SLPPilotInternational journal of language & communication disorders2021

Automatic boost articulation therapy in adults with dysarthria: Acceptability, usability and user interaction.

Viviana Mendoza Ramos, Juan C Vasquez-Correa, Rani Cremers and 4 others

PMID 34227721

WHAT IT FOUND

Fourteen adults with dysarthria found a new computer-based articulation trainer easy to use and attractive.

They could operate it independently after brief instruction. However, daily home use was uncertain due to low multimedia familiarity, and this pilot did not test if speech actually improved.

Key findings

01Participants rated the software's usability highly (average 4.14 out of 5) and agreed it was user-friendly and could be used independently.

02The automatic feedback system achieved detection rates greater than 88% for phonological classes in Dutch.

03While most found the program attractive, only half agreed they would use it daily at home, a hesitation linked to their low experience with multimedia devices.

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.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The study was a pilot with only 14 participants, so results cannot be generalized. The intervention lasted only two sessions; long-term engagement and therapeutic outcomes were not measured. The study did not assess whether the software actually improved speech intelligibility or articulation accuracy. The cohort consisted of patients with mild to moderate dysarthria and sufficient cognitive and sensory skills, excluding those with severe impairments or significant cognitive deficits.

Declared interests

The study was supported by non-U.S. government funding. No specific commercial conflicts of interest are declared in the text.

The easy way to misread this

Do not assume this software improves speech. This pilot tested only whether patients could use the tool and liked it; it did not measure changes in intelligibility or articulation accuracy.

Read it on PubMed →