions. Auditory feedback will be used to facilitate participant's perception of differences in production.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Visual biofeedback, auditory feedback and models
The EPG software program allows the speech clinician to model and comment upon the visual patterns during tongue/palate contact and to replay the participant's production for additional correction or reinforcement productions. Auditory feedback will be used to facilitate participant's perception of differences in production.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Participants who have adventitious/acquired hearing loss must have had normal hearing through their 18th year.
* Participants with congenital hearing loss will have received oral or total communication education, worn hearing aids and consider themselves to be "oral deaf" adults.
Exclusion Criteria
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Molloy College
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Diane Saulle, Ph.D
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Molloy College
Nancy McGarr, Ph.D.
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Molloy College
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Bernhardt, B. H., Loyst, D., Pichora-Fuller, K., & Williams, R. (2000). Speech production outcomes before and after palotometry for a child with a cochlear implant. Journal-Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology, 33, 11-38.
Bernhardt B, Gick B, Bacsfalvi P, Ashdown J. Speech habilitation of hard of hearing adolescents using electropalatography and ultrasound as evaluated by trained listeners. Clin Linguist Phon. 2003 Apr-May;17(3):199-216. doi: 10.1080/0269920031000071451.
Byun TM, Hitchcock ER. Investigating the use of traditional and spectral biofeedback approaches to intervention for /r/ misarticulation. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2012 Aug;21(3):207-21. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360(2012/11-0083). Epub 2012 Mar 21.
Dagenais PA. Electropalatography in the treatment of articulation/phonological disorders. J Commun Disord. 1995 Dec;28(4):303-29. doi: 10.1016/0021-9924(95)00059-1.
Dagenais PA, Critz-Crosby P. Consonant lingual-palatal contacts produced by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired children. J Speech Hear Res. 1991 Dec;34(6):1423-35. doi: 10.1044/jshr.3406.1423.
Fabus, R., Raphael, L., Gatzonis, S., Dondorf, K., Giardina, K., Cron, S., & Badke, B. (2015). Preliminary case studies investigating the use of electropalatography (EPG) manufactured by CompleteSpeech® as a biofeedback tool in intervention. International Journal, 3(1), 11-23.
Fletcher SG, Hasegawa A. Speech modification by a deaf child through dynamic orometric modeling and feedback. J Speech Hear Disord. 1983 May;48(2):178-85. doi: 10.1044/jshd.4802.178.
Fletcher SG, Dagenais PA, Critz-Crosby P. Teaching consonants to profoundly hearing-impaired speakers using palatometry. J Speech Hear Res. 1991 Aug;34(4):929-42. doi: 10.1044/jshr.3404.929.
Fletcher, S., Hasegawa, A., McCutcheon, M., & Gilliom, J. (1980). Use of linguapalatal contact patterns to modify articulation in a deaf adult. In D. L. McPherso (Ed.), Advances in prosthetic devices for the deaf: A technical workshop (pp.127-133). Rochester, MD: NTID Press.
Gibbon, F., Stewart, F., Hardcastle, W. J., & Crampin, L. (1999). Widening access to electropalatography for children with persistent sound system disorders. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 8(4), 319-334.
Goldman, R., & Goldman, F. M. (2000). Fristoe Test of Articulation. American Guidance Service.
Lane H, Perkell J, Svirsky M, Webster J. Changes in speech breathing following cochlear implant in postlingually deafened adults. J Speech Hear Res. 1991 Jun;34(3):526-33. doi: 10.1044/jshr.3403.526.
Martin, K. L., Hirson, A., Herman, R., Thomas, J., & Pring, T. (2007). The efficacy of speech intervention using electropalatography with an 18-year-old deaf client: A single case study. Advances in Speech Language Pathology, 9(1), 46- 56.
McGarr NS. The intelligibility of deaf speech to experienced and inexperienced listeners. J Speech Hear Res. 1983 Sep;26(3):451-8. doi: 10.1044/jshr.2603.451.
McGarr, N. S., Raphael, L. J., Kolia, B., Vorperian, H. K., & Harris, K. (2004). Sibilant production in speakers who have hearing loss: Electropalatographic and perceptual evidence. The Volta Review, 104(3), 119.
Pantelemidou V, Herman R, Thomas J. Efficacy of speech intervention using electropalatography with a cochlear implant user. Clin Linguist Phon. 2003 Jun-Aug;17(4-5):383-92. doi: 10.1080/0269920031000079958.
Parsloe R. Use of the speech pattern audiometer and the electropalatograph to explore the speech production/perception relationship in a profoundly deaf child. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 1998 Jan-Mar;33(1):109-21. doi: 10.1080/136828298247947.
Pratt, S. R. (2007). Using electropalatographic feedback to treat the speech of a child with severe-to-profound hearing loss. The Journal of Speech and Language Pathology-Applied Behavior Analysis, 2(2), 213.
Shriberg, L. D. (1980). An intervention procedure for children with persistent /r/ errors. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 11(2), 102-110. SmartPalate Overview. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://completespeech.com/smartpalate/smartpalate_overview/
Subtenly, J. D., Orlando, N. A., & Whitehead, R. L. (1981). Speech and voice characteristics of the deaf. Washington, DC: The Alexander Graham Bell Association of the Deaf.
Waldstein RS. Effects of postlingual deafness on speech production: implications for the role of auditory feedback. J Acoust Soc Am. 1990 Nov;88(5):2099-114. doi: 10.1121/1.400107.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
04190121
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.