AJSLP
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology Vol.9 21-35 February 2000.
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Higgins, M. B.
Right arrow Articles by Schulte, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Higgins, M. B.
Right arrow Articles by Schulte, L.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Use of Visual Feedback to Treat Negative Intraoral Air Pressures of Preschoolers With Cochlear Implants

Maureen B. Higgins 1
Elizabeth A. McCleary 1

Laura Schulte 2

1 Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, NE
2 University of Nebraska at Omaha

higgins{at}boystown.org

The primary purpose of this study was to determine if negative intraoral air pressures (–Po) produced by young deaf children can be treated effectively with visual feedback. We used two forms of visual feedback. One was a display of the Po signal on an oscilloscope, and the other was movement of cellophane streamers placed in front of the children's mouths. Participants were two 5-year-old boys who had been using cochlear implants (CIs) for less than 6 months. Both children were congenitally deafened and had very limited speech production and perception skills. In addition to frequent usage of –Po, both children exhibited deviant phonatory behaviors, so phonatory goals were incorporated into treatment. The magnitude and direction of Po was monitored, as well as fundamental frequency and electroglottograph cycle width. Data were collected at baseline, before and after treatment sessions, and 7 weeks after termination of treatment. One child responded well to treatment of –Po with both forms of visual feedback, and progress was maintained at follow-up. For the other child, +Po occurred more frequently as the study progressed, and he rarely produced –Po by the end of the investigation. However, because changes were evident in baseline as well as during treatment, it is difficult to attribute his more frequent use of +Po specifically to treatment. The phonation of the two children changed in ways that were consistent with their phonatory goals, although the degree of change was not always significant. Change was more evident for phonatory behaviors that could be shaped with visual feedback. Although both children exhibited some undesirable speech/voice behaviors in response to visual feedback, there was no evidence of long-lasting mislearning. Although our data are limited, it appears that treatment of –Po can be efficacious for some young children with CIs, even those with very poor speech perception and speech production skills. Further, treatment of –Po can be incorporated effectively with other speech production goals.

Key Words: cochlear implant, speech production, implosives, intraoral air pressure, treatment

Submitted on July 6, 1999
Accepted on December 17, 1999


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
All ASHA Journals AJA AJSLP JSLHR LSHSS
Copyright © 2000 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.