View in EDS PDF Full Text

Auditory Masking Effects on Speech Fluency in Apraxia of Speech and Aphasia: Comparison to Altered Auditory Feedback.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Auditory Masking Effects on Speech Fluency in Apraxia of Speech and Aphasia: Comparison to Altered Auditory Feedback.
Authors: Jacks, Adam1 adam_jacks@med.unc.edu, Haley, Katarina L.1
Source: Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research. Dec2015, Vol. 58 Issue 6, p1670-1686. 17p. 3 Charts, 2 Graphs.
Subject Terms: *Aphasia, *Comparative studies, *Intelligence tests, *Speech evaluation, Hypothesis, Differential diagnosis, Kinematics, Masking (Psychology), Reliability (Personality trait), Research funding, Speech, Stroke, Human voice, Medical coding, Mann Whitney U Test, Kruskal-Wallis Test, Disease complications
Abstract: Purpose: To study the effects of masked auditory feedback (MAF) on speech fluency in adults with aphasia and/or apraxia of speech (APH/AOS). We hypothesized that adults with AOS would increase speech fluency when speaking with noise. Altered auditory feedback (AAF; i.e., delayed/ frequency-shifted feedback) was included as a control condition not expected to improve speech fluency. Method: Ten participants with APH/AOS and 10 neurologically healthy (NH) participants were studied under both feedback conditions. To allow examination of individual responses, we used an ABACA design. Effects were examined on syllable rate, disfluency duration, and vocal intensity. Results: Seven of 10 APH/AOS participants increased fluency with masking by increasing rate, decreasing disfluency duration, or both. In contrast, none of the NH participants increased speaking rate with MAF. In the AAF condition, only 1 APH/AOS participant increased fluency. Four APH/AOS participants and 8 NH participants slowed their rate with AAF. Conclusions: Speaking with MAF appears to increase fluency in a subset of individuals with APH/AOS, indicating that overreliance on auditory feedback monitoring may contribute to their disorder presentation. The distinction between responders and nonresponders was not linked to AOS diagnosis, so additional work is needed to develop hypotheses for candidacy and underlying control mechanisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research is the property of American Speech-Language-Hearing Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Education Research Complete
Description
Abstract:Purpose: To study the effects of masked auditory feedback (MAF) on speech fluency in adults with aphasia and/or apraxia of speech (APH/AOS). We hypothesized that adults with AOS would increase speech fluency when speaking with noise. Altered auditory feedback (AAF; i.e., delayed/ frequency-shifted feedback) was included as a control condition not expected to improve speech fluency. Method: Ten participants with APH/AOS and 10 neurologically healthy (NH) participants were studied under both feedback conditions. To allow examination of individual responses, we used an ABACA design. Effects were examined on syllable rate, disfluency duration, and vocal intensity. Results: Seven of 10 APH/AOS participants increased fluency with masking by increasing rate, decreasing disfluency duration, or both. In contrast, none of the NH participants increased speaking rate with MAF. In the AAF condition, only 1 APH/AOS participant increased fluency. Four APH/AOS participants and 8 NH participants slowed their rate with AAF. Conclusions: Speaking with MAF appears to increase fluency in a subset of individuals with APH/AOS, indicating that overreliance on auditory feedback monitoring may contribute to their disorder presentation. The distinction between responders and nonresponders was not linked to AOS diagnosis, so additional work is needed to develop hypotheses for candidacy and underlying control mechanisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:10924388
DOI:10.1044/2015_JSLHR-S-14-0277