![Sample our Behavioral Sciences journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110801/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Behavioral-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
Background: One class of methods used in the treatment of apraxia of speech is based on rhythmic stimulation. Controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of these methods are still rare.
This study, which was part of the PhD thesis of the first author (Brendel, Citation2003), was approved by the ethics committee of the Bayerische Ärztekammer, Munich. The first author was supported by DFG grant Zi 469/4‐1/4‐2. We are indebted to the speech‐language team of the Neuropsychological Department of the City Hospital Bogenhausen.
Aims: To examine the effectiveness of a new treatment of apraxia of speech based on a metrical pacing technique (MPT) with acoustic stimulation.
Methods & Procedures: MPT was applied to 10 patients with apraxia of speech. Conventional, non‐rhythmic therapeutic techniques were used as a control treatment (cross‐over design). Therapeutic effects were measured by variables describing speech rate, fluency, and segmental accuracy of sentence production. Corrections for spontaneous recovery were based on estimates inferred from a baseline period. Group statistics and multiple single case statistics were performed.
Outcomes & Results: The complete intervention (MPT plus control treatment) yielded significant improvements in speech rate, fluency, and segmental accuracy. Regarding rate and fluency, MPT was superior to the control treatment. Regarding segmental accuracy, both treatments yielded comparable benefits.
Conclusions: In a sample of 10 patients apraxia of speech could be modulated by behavioural treatment methods. The Metrical Pacing Therapy yielded specific improvements of rate and fluency, but also of segmental accuracy, which exceeded the effects of spontaneous recovery.
Notes
This study, which was part of the PhD thesis of the first author (Brendel, Citation2003), was approved by the ethics committee of the Bayerische Ärztekammer, Munich. The first author was supported by DFG grant Zi 469/4‐1/4‐2. We are indebted to the speech‐language team of the Neuropsychological Department of the City Hospital Bogenhausen.
1. Thomas Schöbinger is thanked for his contributions to these analyses.
2. We are grateful to the contributions of Madlen Mangold, who helped with the development of the conversation protocol reported here (Mangold, Citation2001), and Daniela Stocker, who analysed the interviews used in this investigation (Stocker, Citation2002).
3. Mean sentence duration of 20 healthy control speakers on this test was 1.5 s, with a standard deviation of 0.3 s (unpublished data).
4. However, the fact that at least limited, single‐case‐based evidence exists for the effectiveness of each of the methods used in the control treatment warrants a more optimistic interpretation. Moreover, since all treatment effects were adjusted for an estimated gradient of spontaneous recovery, we even have some evidence that the effects obtained during the control periods were not ascribable to this factor.
