Unpacking the black box of voice therapy: A clinical application and revision of the Motor Learning Classification Framework (MLCF)

PURPOSE

Voice therapy is a complex behavioural intervention. Understanding its components is integral for continued advancement of voice therapy research, translation of evidence into the clinical setting and improved client care. The Motor Learning Classification Framework (MLCF) offers an excellent opportunity for increasing such knowledge, specifically in relation to identifying variables that affect motor learning (ML), an important mechanism hypothesised to bring about voice change during voice therapy. The MLCF has shown promising results in identifying speech-language pathologists' (SLPs) use of ML variables during experimentally controlled voice therapy contexts. The purpose of this study was to test the feasibility of applying the framework in the clinical context of everyday voice therapy practice.

METHOD

Data consisted of two video-recorded voice therapy sessions representing usual voice therapy care. Classification of ML variables used by SLPs during the recorded sessions was attempted based on the MLCF.

RESULT

Several problematic features of the framework were identified. Based on deliberations between the authors of the current paper, the MLCF was revised using an iterative process. This resulted in the construction of an updated version of the framework (MLCF-V2). The MLCF-V2 organises ML strategies into two broad categories: directly observable behaviours and learning processes. The framework incorporates greater consideration of theory and empirical evidence supporting motivational, attentional focus and subjective error estimation influences on ML. Several examples of each ML variable are included as well as an attempt to provide clearer classification instruction.

CONCLUSION

It is anticipated that the MLCF-V2 will provide a more useful and reliable classification for use in future investigations of SLPs' use of ML variables during usual voice therapy practice.

The Role of Instructions in Motor Learning of Oral Versus Nasalized Speech Targets

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate how general, implicit instructions with auditory-perceptual emphasis; specific, explicit instructions with biomechanical focus; or both affect learning of oral-nasal balance control in speech.

METHOD

Thirty healthy, vocally untrained participants were assigned to one of three instructional groups (i.e., implicit, explicit, and integrated) and learned to produce oral versus nasalized vowel-, syllable-, and phrase-level targets during once-weekly sessions over 4 weeks. Learning gains and performance variability were analyzed using nasometry.

RESULTS

We observed a significant main effect of instruction type on learning gains at phrase level (p = .016). Specifically, the integrated group (M = 59.8%) significantly outperformed the explicit group (M = 37.9%) and numerically outperformed the implicit group (M = 45.1%). For nasalized phrase targets, results revealed a significant main effect of instruction type on performance variability (p = .042), but pairwise comparisons between instruction groups were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The integration of implicit processes via auditory-perceptual modeling and explicit processes via relevant biomechanical directives resulted in larger motor learning gains, especially at higher levels of task complexity (i.e., phrase) compared to providing implicit or explicit instruction alone. The higher performance variability (i.e., less stable productions) that was sometimes induced by explicit instruction did not negatively impact learning when integrated with implicit instruction. Clinical implications for speech/voice therapy models are discussed.

A Nonrandomized Trial for Student Teachers of an In-Person and Telepractice Global Voice Prevention and Therapy Model With Estill Voice Training Assessed by the VoiceEvalU8 App

Purpose This study investigated the effects of the in-person and telepractice Global Voice Prevention and Therapy Model (GVPTM) treatment conditions and a control condition with vocally healthy student teachers. Method In this single-blinded, nonrandomized trial, 82 participants completed all aspects of the study. Estill Voice Training was used as the stimulability component of the GVPTM to train multiple new voices meeting all the vocal needs of the student teachers. Outcomes were assessed using acoustic, perceptual, and aerodynamic measures captured by the VoiceEvalU8 app at pre and post in fall and during student teaching in spring. Results Significant improvements were achieved for several acoustic and perceptual measures in the treatment conditions, but not in the control condition. The in-person and telepractice conditions produced similar results. The all-voiced phrase and connected speech were more successful in demonstrating voice change for some of the perturbation measures as compared to sustained /a/. Conclusions The treatment conditions were successful in improving the participants' voices for fundamental frequency and some acoustic perturbation measures while maintaining the improvements during student teaching. In addition, the treatment conditions were successful in decreasing the negative impact of voice-related quality of life and vocal fatigue during student teaching. Future research should address the effectiveness of the various components of the GVPTM, the application of the GVPTM with patients with voice disorders, the relevance of defining auditory-perceptual terms by the anatomy and physiology of the voice production system (i.e., Estill Voice Training), and the continued use of the VoiceEvalU8 app for clinical voice investigations. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.13626824.

An Online Telepractice Model for the Prevention of Voice Disorders in Vocally Healthy Student Teachers Evaluated by a Smartphone Application

This article describes the Global Voice Prevention Model (GVPM) facilitated with student teachers at West Chester University and the VoiceEvalU8 smartphone application (app) used to assess the effectiveness of the GVPM. Twenty-one participants completed 1 of 3 conditions (i.e., in-person GVPM, telepractice GVPM, and control). The in-person and telepractice conditions ran for 4 weeks during fall 2016, with 1 week dedicated to vocal education and vocal hygiene and 3 weeks spent in vocal training. The control condition ran for 1 week and included only vocal education and vocal hygiene. The VoiceEvalU8 app was used at pre- and post-condition twice a day for 5 days to record acoustic, perceptual, and aerodynamic voice measures. The study is ongoing; therefore, preliminary acoustic results for fundamental frequency (F0) and jitter% are presented from pre- to post-condition. During spring 2017, the participants were student teaching and using the VoiceEvalU8 app to record the voice measures before and after teaching all day. A new group of participants will be enrolled fall 2017 for selection into 1 of the 3 conditions and then continue on to student teaching spring 2018.