SLPOtherInternational journal of speech-language pathology2018

Selecting an acoustic correlate for automated measurement of American English rhotic production in children.

Heather Campbell, Daphna Harel, Elaine Hitchcock and 1 others

PMID 28795872

WHAT IT FOUND

In children receiving /r/ therapy, trained clinician accuracy ratings were best matched by the normalised gap between the second and third voice resonance frequencies, when age and sex were considered.

Key findings

01The study compared 32 models in 22 children with 6075 productions from three /r/ intervention studies, and normalised F3-F2 with age and sex interactions was the best acoustic predictor of trained clinician ratings.

02In the best model, a larger normalised F3-F2 distance was associated with lower mean clinician accuracy ratings.

03Mean clinician accuracy ratings differed across /r/ contexts even after controlling for the acoustic measure.

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 analysis included 22 children, so it may not capture the range of /r/ errors seen in a full clinic. The data came from three earlier treatment studies, not a new randomised trial, and the children were not assigned to a new intervention. The normative data used to normalise the measures were limited: they came from a small sample, a narrow geographic region, and only syllabic /r/ in the word bird. The study predicted trained clinician ratings, not naïve listener ratings, and it did not test an app or home practice outcome.

Declared interests

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. The article is listed as supported by NIH extramural research.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read this as proof that an app can automatically judge a child's /r/ for home practice. The study only selected a model that predicted trained clinician ratings, not naïve listener ratings, and it was based on 22 children.

Read it on PubMed →