How the Study of Speech Motor Control Can Inform Assessment and Intervention in Childhood Apraxia of Speech

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 784-793 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Case ◽  
Maria Grigos
Keyword(s):  
Motor Control ◽  
Task Complexity ◽  
Past Research ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Motor Deficits ◽  
Speech Motor Control ◽  
Clinical Implications ◽  
Apraxia Of Speech ◽  
Childhood Apraxia Of Speech ◽  
Speech Motor

Purpose The study of speech motor control has led to great advancements in the current understanding of childhood apraxia of speech (CAS). There remains a significant need to bridge the gap between theory and practice to fully understand the clinical implications of past research. Method This review article reviews the speech motor control research in CAS and discusses how these works have offered key information about the underlying motor deficits (Grigos et al., 2015; Terband et al., 2019), the influence of structured practice on speech performance (Case & Grigos, 2016; Grigos & Case, 2018), and the role of task complexity (Case, 2019; Case & Grigos, 2016; Grigos & Case, 2018). We highlight salient points from this existing literature and clinical implications to the assessment and treatment of CAS. Conclusion The study of speech motor control has shed light on a number of key factors related to CAS. Even within perceptually accurate speech, children with CAS display differences in movement patterning and timing control. Assessment must aim to more directly tax speech motor skills to obtain a thorough and accurate illustration of production deficits. Intervention is challenged with the task of not only improving production accuracy but also facilitating more efficient motor planning and programming. Motor-based intervention that applies motor learning principles and introduces variability across motor, phonetic, and prosodic contexts is believed to achieve this goal, though research is needed to better understand changes in speech motor control with treatment.

scholarly journals Atraso motor de fala não especificado: revisão integrativa

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. e2249108480
Author(s):  
Gabriela Brum dos Santos ◽  
Marileda Barichello Gubiani ◽  
Leticia Arruda Nóro ◽  
Helena Bolli Mota
Keyword(s):  
Motor Control ◽  
Speech Sound ◽  
Speech Disorders ◽  
Speech Motor Control ◽  
Apraxia Of Speech ◽  
Speech Sound Disorder ◽  
Childhood Apraxia Of Speech ◽  
Motor Speech ◽  
Motor Speech Disorders ◽  
Speech Motor

Objetivo: realizar uma revisão bibliográfica sobre o atraso motor de fala não especificado, como ele é avaliado e ainda como se diferencia de outras desordens motoras da fala. Estratégia de pesquisa: Trata-se de uma revisão integrativa da literatura. Realizou-se a busca nas bases SciELO, PubMed, Medine e Scopus no mês de novembro de 2019. Para as quatro bases foram utilizados os seguintes construtos e descritores: “motor speech disorders” OR “childhood apraxia of speech” OR “childhood apraxia of speech cas” OR “developmental dyspraxia” OR “speech sound disorder” AND “speech motor control”, além da utilização de dois filtros: sujeitos até 18 anos e humanos. Critérios de seleção: Artigos publicados em português, inglês ou espanhol foram incluídos, sendo ou não de periódicos de acesso livre. Foram excluídos artigos que não estavam relacionados ao atraso motor de fala não especificado e estudos de revisão de literatura. Resultados: Foram encontrados56 artigos nas bases de dados, sendo 33 da base Scopus, 19 da PubMed, 3 da SciElo e 1 da Medline. Após análise e seleção pelos critérios de inclusão, foram selecionados 14 estudos. Posteriormente a leitura integral dos artigos, 8 estudos foram excluídos, pois não respondiam as perguntas norteadoras da pesquisa, obtendo-se um n de 6 estudos. Conclusão: Muitas crianças com atraso significativo na fala são diagnosticadas erroneamente, sendo o DMS-NOS a desordem de maior prevalência na infância.

scholarly journals Abnormal Speech Motor Control in Individuals with 16p11.2 Deletions

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carly Demopoulos ◽  
Hardik Kothare ◽  
Danielle Mizuiri ◽  
Jennifer Henderson-Sabes ◽  
Brieana Fregeau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Motor Control ◽  
Auditory Feedback ◽  
Spectral Peak ◽  
Motor Deficits ◽  
Speech Motor Control ◽  
Sensorimotor Adaptation ◽  
Speech And Language ◽  
Vowel Production ◽  
Identity Changes ◽  
Speech Motor

AbstractSpeech and motor deficits are highly prevalent (>70%) in individuals with the 600 kb BP4-BP5 16p11.2 deletion; however, the mechanisms that drive these deficits are unclear, limiting our ability to target interventions and advance treatment. This study examined fundamental aspects of speech motor control in participants with the 16p11.2 deletion. To assess capacity for control of voice, we examined how accurately and quickly subjects changed the pitch of their voice within a trial to correct for a transient perturbation of the pitch of their auditory feedback. When compared to sibling controls, 16p11.2 deletion carriers show an over-exaggerated pitch compensation response to unpredictable mid-vocalization pitch perturbations. We also examined sensorimotor adaptation of speech by assessing how subjects learned to adapt their sustained productions of formants (speech spectral peak frequencies important for vowel identity), in response to consistent changes in their auditory feedback during vowel production. Deletion carriers show reduced sensorimotor adaptation to sustained vowel identity changes in auditory feedback. These results together suggest that 16p11.2 deletion carriers have fundamental impairments in the basic mechanisms of speech motor control and these impairments may partially explain the deficits in speech and language in these individuals.

Relationships between Measures of Phonological Performance in Preterm Children

1995 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-42
Author(s):  
Gary Holdgrafer
Keyword(s):  
Motor Control ◽  
Speech Motor Control ◽  
Clinical Implications ◽  
Single Word ◽  
Connected Speech ◽  
Preterm Children ◽  
Speech Motor

Percent Consonants Correct (PCC) was computed for spontaneous connected speech samples and responses on a single-word articulation test from 29 preterm children in preschool. Maturity of speech motor control was also assessed. Moderate intercorrelations of all measures are mentioned with regard to clinical implications.

Taxonomies in Biology, Phonetics, Phonology, and Speech Motor Control

1990 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 596-611 ◽  
Author(s):  
John W. Folkins ◽  
Ken M. Bleile
Keyword(s):  
Motor Control ◽  
Motor Performance ◽  
Motor System ◽  
Motor Deficits ◽  
Speech Motor Control ◽  
Phonetic Transcription ◽  
Phonological Deficits ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Speech Motor

This article begins with a review explaining the different purposes of biological taxonomies. Taxonomic units are often dependent on the purpose for which the taxonomy has been constructed. Biological taxonomies provide an analogy that we use to emphasize some of the distinctions among the units of phonetic transcription systems, competence phonologies, and performance phonologies. The units of both phonology and phonetic transcription are considered as possible units of the speech motor system, and some of the difficulties of this assumption are explained. Although phonemic units, like units of phonetic transcription, are useful for many purposes, it is not theoretically necessary to use units derived as part of competence phonologies in systems attempting to explain phonological performance or speech motor performance. In this regard, we challenge the concept of coarticulation, because it is based on assumptions about the role of phonological or phonetic units in speech motor control. We offer an integrated perspective that has implications for research in speech motor control and deficits of the speech motor system. We see speech motor deficits as distinct from, yet possibly interacting with, phonological deficits.

What Does It Mean to Be Social? Defining the Social Landscape for Children With Childhood Apraxia of Speech

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 843-852 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy Tarshis ◽  
Michelle Garcia Winner ◽  
Pamela Crooke
Keyword(s):  
Social Development ◽  
Social Goals ◽  
Apraxia Of Speech ◽  
Childhood Apraxia Of Speech ◽  
Social Competencies ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Landscape ◽  
Communication Challenges ◽  
Primary Focus ◽  
Speech Motor

Purpose What does it mean to be social? In addition, how is that different from behaving socially appropriately? The purpose of this clinical focus article is to tackle these two questions along with taking a deeper look into how communication challenges in childhood apraxia of speech impact social competencies for young children. Through the lens of early social development and social competency, this clinical focus article will explore how speech motor challenges can impact social development and what happens when young learners miss early opportunities to grow socially. While not the primary focus, the clinical focus article will touch upon lingering issues for individuals diagnosed with childhood apraxia of speech as they enter the school-aged years. Conclusion Finally, it will address some foundational aspects of intervention and offer ideas and suggestions for structuring therapy to address both speech and social goals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document