Immediate effects of postural repositioning on maximum phonation duration tasks in seated individuals with acquired dysarthria: a pilot study.

PURPOSE: To determine the effectiveness of a single 10-min postural repositioning session on the maximum phonation duration (MPD) of the vowel/a/in individuals with acquired dysarthria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A pre-post interventional design was implemented; five patients with dysarthria (PWDs) underwent a single 2-hour experimental session. MPD capacities were assessed before and immediately after a 10-min postural repositioning intervention by a physical and occupational therapist. Five age- and sex-matched individuals without dysarthria were recruited as controls. The main outcome measure was the MPD of the vowel/a/at conversational and louder voice levels, with a speech-and-language therapist standing 1 and 6 m away, respectively. Secondary outcome measures were thoracic expansion, manometry, electromyographic recordings of axial muscles and perceived effort. RESULTS: In PWDs, postural repositioning improved the MPD during the/a/-1-m (80.3% increase) and/a/-6-m tasks (18% increase), increased thoracic expansion and manometric measurements, and reduced the perceived effort necessary to perform the tasks. A triphasic electromyographic pattern was observed during both/a/-1-m and/a/-6-m tasks in controls, but was absent in participants with severe dysarthria, even after postural repositioning. Nonetheless, postural repositioning enabled an earlier onset of EMG activity prior to voice production. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest the efficacy of postural repositioning in improving phonatory capacities essential for voice production in PWDs.

Big Science vs. Little Science: How Scientific Impact Scales with Funding.

AGENCIES THAT FUND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH MUST CHOOSE: is it more effective to give large grants to a few elite researchers, or small grants to many researchers? Large grants would be more effective only if scientific impact increases as an accelerating function of grant size. Here, we examine the scientific impact of individual university-based researchers in three disciplines funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). We considered four indices of scientific impact: numbers of articles published, numbers of citations to those articles, the most cited article, and the number of highly cited articles, each measured over a four-year period. We related these to the amount of NSERC funding received. Impact is positively, but only weakly, related to funding. Researchers who received additional funds from a second federal granting council, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, were not more productive than those who received only NSERC funding. Impact was generally a decelerating function of funding. Impact per dollar was therefore lower for large grant-holders. This is inconsistent with the hypothesis that larger grants lead to larger discoveries. Further, the impact of researchers who received increases in funding did not predictably increase. We conclude that scientific impact (as reflected by publications) is only weakly limited by funding. We suggest that funding strategies that target diversity, rather than "excellence", are likely to prove to be more productive.