The Use of Electropalatography in the Treatment of Acquired Apraxia of Speech

Speech Therapy Interventions for Acquired Apraxia of Speech: An Updated Systematic Review

PURPOSE

This systematic review aims to summarize and evaluate the available literature on speech and language therapy interventions for acquired apraxia of speech since 2012.

METHOD

A systematic search in six electronic databases was performed from 2013 to 2020. The following primary outcomes were summarized: (a) improvement in targeted behaviors, (b) generalization, and (c) maintenance of outcomes. Moreover, studies were evaluated for the level of evidence and the clinical phase.

RESULTS

Of the 3,070 records identified, 27 studies were included in this review. The majority of the studies (n = 22) used articulatory kinematic approaches followed by intersystemic facilitation/reorganization treatments (n = 4) and other approaches (n = 1). According to the classes defined in Clinical Practice Guideline Process Manual (Gronseth et al., 2017), one was Class II, 10 were Class III, 10 were Class III-b (fulfill Class III criteria except for independence of assessors' criterion), and five were Class IV. In terms of clinical phase, one study classified as Phase III, 10 as Phase II, and 15 as Phase I.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the interventions for apraxia of speech, articulatory kinematic treatments have become prominent over the last 8 years. Focusing on self-administrated therapies, use of technology for therapy administration and development of treatments that focus on apraxia of speech and aphasia simultaneously were identified as new advancements in the apraxia of speech literature. The methodological quality, clinical phase, and level of evidence of the studies have improved within the past 8 years. Large-scale randomized controlled trials for articulatory kinematic approaches and future studies on other treatment approaches are warranted.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.22223785.

Acquired Apraxia of Speech: Comparison of Electropalatography Treatment and Sound Production Treatment

Purpose This investigation compared 2 treatment approaches for acquired apraxia of speech. The effects of a treatment that uses an articulatory-kinematic approach in conjunction with visual biofeedback (VBFB) via electropalatography (EPG) were compared to Sound Production Treatment (SPT), an established behavioral treatment that is also an articulatory-kinematic approach. Method A multiple baseline design across behaviors and participants was used with 2 participants with chronic apraxia of speech and aphasia. Accuracy of target speech sounds in treated and untreated words or phrases in probe sessions served as the dependent variable. The effects of 2 treatments based on an articulatory-kinematic approach were compared: (a) VBFB via EPG and (b) SPT. The order of treatments was counterbalanced across participants. Results Positive changes in articulatory accuracy were observed for SPT and VBFB treatment via EPG. Generalization to untreated stimulus items composed of treated speech sounds was also positive for both treatments. However, participants achieved greater articulatory accuracy with SPT during treatment and better long-term maintenance. Discussion Both treatment approaches resulted in improved speech production accuracy, but gains were greater for SPT. However, further research with additional participants is needed due to the small sample size included in this investigation.

Acquired Apraxia of Speech: The Relationship Between Awareness of Errors in Word Productions and Treatment Outcomes

PURPOSE

Awareness of errors has been considered a clinical feature of acquired apraxia of speech (AOS). However, there is limited research examining error awareness in speakers with AOS. The purpose of this investigation was to examine awareness of errors and explore the relationship between awareness of errors and treatment outcomes in speakers with AOS.

METHOD

Twenty speakers with AOS and aphasia produced mono- and multisyllabic words in a repetition task. Following each production, speakers were asked to judge the accuracy of their production (i.e., correct or incorrect). Then, speakers received Sound Production Treatment.

RESULTS

Judgment accuracy of productions for the group ranged from 20% to 96%. There was a weak relationship between judgment accuracy and probe performance at posttreatment (r = .47) and a moderate relationship between judgment accuracy and probe performance at follow-up (r = .53).

CONCLUSION

Findings indicate that speakers with AOS varied in their ability to judge the accuracy of their productions. For some speakers, the ability to judge the accuracy of their productions did not coincide with their production accuracy of treatment stimuli at posttreatment and at follow-up. Further research is needed to explore the relationship between error awareness and treatment outcomes.