Point/Counterpoint: Electrical Stimulation for Dysphagia: The Argument Against Electrical Stimulation for Dysphagia

2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 102-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ianessa A. Humbert
Keyword(s):  
Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Controversial Subject ◽  
Anatomy And Physiology ◽  
Language Pathology ◽  
Intended Use ◽  
Pathology Training

Surface electrical stimulation for dysphagia is still a controversial subject. Some studies tout the benefits of using electrical stimulation (e-stim) for improving a disordered swallow. It is important to ensure that the discussion about e-stim is balanced. In this article, I discuss selected counterpoints, including e-stim's intended use, the objective findings of scientific findings, and whether speech-language pathology training in the area of swallowing anatomy and physiology adequately prepares clinicians to use e-stim for dysphagia. Overall, clinicians are urged to take into account all sides of this debate and make educated decisions about whether it should be a part of their clinical practice.

scholarly journals Incorporating IPE and simulation experiences into graduate speech-language pathology training

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Phil Weir-Mayta ◽  
Sarah Green ◽  
Stephanie Abbott ◽  
Danielle Urbina
Keyword(s):  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Language Pathology ◽  
Pathology Training

Don't Blow This Therapy Session!

2013 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 38-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory L. Lof ◽  
Dennis Ruscello
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Oral Motor ◽  
Evidence Based Treatments ◽  
Language Pathology ◽  
History Of ◽  
Oral Motor Exercises

Blowing exercises and other nonspeech oral motor exercises (NSOMEs) are commonly used therapeutic techniques for children with repaired cleft palate and velopharyngeal inadequacy. Blowing exercises have a long history in the field, dating back to the early days of speech-language pathology when clinicians relied upon expert opinion to influence clinical practice. However, for more than 60 years, NSOMEs such as blowing have been questioned and many empirical studies have been conducted that demonstrate the ineffectiveness of these exercises. This article provides reasons why NSOMEs, mainly blowing, should not be used in therapy. It also traces the history of blowing exercises and then summarizes some of the seminal research articles that show that they do not work. Effective evidence-based treatments for compensatory errors are also reviewed.

scholarly journals Anatomy Word-Learning in Undergraduate Speech-Language Pathology Students

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Janie Kullmar ◽  
Kathryn Blankenship
Keyword(s):  
Student Performance ◽  
Poor Performance ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Initial Exposure ◽  
Anatomy And Physiology ◽  
Reading Abilities ◽  
Student Reading ◽  
Language Pathology ◽  
Authentic Environment ◽  
Vocabulary List

This study compared the effectiveness of a vocabulary list (i.e., explicit environment) to a textbook passage (i.e, authentic environment) for the initial exposure of domain-specific vocabulary from an anatomy textbook. Forty-two undergraduate Speech-Language Pathology students participated. The study's materials are from Anatomy and Physiology for Speech Language and Hearing, fifth edition (Seikel et al., 2016). The selection is a subtopic on the topic of the anatomy of the cerebrum. Twenty-five vocabulary words within this section are bolded by the textbook to emphasize their importance. These words were targeted in the two different conditions, authentic (textbook) and explicit (vocabulary list). The gain scores from pretest to posttest between groups (i.e., authentic vs. explicit) were similar, and this was true of students with both high and low reading abilities, as measured by the reading score from the American College Testing (ACT). Student performance was highly variable, and many students performed poorly regardless of condition. The results of the study revealed no significant differences between participants who were in conditions that received vocabulary words within the context of a textbook or isolated in a list. This poor performance may be related to research design or student reading habits in general.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document