Positional asymmetries in consonant production and intelligibility in dysarthric speech.

Consonant production errors are common in dysarthric speech, but not all consonants are affected to the same extent. Currently, only limited knowledge exists regarding whether different positional allophones are affected to varying degrees in dysarthric speech. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of consonants' position-in-words on consonant production accuracy and their relevance to speech intelligibility. To this end, the percentage of correctly articulated consonants was analyzed with respect to position-in-words, manner of articulation, and speakers' overall intelligibility in dysarthric speech secondary to cerebral palsy. Results revealed that consonants were generally more accurate in initial positions than other positions, and when they were singletons rather than clusters. However, fricatives, a category commonly noted for frequent misarticulations, exhibited no significant positional effects, indicating that fricatives were affected to a similar degree across all word positions. In addition, positional asymmetry manifested to a greater degree as intelligibility decreased. Finally, the strength of the relationship between consonant production accuracy and intelligibility varied depending on positions-in-words, with strong correlations in the medial and final cluster positions but no significant correlation for fricatives in the initial and final singleton positions. The correlation was markedly low for the initial consonants, possibly due to the resistance of initial consonants to production errors. The positional asymmetry found in this study necessitates more research on non-initial consonants and clusters for their potential in improving consonant production and speech intelligibility as a part of dysarthria management.

Interprofessional education between speech pathology and nursing programs: A collaborative e-platform curriculum approach.

Interprofessional practice between nurses and speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in healthcare is essential, and it is a priority for both professions. Interprofessional education (IPE) is warranted to move forward professional partnership, and would be best served through incorporation into academic training for both disciplines. A combined synchronous and asynchronous e-platform collaborative approach that minimizes encroachment on already overcrowded clinical curricula is described. Implementation is outlined for use within a graduate-level dysphagia course for SLP students and a medical/surgical undergraduate course for nursing students. This model is flexible and lends itself for use in other courses within clinical disciplines.

Prevalence of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss in Middle and High School Band Members: A Preliminary Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study was aimed at determining the risk of developing noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) in middle school band (MSB) and high school band (HSB) members. METHOD: Between-group comparison of hearing thresholds. Eleven MSB members and 6 MSNB controls, 20 HSB members and 5 HSNB controls. RESULTS: Sixty-four percent of school-age band members presented with 15 dB HL or greater notch at 4,000 or 6,000 Hz in at least one ear. The high school students were slightly more likely to present with a notch. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that participation in band even as early as middle school increases the risk of developing NIHL, and that the longer the participation the higher the risk. Steps to insure hearing preservation in school-age band members are recommended.

Speech-Language Pathologists' Use of Intelligibility Measures in Adults With Dysarthria.

PURPOSE: Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) who work with adults with dysarthria were surveyed to investigate trends of clinical practice for assessing speech intelligibility. METHOD: Two hundred ninety-six SLPs responded to an online survey October 22-November 30, 2015. RESULTS: Findings showed that 35% of SLPs lacked access to any standardized assessments of intelligibility, with 66% of these implicating cost as the main reason. Work settings played a role, as all SLPs working in Veterans Affairs hospitals and 97% of SLPs working in university or research clinics reported access to at least one formal assessment. Even with access to formal tools to measure intelligibility, most SLPs preferred less formal measures. It is surprising to note that many SLPs reported using physical examinations (e.g., of cranial nerves and oral mechanisms) to measure speech intelligibility. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate the need to increase SLP familiarity with, and access to, currently available standardized assessments, as well as to improve education regarding the fundamental need to rate speech to assess intelligibility. Clinicians may also benefit from new standardized methods to objectively assess intelligibility that are accessible, practical, and efficient.