Oral Motor Training and Treatment for Apraxia of Speech

2001 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 18-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda I. Shuster
Keyword(s):  
Motor Training ◽  
Apraxia Of Speech ◽  
Oral Motor

Oral-Movement Abilities and Articulatory Characteristics of Brain-Injured Adults

1974 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonard L. La Pointe ◽  
Robert T. Wertz
Keyword(s):  
Brain Injury ◽  
Apraxia Of Speech ◽  
Oral Motor ◽  
Brain Injured ◽  
History Of ◽  
Injured Patients ◽  
The Brain ◽  
Normal Adults

We compared the performance of 28 brain-injured adults who displayed articulation problems with that of 28 adults with no history of brain-injury on tests of isolated oral movement and oral-motor sequencing. An attempt was made to classify the brain-injured patients by administering an articulation test and employing three criteria for differentiating apraxia of speech from dysarthria: presence of initiation errors, more substitution errors than combined omission and distortion errors, and the presence of islands of error-free production. While the brain-injured group performed significantly worse on the isolated oral-movement and oral-motor sequencing tests than the normal adults, not all brain-injured patients demonstrated difficulty on these tasks. We were able to identify 13 patients who met all three criteria (apraxia of speech), 3 who met none (dysarthria), and 12 who met one or two but not all (mixed apraxia of speech and dysarthria). Isolated oral-movement and oral-motor sequencing deficits were found in all three groups, but no significant differences among groups on these tasks were observed.

Diagnostic Criteria of Developmental Apraxia of Speech Used by Clinical Speech-Language Pathologists

2003 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 376-380 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Forrest
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Criteria ◽  
Apraxia Of Speech ◽  
Speech Acquisition ◽  
Speech Language Pathologists ◽  
Oral Motor ◽  
Utterance Length ◽  
Motor Difficulties ◽  
Developmental Apraxia ◽  
Different Characteristics ◽  
Current Report

The diagnostic criteria used to identify developmental apraxia of speech (DAS) have been at the center of controversy for decades. Despite the difficulty in determining the characteristics that differentiate DAS from other speech acquisition disorders, many children are identified with this disorder. The current report presents the criteria used by 75 speechlanguage pathologists to establish a diagnosis of DAS. Although 50 different characteristics were identified, 6 of these characteristics accounted for 51.5% of the responses. These characteristics included inconsistent productions, general oral-motor difficulties, groping, inability to imitate sounds, increasing difficulty with increased utterance length, and poor sequencing of sounds. These results are consistent with the general ambiguity of the diagnostic criteria of DAS and suggest that no single deficit is used among clinicians.

scholarly journals The Correlation Between Non-Speech Oral Motor Exercises (NSOME) and Speech Production in Childhood Apraxia of Speech Treatment. A Wide Clinical Retrospective Research

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (3sup1) ◽  
pp. 98-113
Author(s):  
Elad Vashdi ◽  
◽  
Amit Avramov ◽  
Špela Falatov ◽  
Huang Yi-Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sound Production ◽  
Term Treatment ◽  
Apraxia Of Speech ◽  
Childhood Apraxia Of Speech ◽  
Motor Speech ◽  
Oral Motor ◽  
Long Term Treatment ◽  
Tongue Movements ◽  
Oral Motor Exercises

Purpose: The use of Non speech Oral Motor Exercises (NSOME) for motor speech sounds disorder treatment has been discussed in the literature in the last three decades, with most of the research presenting poor results for using NSOME. The purpose of this article was to add evidence related to that debate and show the correlations between NSOME and sound production among children diagnosed with Childhood Apraxia of Speech (CAS). Another goal is to clarify the misuse of the term in clinical settings and literature, while presenting solutions to the debate. Method: 256 VML entry evaluations and 89 long term treatment processes were analysed retrospectively. The correlations between Single Sound Pronunciation (SSP) and NSOME variables (i.e. blowing, oral motor imitation and tongue movements) were calculated using the entry evaluation group, as well as the correlations between the changes in SSP and NSOME variables using the long-term group. Results: High correlations were found between NSOME variables and SSP in both groups tested. Conclusions: The results confirmed the relationship between oral motor skills and sound production. Theoretical explanations and practical implications are further discussed.

Perceptual Characteristics of Consonant Production in Apraxia of Speech and Aphasia

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 1411-1431 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren Bislick ◽  
William D. Hula
Keyword(s):  
Error Rate ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Diagnostic Process ◽  
Apraxia Of Speech ◽  
Contextual Variables ◽  
Error Type ◽  
Type Distribution ◽  
Phonetic Features ◽  
Syllable Position

Purpose This retrospective analysis examined group differences in error rate across 4 contextual variables (clusters vs. singletons, syllable position, number of syllables, and articulatory phonetic features) in adults with apraxia of speech (AOS) and adults with aphasia only. Group differences in the distribution of error type across contextual variables were also examined. Method Ten individuals with acquired AOS and aphasia and 11 individuals with aphasia participated in this study. In the context of a 2-group experimental design, the influence of 4 contextual variables on error rate and error type distribution was examined via repetition of 29 multisyllabic words. Error rates were analyzed using Bayesian methods, whereas distribution of error type was examined via descriptive statistics. Results There were 4 findings of robust differences between the 2 groups. These differences were found for syllable position, number of syllables, manner of articulation, and voicing. Group differences were less robust for clusters versus singletons and place of articulation. Results of error type distribution show a high proportion of distortion and substitution errors in speakers with AOS and a high proportion of substitution and omission errors in speakers with aphasia. Conclusion Findings add to the continued effort to improve the understanding and assessment of AOS and aphasia. Several contextual variables more consistently influenced breakdown in participants with AOS compared to participants with aphasia and should be considered during the diagnostic process. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.9701690

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document