PubMed · 14560723
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Robert E Larsen. 2003. "Stops" in speech.. https://doi.org/10.1597/03-201
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Non-standardized procedures are used to evaluate, in particular, grammatical performance in most German institutions performing diagnostic procedures on children with impaired speech and language development. This makes a comparison of results difficult. METHODS: We studied 181 boys and 72 girls aged between 5 and 6 years using four subtests of IDIS additionally to the routine procedure. Results were compared to the "degree of dysgrammatism" determined from the traditional evaluation based on expert rating. RESULTS: The new procedure is able to divide the children into groups with normal speech and language ability, with deficits accessible to a traditional logopedic treatment, and with severe speech and language impairment that necessitates intensive treatment. DISCUSSION: The proposed tests allow an accurate evaluation of grammatical performance instead of subjective estimates.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the maxillary dental arch shape and speech of cleft palate patients following pushback palatoplasty using either the supraperiosteal flap technique or the mucoperiosteal flap technique. PATIENTS: Sixty-two patients (29, cleft palate only; 33, unilateral cleft lip, alveolus and palate) operated on by the supraperiosteal technique and 47 patients (23, cleft palate only; 24 unilateral cleft lip, alveolus and palate) by the mucoperiosteal technique were reviewed in this study. STUDY DESIGN: Dental arch shape and speech proficiency at preschool and school age were evaluated in all patients. RESULTS: Dental arch shapes were classified as U type (good dental arch shape) and V type (narrow dental arch shape). In cleft palate only patients, U type was observed in 90% of the supraperiosteal group and 83% of the mucoperiosteal group. In unilateral cleft lip, alveolus and palate patients, U type was observed in 85% of the supraperiosteal group, while only in 33% of the mucoperiosteal group. In cleft palate only patients, normal speech at school age was observed 100% of the supraperiosteal group and 83% of the mucoperiosteal group. In unilateral cleft lip, alveolus and palate patients, normal speech at school age was observed in 97% of the supraperiosteal group and 75% of the mucoperiosteal group. Misarticulation was frequently found in patients with the V type of dental arch shape. CONCLUSION: It is suggested that pushback palatoplasty using the supraperiosteal technique is more advantageous for speech development compared with the mucoperiosteal technique.
The study of voice-hallucinations in deaf individuals, who exploit the visuomotor rather than auditory modality for communication, provides rare insight into the relationship between sensory experience and how "voices" are perceived. Relatively little is known about the perceptual characteristics of voice-hallucinations in congenitally deaf people who use lip-reading or sign language as their preferred means of communication. The existing literature on hallucinations in deaf people is reviewed, alongside consideration of how such phenomena may fit into explanatory subvocal articulation hypotheses proposed for auditory verbal hallucinations in hearing people. It is suggested that a failure in subvocal articulation processes may account for voice-hallucinations in both hearing and deaf people but that the distinct way in which hallucinations are experienced may be due to differences in a sensory feedback component, which is influenced by both auditory deprivation and language modality. This article highlights how the study of deaf people may inform wider understanding of auditory verbal hallucinations and subvocal processes generally.