Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT02554513

Apraxia of Speech: Comparison of EPG Treatment (Tx) and Sound Production Treatment (SPT)

The purpose of the proposed research is to examine the effects of two treatment approaches on speech production involving speakers with chronic apraxia of speech (AOS) and aphasia. The planned investigation is designed to examine the acquisition, maintenance and generalization effects of each treatment. One approach, electropalatography (EPG) uses visual biofeedback in conjunction with articulatory-kinematic treatment and the other approach, sound production treatment (SPT) is one of the most systematically studied articulatory-kinematic treatments for AOS.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Conditions

Apraxia of Speech Aphasia Aphasia, Acquired Apraxias Communication Disorders Language Disorders Nervous System Diseases Neurobehavioral Manifestations Neurologic Manifestations Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms Psychomotor Disorders Signs and Symptoms Speech Disorders

Age range

21 year–80 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

VA Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City, UT

Salt Lake City, Utah, 84148, United States

About this study

EPG has been used to treat apraxia of speech (AOS) as well as other speech production disorders (i.e., articulation disorders & cleft palate). SPT is one of the most systematically studied treatment approaches for AOS. Both treatment approaches are considered clinical treatment approaches/standards of care for AOS. The pseudopalate used in conjunction with EPG treatment is an acceptable device for treating speech production disorders including AOS. The pseudopalate is custom-fit for each patient and is similar to a dental retainer and is considered minimally invasive.

The purpose of this research is to systematically examine the effects of treatment on speech production using EPG treatment vs. an SPT approach. The planned investigation is intended to explicate the acquisition, maintenance, and generalization effects of each treatment approach. The specific experimental questions to be addressed are as follows:

  • Will treatment using an EPG approach or an SPT approach result in greater accuracy of articulation of trained speech sounds produced in words?
  • Will treatment using an EPG approach or an SPT approach result in greater accuracy of articulation of untrained exemplars of trained speech sounds produced in words (i.e., response generalization)?
  • Will treatment using an EPG approach or an SPT approach result in greater long term maintenance effects for trained speech sounds?
  • Do different treatment approaches result in distinct ratings of functional communication skills via the Aphasia Communication Outcome Measure (ACOM; Doyle et al., 2012) and an outcome measure of speech intelligibility using the Assessment of Intelligibility of Dysarthric Speech (AIDS; Yorkston & Beukelman, 1981)?

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Veterans or non Veterans with apraxia of speech who reside in the Salt Lake City region (commutable),
  • 6 months or more post stroke or other focal brain injury, no other neurological conditions
  • native English speakers, hearing adequate for experimental task (e.g., pass puretone screening at 35dB at 500, 1K, 2K Hz or adequate aided hearing)
  • non linguistic cognition within normal limits

Exclusion criteria

  • less than 6 months post stroke
  • insufficient hearing, insufficient non linguistic cognitive skills
  • neurological conditions other than stroke
  • unable to attend treatment in the Salt Lake City vicinity

Treatment and study plan

EPG Tx

Device

behavioral intervention that incorporates a device that provides visual biofeedback

Other names: Electropalatography Treatment, Palatometer Treatment

SPT

Behavioral

A treatment hierarchy involving integral stimulation

Other names: Sound Production Treatment

Primary outcomes

  1. Speech Production: Percent Change in Treated Items Immediately Post Treatment

    Time frame: Baseline vs. Immediately Post Treatment (7 week treatment period)

    Change in accuracy of articulation of treated items measured by percent increase in accuracy above the highest baseline measurement; production of words designated for treatment was measured repeatedly in non-treatment probes prior to treatment, throughout all study phases and immediately post treatment with percent accuracy calculated for each probe (0% to 100% correct). The highest percentage accuracy achieved in baseline probes was subtracted from the percentage accuracy achieved at the conclusion of treatment to obtain change in accuracy value - this reflects change from maximum correct performance in baseline (baseline). e.g., if in baseline probes, performance ranged from 10% to 30% accuracy and at post treatment performance was 90% accuracy, the change value would be 60% (90% minus 30%). A greater value indicates greater change in articulation/production of words. Change could be positive (improved articulation) or negative (poorer articulation)

Secondary outcomes

  1. Speech Production: Percent Change in Untreated Items (Related Items) Immediately Post Treatment

    Time frame: Baseline vs. Immediately Post Treatment (7 week treatment period)

    Change in articulatory accuracy of untreated items, but related items as measured by percent increase in accuracy above the highest baseline measurement; production of words designated for non-treatment was measured repeatedly in non-treatment probes prior to treatment, throughout all study phases and immediately post treatment with percent accuracy calculated for each probe (0% to 100% correct). The highest percentage accuracy achieved in baseline probes was subtracted from the percentage accuracy achieved at the conclusion of treatment to obtain change in accuracy value - this reflects change from maximum correct performance in baseline. e.g., if in baseline probes, performance ranged from 10% to 30% accuracy and at post treatment performance was 90% accuracy, the change value would be 60% (90% minus 30%). A greater change value indicates greater change in articulation/production of words. Change could be positive (improved articulation) or negative (poorer articulation)

  2. Speech Production: Percent Change for Treated Items After the Completion of Treatment

    Time frame: Baseline vs. 7 weeks post treatment [measured immediately after the completion of each treatment]

    Change in articulatory accuracy of treated items as measured by percent increase in accuracy above the highest baseline measurement; production of words designated for treatment was measured repeatedly in non-treatment probes prior to treatment, throughout all study phases, and at 7 weeks immediately after each treatment with percent accuracy calculated for each probe (0% to 100% correct). The highest percentage accuracy achieved in baseline probes was subtracted from the percentage accuracy achieved at 7 weeks immediately after the conclusion of each treatment to obtain change in accuracy value - this reflects change from maximum correct performance in baseline (pre-treatment). e.g., if in baseline probes, performance ranged from 10% to 30% accuracy and at post treatment performance was 90% accuracy, the change value would be 60% (90% minus 30%). A greater change value indicates greater change in articulation/production of words.

  3. Functional Communication Skills: T-Score

    Time frame: Baseline vs. 10 weeks after the completion of all treatment [measured at pre-treatment and post-treatment; conclusion of all treatment]

    Measurement of functional every day communication skills using the Aphasia Communication Outcome Measure (ACOM) with a T-score computed at each administration which was at baseline and then 10 weeks after the completion of all treatment. This outcome measure was only completed at baseline and at the completion on all treatment [not measured after the completion of each treatment]. The rating scale for functional communication skills was completed by the patient (or a spouse if patient's auditory comprehension was significantly impaired) (T-Scores range from 0 to 100; Higher T-scores indicate greater functional communication skills)

  4. Speech Intelligibility: Percentage

    Time frame: Baseline vs. 10 weeks post all treatment [measured at pre-treatment and post-treatment; conclusion of all treatment]

    Measurement of speech intelligibility for a set of fifty words (non-treatment words) from the Assessment of Speech Intelligibility of Dysarthric Speech as judge by an unfamiliar listener that was measured at baseline and then at 10 weeks post all treatment with a percentage of speech intelligibility (0% to 100% intelligible).This measurement was only conducted at pre-treatment and at the conclusion of all treatment [not measured after each treatment].

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

VA Office of Research and Development

Fed

Registry information

Official study title

Apraxia of Speech: A Comparison of EPG Treatment & Sound Production Treatment

Acronym: EPG&SPT

Important dates

Study start
2015
Primary completion
2019
Study completion
2019
First posted
Sep 18, 2015
Registry last updated
Nov 4, 2021

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Related clinical trials

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.