Murphy Cristina F B, Pagan-Neves Luciana O, Wertzner Haydée F, Schochat Eliane
Department of Physical Therapy, Speech-Language Pathology and Occupational Therapy, Center for Teaching and Research, School of Medicine, University of São Paulo São Paulo, Brazil.
Front Psychol. 2015 Feb 4;6:64. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00064. eCollection 2015.
This study aimed to compare the effects of a non-linguistic auditory intervention approach with a phonological intervention approach on the phonological skills of children with speech sound disorder (SSD). A total of 17 children, aged 7-12 years, with SSD were randomly allocated to either the non-linguistic auditory temporal intervention group (n = 10, average age 7.7 ± 1.2) or phonological intervention group (n = 7, average age 8.6 ± 1.2). The intervention outcomes included auditory-sensory measures (auditory temporal processing skills) and cognitive measures (attention, short-term memory, speech production, and phonological awareness skills). The auditory approach focused on non-linguistic auditory training (e.g., backward masking and frequency discrimination), whereas the phonological approach focused on speech sound training (e.g., phonological organization and awareness). Both interventions consisted of 12 45-min sessions delivered twice per week, for a total of 9 h. Intra-group analysis demonstrated that the auditory intervention group showed significant gains in both auditory and cognitive measures, whereas no significant gain was observed in the phonological intervention group. No significant improvement on phonological skills was observed in any of the groups. Inter-group analysis demonstrated significant differences between the improvement following training for both groups, with a more pronounced gain for the non-linguistic auditory temporal intervention in one of the visual attention measures and both auditory measures. Therefore, both analyses suggest that although the non-linguistic auditory intervention approach appeared to be the most effective intervention approach, it was not sufficient to promote the enhancement of phonological skills.
本研究旨在比较非语言听觉干预方法与语音干预方法对言语声音障碍(SSD)儿童语音技能的影响。共有17名7至12岁的SSD儿童被随机分配到非语言听觉时间干预组(n = 10,平均年龄7.7±1.2)或语音干预组(n = 7,平均年龄8.6±1.2)。干预结果包括听觉感觉测量(听觉时间处理技能)和认知测量(注意力、短期记忆、言语产生和语音意识技能)。听觉方法侧重于非语言听觉训练(如反向掩蔽和频率辨别),而语音方法侧重于语音训练(如语音组织和意识)。两种干预均包括每周两次、每次45分钟、共12节的课程,总计9小时。组内分析表明,听觉干预组在听觉和认知测量方面均有显著提高,而语音干预组未观察到显著提高。在任何一组中均未观察到语音技能有显著改善。组间分析表明,两组训练后的改善存在显著差异,在一项视觉注意力测量和两项听觉测量中,非语言听觉时间干预的改善更为明显。因此,两项分析均表明,尽管非语言听觉干预方法似乎是最有效的干预方法,但它不足以促进语音技能的提高。