A serious game for speech training in dysarthric speakers with Parkinson's disease: Exploring therapeutic efficacy and patient satisfaction.
Mario Ganzeboom, Marjoke Bakker, Lilian Beijer and 2 others
PMID 35338751WHAT IT FOUND
Ratings rose after game training, but the gain was small and preferences were mixed.
The study was small and did not separate the game from participants' other Parkinson's care.
Key findings
01Intelligibility ratings improved over the training period, while they did not improve significantly over the period before training.
02Participants were satisfied with the game; none rated it insufficient, and the overall average was 7.25 on a 1 to 10 scale.
03No consistent preference for game-based training was found, and participants mainly chose the option they thought would give the stronger speech improvement.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only eight participants completed the intervention, so the study cannot show how the game would work in a broader group. There was no control group, and the comparison relied on the same people's own earlier 4-week no-training period. The treatment lasted 4 weeks, and the paper notes that the clinical difference was relatively small. Participants used Levodopa except participants 5 and 6, and participant 5 had deep brain stimulation, so the game's contribution is not isolated. Not all participants completed all 16 sessions: three completed 15, one completed 14 and one completed 13. Preference was measured with only four hypothetical scenarios in eight participants, so it is not a choice between real therapies. Pronunciation feedback thresholds were calibrated using artificially generated data, and the paper says future work should calibrate them on real data. No long-term effects were measured.
Declared interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest. Funding was NWO research grant Ref. no. 314-99-101.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as proof that the game can replace face-to-face therapy or produce large everyday gains. Only eight people completed the four-week single-group study, the clinical difference was small, and preferences were not consistent.