American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology Vol.16 77-83 February 2007. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2007/010)
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrowCustom Print
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bothe, A. K.
Right arrow Articles by Bramlett, R. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Bothe, A. K.
Right arrow Articles by Bramlett, R. E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Delicious   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Letter to the Editor

Pseudoscience and the SpeechEasy: Reply to Kalinowski, Saltuklaroglu, Stuart, and Guntupalli (2007)

Anne K. Bothe
The University of Georgia, Athens

Patrick Finn
The University of Arizona, Tucson

Robin E. Bramlett
The University of Georgia, Athens

Contact author: Anne K. Bothe, Department of Communication Sciences and Special Education, 556 Aderhold Hall, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602. E-mail: abothe{at}uga.edu.

Purpose: To respond to several of the issues raised in J. Kalinowski, T. Saltuklaroglu, A. Stuart, and V. K. Guntupalli's (2007) critique of our previous article (P. Finn, A. K. Bothe, & R. E. Bramlett, 2005).

Method: Information is provided to refute criticisms raised by Kalinowski et al. about the Finn et al. article, including with respect to that report's methodology, previous research about fluency-inducing conditions in stuttering, and the SpeechEasy device.

Conclusions: Available data show that delayed auditory feedback, frequency-altered feedback, masking, and chorus reading can result in reduced stuttering for some speakers, and the inconsistencies and variability in available reports suggest that further careful and creative research could be very valuable. Neither the information about the SpeechEasy provided by its developers, however, nor the manner in which that information has been presented and discussed by its developers rises to the standards of a science-based clinical service discipline.

Key Words: SpeechEasy, pseudoscience, stuttering


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Delicious Delicious   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JSLHRHome page
R. Pollard, J. B. Ellis, D. Finan, and P. R. Ramig
Effects of the SpeechEasy on Objective and Perceived Aspects of Stuttering: A 6-Month, Phase I Clinical Trial in Naturalistic Environments
J Speech Lang Hear Res, April 1, 2009; 52(2): 516 - 533.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]