Final Flashcards

1
Q

Single Word intelligibility test

A

% words correct (by listener) is severity indicator/explanatory power (w/ phonetic contrast analysis); reliability: Zajac 6-12 words/50 word set; Computer Mediated Speech Assessment System: + reliability (.92-.95) found CL/P group 67% intelligible (peer 85%)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Phonetic contrast findings for intelligibility CLP

A

78% (control 93%); their error: alveolar (velar stops, palatal fricatives), fricative (affricative), liquid (glide w)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Causes of VPI

A

Cleft palate/SMCP (20% post surgery); congenital short palate/deep pharynx; mechanical obstruction (tonsils, adenoids, posterior pillar web); Ablative palatal lesions (cancer, trauma); Neuromotor (dysarthria); Motor Planning (Apraxia); Sensorineural hearing loss; maxillary advancement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

VPI terms (VPI, insufficiency, incompetency)

A

inability to separate oral and nasal cavities during speech; lack of tissue; neuromuscular)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Obligatory Speech Characteristics

A

active; usually w/ LARGE VP gap; nasalized plosives, hyper nasal, reduced loudness, nasal air emission (especially voiceless stops), weak oral pressure (Po reduced)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Compensatory speech characteristics

A

learning; compensate for VPI/other structural anomaly; PLACE changed to preserve MANNER of artic; pharyngeal fricative and glottal stop (comp for VPI valve), mid dorsum palatal stop (comp for palatal anomaly such as ONF, teeth, arch); 25-30% children w/ CLP, more prevalent in bilateral CLP

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Speech characteristics of VPI

A

hypernasalisty, audible nasal air emission (esp voiceless consonants), weak pressure consonants, compensatory articulators

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Cul-de-sac resonance

A

pharyngeal cavity; due to obstruction (e.g., large tonsils, small jaw & glossoptosis, VPI & anterior nasal blockage)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Hypernasality

A

excessive nasal resonance that affects VOWELS and VOICED consonants

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Nasal cavity air mass can resonate due to

A

direct coupling via VP gap; sympathetic coupling via structures (e.g., vibrating velum)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Denasality

A

total nasal airway obstruction

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Hyponasality

A

reduced nasal resonance on NASAL CONSONANTS and VOWELS; obstruction in nasal cavity/nasopharynx; “head cold” sound

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Mixed resonance

A

hyper & hypo w/in same utterance; often w/ pharyngeal flaps

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Vowel type & perceived nasality

A

low vowels more nasal than high vowels for non-cleft; high vowels (ee, i, oo, uh) more nasal than low vowels (a, aye) for cleft (High vowels have greater velar height)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Hypernasal perceptual judgment scales: Equal Appearing Interval (EAI)

A

equal interval squares

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Hypernasal perceptual judgment scales: Direct Magnitude Estimation (DME)

A

Judment relative to “modulus” w/ has assigned (arbitrary) value; ratio judgment relative to modulus

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Prothetic stimuli

A

changes in QUANTITY or MAGNITUDE; eg, loudness; DME scales better (If DME and EAI scales are NON-LINEAR, stimulus is prothetic)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Metathetic

A

stimuli changes in QUALITY; SUBSTITUTIVE can use EAI or DME

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Hyper nasality may be ______ in nature, so _____ scale is best

A

Prothetic; DME

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Nasal Air Emission determined by

A

Respiratory effort (Po); size VP gap; potency of nasal cavity (snot)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Nasal Air Emission detection

A

visible (mirror–> VP gap, ONF); audible (forced exhalation on plosives); turbulent (nasal rustle due to small VP gap plosives/sibilants)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Kummer theory: Nasal Air Emission

A

Nasal rustle (turbulence) caused by airflow through small VP gap resulting in bubbling of secretions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Zajac theory: Nasal Air Emission

A

velar flutter caused by vibration of velar/pharyngeal tissue accompanied by turbulent airflow (maybe secretions too)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Types of compensatory misarticulations

A

MANNER maintained, PLACE is POSTERIOR; glottal stop for /b/, pharyngeal stop for /k, g/, pharyngeal fricative for sibilant, affricates (e.g. /s/), mid-dorsum palatal stop for /t, k/; velar fricative for sibilant fricatives (s, z, sh, zh); posterior nasal (VP) fricative w/ audible NAE; nasal fricative- nasal snort, voiceless nasal consonant for oral stop

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Cause of compensatory misarticulations

A

early phonetic development before surgery, tx: surgery before onset of meaningful speech

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Dental/alveolar anomalies cause of mid-dorsum stops b/c

A

CPO kids show only glottal stops; CLP kids glottal stops, mid-dorsum, pharyngeal fricative & stops

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Other unusual articulations in children w/ CLP

A

clicks, sibilants on inhalation, nasal grimace

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Articulation error patterns in CP

A

omissions & substitutions most frequent; fricative/affricate (s most common) > plosives . gildes; frequent /l, r/ errors (maxillary/palatal anomalies; voiceless > voiced (higher pressure, VPI leads to voicing)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

CP changes vowel production

A

extra nasal formant below F1, extra formants above F1, increased frequency F1; Reduced amplitude and frequency of F2; increased formant bandwidths

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Tonge position changes in CLP

A

HIGH and RETRACTED; increases oral impedance & nasality; reduce frequency of F1 & F2

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Speaking rate & CP

A

adults read slower; decreased word production time REDUCED nasality (faster rate for hearing impaired individuals also decreased nasality rating, narrowed F2 bandwidths, less VP contact @ slow rate, decreased compliance of vocal tract walls –> narrower bandwidths

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Developmental factors on nasality in young children w/ CLP

A

INCREASED nasality due to longer vowel duration, and INCREASED ANE due to longer consonant durations, higher oral pressure, smaller nasopharyngeal cavity; possible REDUCTION in symptoms w/ age

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Voice disorders in CP

A

high prevalence- perceptual, vocal fold nodules; “Soft Voice Syndrome” to disguise nasality?; laryngeal hyper functioning due to strategy to increase effort/close VP, ST?;

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Stuttering in CP

A

low prevalence; delay linguistic maturity, accepting parents, aerodynamic of vocal tract???

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Clinical Assessment of VPI

A

GLOBAL judgment of resonance (hyo/hyper), Audible nasal emission, Arctic (intelligibility? developmental/dental errors, compensatory misartic), vocal quality & prosody from spontaneous speech sample (or elicited: counting, CV syllables, sentences) ; can manipulate rate or LOUDNESS; ask: child usually like this?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Nasal Emission Testing (regular (school) clinic)

A

mirror (con- poor time measurement); test nasal breating, CV syllable, sentences, gauge consitent? reduced/absent nasals? *Test /ki/ is anterior ONF

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Nasal Emission Testing: SeeScape

A

Pro: good for feedback or oral airflow; Con: may encourage nasal emission

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Do mirror testing _______ perceptual testing for Audible Nasal Emissions (time)

A

AFTER (sometimes emissions but not perceptual, don’t bias)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Clinical assessment during elicited speech samples

A

isolated vowels: high vowels- open vs pinched nostrils (change?- if goes to cul-de-sac, VPI; no change- adequate VP closure)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Oral Peripheral Exam for CP

A

Check hard palate/alveolar ridge for: ONFs, cleft, height of palatal vault, scarring; check soft palate for: length, symmetry on phonation, SMCP, LPW movement; tonsils (size, obstructing?)/adenoids; Dental occlusion/corssbites/missing or extra teeth; Tongue lips & mandible- size/sphage, ROM, strength; CN function test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

Articulation testing for CP

A

Audio record, use standardized test, transcribed w/ diacritics; Intelligibility- global (mild, mod, severe), % from conversation, % single word (Unbiased, objective outcome measure); arctic errors may be: developmental, due to dentition, dyspraxia/dysarthria, due to VPI (obligatory, compensatory)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

Assessment: Nasal Emission

A

visible, audible? (Audible NE vs nasal turbulence, or combo); consistent? or phoneme specific

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

VP function assessment

A

WNL: NO visible nasal emission, normal resonance; ADEQUATE: mild nasality, Visiblie, sometimes audible nasal emissions; MARGINAL: consistent Aud/Visible NE; mild-mod nasality; reduces loudness/vocal dysfunction/some compensatory errors possible; INADEQUATE: consistent visible and aud NE; mod-severe nasality; reduced Po & loudness/vocal dysfunction/compensatory and nasal substitutions likely

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

VP Inadequacy recommendations

A

instrumental assessment; surgical management; prosthetic management

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

VP Marginal recommendations

A

stimuable? resonance- rate, loudness, mouth opening manipulation; NE- contact pressure “quick & light” manipulation, feedback; Artic- stumble for anterior placements if based?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

ST appropriate for children with marginal VP function IF

A

stimuable l for resonance/NE (CPAP?); stimuable for arctic - tx for placement (could reduce nasality, improve VP function)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

How to determine status of stimuli on perceptual rating scales

A

linear=metathetic; curved=prothetic

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

Obligatory (passive) nasal emission

A

generated @ anterior nasal valve- hissing/turbulent sound w/ stops & fricatives, large VP gap; generated @ VP valve- raspberry/periodic sound, small VP gap

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

Active nasal fricatives

A

generated @ anterior nasal valve- hissing/turbulent sound REPLACES stops & fricatives, oral cavity occluded, large VP gap; generated @ posterior VP valve- raspberry/periodic sound, oral cavity occluded, small VP gap

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

Acoustic nasometry

A

OBJECTIVE measure of resonance called nasalance, moderately correlated w/ perceived resonance; Fletcher, 1970

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

Nasometer equipment

A

headset w/ nasal & oral mics, sound separator place; acoustic processor- bandpass filter, A/D converter, software

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

Acoustic nasometry

A

gives % NASALANCE= nasal dB/(total (oral + nasal) dB) x 100 (eg, 100% nasalance for /m/, 0% for eeee); in practice, acoustic CROSSOVER occurs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

Nasometer filtering

A

bandwidth; 350 to 650 Hz to capture nasal formant, centered at 500Hz; poor slope of filter (24dB/octave);

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

Nasalance norms

A

zoo passage: 15%, rainbow (11% nasal): 35%; nasal sentences: 61%; vary by geographical dialect

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

Nasalance scores for speakers with VPI

A

28% Zoo passage cutoff score;

56
Q

Nasometer considerations (“caveats”)

A

mics: sensitivity & frequency must be closely MATCHED; careful across machines; Nasal air emissions during VOICELESS sounds may inflate nasalance (so use “low pressure” voiced stimuli); vowel effects by tongue height NOT VP opening;may be affected by bandpass filter, NOT VP opening, higher nasalance for females; acoustic crossover between mis- sympathetic VIBRATION of closed soft palate(transpalatal nasalance); maybe affected by pitch- increased on /a/ INCREASED for men

57
Q

Transpalatal nasalance

A

sympathetic VIBRATION of closed soft palate; implies some degree nasality may occur even w/ normal VP closure; pitch may be a factor; maybe some surgeries optimize acoustic impedance to sound better? Furrow lengthens, thickens velum

58
Q

Nasometry pros & cons

A

objective, non-invasive, good for kids, normative data, feedback potential; inflation due to nasal flutter (> true nasalance), comparison across centers problematic, NOT true index of VP opening but relative oral-nasal resonance balance

59
Q

Benefit of assessing aerodynamics

A

COMPREHENSIVE evaluation much include instrumental techniques to prevent bias

60
Q

Advantages & disadvantages of pressure-flow as instrumental technique

A

Non invasive, kinda cheap ($$$ endoscopy, $$ pressure flow, $ nasometry), provides OBJECTIVE info, children young as 3-6, no physician oversight needed; kinda expensive, complicated techniques (calibration of flowmeter, pressure transducers, orifice area equation); few “commercial” vendors

61
Q

Aerodynamics and VPI speech characteristics

A

50% VPI speech characteristics aerodynamic by definition (nasal air emission, reduced oral air pressure); hypo nasality and compensatory arctic also may have aerodynamic components

62
Q

Velopharyngeal port essentially functions as _____

A

an AEROMECHANICAL VALVE to separate oral & nasal cavities during speech; PRIMARY goal of palatal surgeries=restore structural and aeromechanics VP integrity, so aerodynamics should be PRIMARY procedure to assess surgical conditions

63
Q

Low-tech aerodynamics assessment tools

A

Mirror, See-Scape (shouldn’t rise), listening tube

64
Q

Low-tech aerodynamics assessment caveats

A

INADEQUATE temporal resolution; affected by speaking rate; could be due to velar bounce; nasal-plosive phonetic contexts; patients could misinterpret;

65
Q

Pressure-flow technique

A

method to calculate MINIMUM cross-sectional area of VP orifice; hydrokinetics; Need 3 things: vocal tract pressure measurements (Oral and nasal pressure, differential pressure), nasal airflow measurements (Vn), and VP area calculation

66
Q

Warren (19640 modified pressure-flow to allow____

A

DIRECT determination of differential oral-nasal pressure across VP port, but limited to bilabial consonants

67
Q

Pressure-flow: Accuracy of VP area estimates

A

depends upon value of K; if rounded inlet geometry of orifice, k=.97; by using .65, may overestimate VP area up to 30%, but unknown for every speaker/norms .65; VP area estimates are RELATIVE

68
Q

Pressure-flow: Instrumentation

A

2 air pressure transducers: positive and negative pressures, heated prneumatachometer (flow meter), A/D converter, signal processing software, calibration equipment

69
Q

Standard pressure-flow technique

A

requires potency of both nostrils; Po detected behind lops, Pn detected by occulting one nostril (stagnation pressure continuous w/ downstream VP port; eliminates nasal cavity resistance); nasal airflow detected by flow tube

70
Q

Pressure-flow measurement of oral cavity

A

can be easy OR hard to obtain; catheter must be BEHIND structure of interest; EASY for bilabial, ~easy for ALVEOLAR, DIFFICULT for velar; orientation catheter NOT critical for stops

71
Q

Pressure-flow measurement of nasal cavity

A

catheter must be DOWNSTREAM of VP orifice; insert into nostril via cork, foam plus, nasal olive; Requires flow meter, nasal flow be, flow from most patent nostril

72
Q

VP orifice area for /pi/

A

Adequate VP function: 0mm squared, marginal VP function: 12.72,

73
Q

Normal VP closure for Stop consonants

A

Po 3-8 cm H20; greater in children than adults; NO nasal airflow but beware of onset/offset flow, velar bounce, tonsillectomy/adenoidectomy

74
Q

VP function by phonetic context of /p/ CV VP area

A

NORMAL/complete closure: VP area =,,= 10.0

75
Q

VP function by perceptual symptoms

A

ADEQUATE: generates usable Po, but inconsistent nasal rustle, mild nasality possible; MARGINAL may have reduced Po, audible NE, mild/mod nasality, INADEQUATE: reduced Po, audible NE, mod/severe nasality

76
Q

VP port timing

A

may be as important as size of opening; high correlation between VP closing DURATION in nasal-plosive sequences & perceived nasality

77
Q

VP closing duration

A

Duration of nasal flow decline in “hamper” from the PEAK NASAL AIRFLOW to 5% baseline airflow; 50-80 ms

78
Q

Considerations using VP Closing Time

A

need STANDARDIZED norms; need to NORMALIZE VP closing time to word duration to control for speaking rate

79
Q

Differential pressure determination for young children

A

NO nasal flow tube (no area calculation; give visual feedback to make a game w/ oral catheter and nasal plug

80
Q

Differential pressure /m/ VP function

A

> 3.0, ADEQUATE; 1.0-2.9 MARGINAL;

81
Q

Nasal Mask Approach for pressure-flow measurement for young children

A

nasal mask (airflow AND downstream pressure) w/ oral catheter for upstream pressure; avoids nasal plug, good for bilateral cleft, unilateral nasal obstruction, fear of nasal plug; Permits calculation of VP area; requires differential pressure CORRECTION (must SUBTRACT nasal pressure drop to obtain (larger) true VP area)

82
Q

Nasal Mask ONLY Approach for pressure-flow measurement for young children

A

obtains AIRFLOW, NO oral catheter, mic for audio; useful for child w/ lip incompetency, fear of oral catheter

83
Q

VP function /p/ CV by nasal flow

A

ADEQEATE nasal flow ,20-30 mL/s (includes velar bounce); MARGINAL 30-150 (influenced by respiratory effort/nasal resistance); INADEQUATE >150ML/s

84
Q

Objective assessment of VP port

A

methods: videofluroscopy, nasoendoscopy, pressure flow techniques; Pro: obejctive, reliable assessment of VP mechanism; CONS: expensive, invasive, dean child’s cooperation (better if child 4+)

85
Q

Importance of early VP mechanism assessment

A

feedback for surgeons & STs: 20-30% children w/ CP may need secondary palatal children, 60-70% need ST

86
Q

Nasal Ram pressure

A

VP status of stop consonants coded relative to NRP: Open VP- POSITIVE NRP; closed VP- ATMOSPHERIC NRP

87
Q

Pros & Cons of the Pressure-Flow Method

A

non-invasive, objective, good norms, lots info: Po, Pn, Vn, VP area estimate; Technical (calibration, easy to make errors), RELATIVE > actual VP area, may not highly correlate w/ perceived hypernasality

88
Q

Endoscopy

A

Optical instrument; requires high-intensity light source

89
Q

Nasoendoscopy

A

use of endoscopy to evaluate VP function during speech; scope passes through nose, but DIRECT view of ENTIRE VP port difficult; nasal aspect velum/posterior pharyngeal wall seen

90
Q

Nasoendoscopy considerations for the SLP

A

invasive procedure; increased legal risk; remain w/in scope; requires oversight of physician

91
Q

Points of resistance when passing nasal scope

A

vestibule/opening; internal nasal valve (smallest cross-sectional area), chin; use universal precautions

92
Q

Nasal Cycle

A

alternating congestion/decongestion of 2 nasal passages; sympathetic/parasympathetic CNS control; total resistance remains constant; most active in teens/young adults; decreases w/ age; 40 min-several hours

93
Q

Nasoendoscopic procedure

A

Patient prep (before day of), END for decongestant, topical anesthetic,

94
Q

Nasoendoscope CONTRAINDICATIONS

A

developmental delay, confusion, combative behavior; laryngospasm history; reaction to local anesthetic; bleeding disorder; refusal

95
Q

Televex (multi-view video fluoroscopy)

A

direct imaging technique; provides MULTIPLE views of VP closure; barium contrast

96
Q

Base view VP closure patterns

A

circular gap (= from velum AND lateral pharyngeal walls); Coronal (Bell Bar) Gap- primary contribution from velum; Saggital gap- primary contribution from Lateral Pharyngeal Walls

97
Q

Televex procedure

A

lateral view: speech w/ NO barium, then barium sips for ONF and nasopharyngeal reflux assessment; then lay on back, barium in nostrils- sniff & swallow; base view: pt on stomach w/ head upright- assess VP closure during SWALLOW and SPEECH (LPW movement); Frontal view (pt stands)- LPW motion during SWALLOW & speech; Lateral view again- full barium coating of nasal and oral- assess VP closure during SWALLOW, velar elevation and pas savant’s pad during speech, lingual postures

98
Q

Videofluoroscopy pros & cons

A

real images, less invasive than endoscopy, surgical planning relative to eight of flaps @ level palatal closure; real image, difficult to quantify, radiation exposure

99
Q

Lateral Cephalogram disadvantages

A

radiation, limited to single sound, vowels not always closed in non-cleft speakers (30% misdiagnosis from MVVF)

100
Q

_____ obligatory symptoms (3) require ________

A

SIGNIFICANT (hyper nasality, AUIBLE nasal emission, weak pressure consonants); PHYSICAL management (prosthetics, surgery)

101
Q

Speech tx for compensatory misarticulations appropriate if

A

errors RETAINED in presence of adequate structure; goal to teach placement PRIOR to planned diagnostic/physical management; no hx ST and errors inconsistent (e.g., oral stops produced in come contexts)

102
Q

Secondary palatal surgeries- posterior pharyngeal flap

A

mod/large CENTRAL CIRCULAR VP gap due to poor velar movement or short velum; need LPW movement; adverse side effects;

103
Q

Secondary palatal surgeries– Sphincter pharyngoplasty

A

small LATERAL VP gaps, need velar movement, fewer side effects

104
Q

Secondary palatal surgeries- - Furlow double-oppsing Z-plasty

A

lengthens palate; may increase velum thickness (for less acoustic transfer of sound energy)

105
Q

Secondary palatal surgeries- posterior pharyngeal wall augmentation -

A

implants; rolled flap; division of pharyngeal flap becomes a “rolled flap”

106
Q

Physical managements: Palatal lift

A

removable; ELEVATES and HOLDS velum agains posterior pharyngeal wall; useful for NORMAL velar length (poor movement- neurogenic disorders); contraindicated if severe gag reflect, poor oral hygiene, missing teeth

107
Q

Physical management: Speech bulb obturator

A

removable; OCCLUDES VP gap; useful for short velum (VP insufficiency), interacts w/ VP muscles to dynamically, functionally control or-naso airflow; therapy: gradually DECREASE size of bulb every 3-4 months w/ goal: stimulate normal velar or LPW movement

108
Q

Indications for prostheses w/ surgery

A

pharyngeal flap failure w/ redivision; temporary obturation may indicate potential effectiveness of surgery

109
Q

Speech tx goals

A

change VP muscles (strength, endurance, mass); Change VP activity (coordination, rate, consistency); Reduce speech s/sx by changing respiratory effort, phonation, artic

110
Q

Why milk shake therapy sucks

A

assumes VP weakness is cause for hypernasality; uses tongue to palate contact instead of velum to posterior wall contact in speech; assumes vp closure for sucking w/ carryover to speech

111
Q

Non-speech oromotor tasks evidence

A

VP closure during speech is precise, automatic- during blowing, gross, purposeful; VP patterns different than speech; *but may be helpful for SWALLOWING

112
Q

Continuous Positive Airway Pressure

A

CPAP; “exercises” velum w/ disyllabit stimuli; second oral/sibilant syllable is STRESSED; gradual increase in exercise time and nasal pressure resistance;

113
Q

CPAP pros & cons

A

based on exercise principles sci, incorporates speech production; expensive, technical, limited data, effects could be due to increases respiratory effort, oral resonance, or improved VP timing, promotes idea that palate is weak, increased nasal resistance ONLY occurs during vowels wen mouth is open

114
Q

Home Resonance Program (HRP)

A

CPAP w/out CPAP (use disyllabic model, “strong voice: for 2nd (oral) stressed syllable); use w/ ADEQUATE to MARGINAL VP function, SOFY VOICE SYNDROME; based on idea that hypernasal due to poor VP closure timing (long/slow), or limited effort; stress in nasal-obstruent sequence to improve timing

115
Q

HRP Pros and Cons

A

based on sci, uses speech production, inexpensive; limited data, maybe limited to “sot voice syndrome”

116
Q

PiNCH Prolonged Nasal Cul-de-Sac w/ High Pressure Speech Acts

A

targets hypernasality; patient occludes nostrils for 40+ min, reads/repeats series of words w/ high pressure oral phonemes and vowels (some improvement in n=4)

117
Q

4 “physiological principles” of VP function in PiNCH

A

Nose occlusion will increase Oral Pressure, VP closure (mixed data); tx should include speech; speech should NOT include retracted sounds b/d they don’t need VP participation (pharyngeal, glottal); Increase in subglottic pressure will facilitate VP closure– use voiced sounds

118
Q

Early intervention w/ CLP

A

Parent training ESSENTIAL; technique to stimulate language/INCREASE vocalizations (add sounds not currently used), “joint listening” for oral (> glottal) productions; provide word lists w/ /h, m, n, w/ consonants, occluding nares for oral sounds; post surgery- bilabial stop, voiced stop word lists; POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT to prevent glottal stops

119
Q

Speech tx BEFORE palate repair; BEFORE pharyngeal flap surgery

A

may focus on vocalic & nasal sounds- encourage speech in early years, NOT due to weak muscles; teach correct oral placements/eliminate glottal stop (may improve VP function/inform surgical recommendations)

120
Q

Speech tx after surgery

A

w/in 1-2 weeks; expand phonetic inventory by modeling lip/tongue/cheek movement in mirror, model specific CV syllable targets

121
Q

Materials needed for CLP tx

A

mirror, nose clip, other regular stuff

122
Q

EI w/ focused stimulation

A

to improve parent interactions & child’s vocab/artic; based on needs of toddlers w/ CP: limited vocal, restricted sound inventory, compensatory misartic, potentially reinforced glottal stops; parent training (model, respond w/ expansion) ; increases CLP toddler MLU, # total words, # different words #, decreased % glottal stop

123
Q

Preschool/School Age speech tx for children w/ CLP

A

NEED informed parents/home component; individual sessions > in class (compensatory errors unique); 6-12 months, 20-30 min, 3-5x/week

124
Q

Preschool CLP ST

A

EXPAND consonant inventory by teaching placement, teach spelling for target sounds, teach contrasts (min pairs)

125
Q

School SLPs and Alveolar bone grafting (g/k)

A

age 8; reassess kid after surgery, short-term tx is stimulable for sibilant distortion, discontinue during maxillary expansion IF rapid

126
Q

Jaw (orthognathic) surgery

A

adress dentition related errors, assess VP function

127
Q

Eliminating compensatory errors (g, k)

A

child must UNDERSTAND problem; start w/ h to eliminate glottal stop, promote oral airflow, use to shape future sounds; nonsense then real words, CV to CVC, maximize (100/session) CORRECT productions; use placement map, aud discrimination, whisper for ABduction and more oral flow, add voicing to end/decrease /h/ “PhAY”

128
Q

Feedback as SLP

A

direct, specific w/ instructions and feedback; negative practice AFTER child has established target

129
Q

Tx for pharyngeal/posterior nasal fricatives

A

planet map; occlude nose; prolong /t/, then eliminate t, straw for central tongue groove/feedback

130
Q

Tx for palatal/pharyngeal fricatives

A

overcorrect- teach interdental /th/, gradually extinguish

131
Q

Appropriate needs & contraindications for ST (Kummer)

A

hypernasality/nasal air emission due to apraxia or dysarthria; compensatory artic post surgery; compensatory artic secondary to VPI, learned PSNE; NOT if cause structural (VPI/malocclusion) unless won’t be corrected

132
Q

Speech tx: hypernasality

A

auditory discrimination, learning voluntary control, increased effort/oral opening, lower tongue dorm (practice w/ yawn), biofeedback (listening tube, nanometer visual, nasal vibrations tactile)

133
Q

Speech tx: Nasal air emission

A

auditory discrimination, cul-de-sac (occlude nares), light quick contacts, biofeedback (listening tube, air paddle/nasometer, tactile from nose or mouth burst release)

134
Q

Speech tx overall (Zajac thoughts)

A

Listen to and teach parents; explain surgery outcomes/limitations and avoid for velar movement problems; ST first for INCONSISTENT VP closure; change speech one syllable @ time; gross perceptual symptoms may diminish w/ age/growth

135
Q

Phoneme specific nasal emission

A

mostly in sibilants/affricates; could be others (f, v, tr); Variable contextual expression; produced as POSTERIOR NASAL FRICATIVE, coarticulated oral stop (mid-dorsum to palate or alveolar ridge (t, d), velum (k, g), bilabial (p, b); VP port OPEN but reduced in size, causing velum vibration to resonate nasal airway; non-stop oral phonemes NORMAL VP closure; w/ or w/out PVERT structural anomalies

136
Q

Active Nasal Fricatives

A

59% showed oral closure, nasal friction during /s/

137
Q

Children w/ repaired CP and PSNE

A

ARE candidates for ST; nostril occlusion w/ sustained s, nasometry visual and negative practice, then self-monitoring