Acquisition, retention, and generalization of rhotics with and without ultrasound visual feedback.
Greta M Sjolie, Megan C Leece, Jonathan L Preston
PMID 27973322WHAT IT FOUND
No consistent advantage emerged for ultrasound visual feedback in children with rhotic distortions.
Only one of four improved more within session with ultrasound, and ultrasound did not show better retention or generalization between sessions.
Key findings
01Only one of four participants showed a significant acquisition advantage for ultrasound sessions over no-ultrasound sessions.
02No participant showed a statistically significant advantage for either treatment in retention.
03Generalization was similar following both treatment conditions for all participants.
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
Four children is too few to know which children will benefit. Because every child received both ultrasound and no ultrasound, the study cannot show what either approach would do alone. Both conditions included verbal cues and the same practice structure, so ultrasound was not the only active ingredient. The 14-session dose may have been too short for two children to show learning. Two children were not stimulable before therapy and showed acquisition, retention, and generalization below 10%. Children with autism, cerebral palsy, hearing loss, brain injury, cleft palate, genetic syndromes, apraxia, or dysarthria were excluded.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the one significant acquisition result as evidence that ultrasound causes better rhotic learning. Both conditions included verbal cues and the same practice structure, and ultrasound did not show a significant advantage for retention or generalization.