Ryan Pollard, John B. Ellis, M.S., Don Finan, Ph.D., and Peter R. Ramig, Ph.D. University of Colorado - Boulder
Electronic devices that deliver altered auditory feedback (AAF)
have been used for several decades to help reduce stuttering
(Bloodstein, 1995). The SpeechEasy, introduced to consumers in 2001, is
one of the more recent AAF devices available to individuals who
stutter. In contrast to the often conspicuous and cumbersome nature of
earlier electronic fluency aids, the SpeechEasy is comparatively small
and cosmetically pleasing, and thus more appealing to some consumers.
Recently, researchers at the University of Colorado at Boulder
examined the effects of the SpeechEasy over six months of continual
use. The purpose of the project was to gather Phase I treatment outcome
research about the SpeechEasy in more naturalistic settings. Unlike
previous SpeechEasy research (e.g., Stuart et al., 2006), this study
collected periodic speech samples outside of the laboratory to more
accurately assess the device’s real-world effectiveness. Subjects were
recorded while reading aloud, conversing with a researcher, and asking
a question to a stranger. After a month-long baseline phase, subjects
wore a custom-fitted SpeechEasy device for four months. After this
treatment phase, subjects continued to be monitored for an additional
month without the device in place.
The SpeechEasy was generally effective in reducing stuttering when
immediately fit, but significant reductions in stuttering were not
consistently maintained across four months of treatment.
Relatively more stuttering reduction occurred during oral reading
than during the conversation or question tasks. Individual responses
varied greatly with regard to both fluency improvement and personal
impressions of the device. For example, many subjects reported that a
promising feature of the SpeechEasy was its effectiveness while using
the telephone. In contrast, the most frequently reported drawback was
perceived background noise in certain situations.
At the end of the study, subjects were then surveyed in order to
gain insight as to their satisfaction with wearing the SpeechEasy.
Regarding ultimate purchasing decision, four of the 11 subjects who
began the experiment elected to purchase their devices at a substantial
discount after completing the study. Three subjects did not purchase
the device, but replied that they would continue to use the SpeechEasy
if it were given to them free of charge. A final three subjects decided
not to buy the device and reported that they would not continue to use
it even if it were given to them at no charge.
Although the group findings in this study revealed no overall
treatment effect for the device, this is a qualified conclusion for
several reasons. First, individual subjects did benefit from wearing
the SpeechEasy during certain speech tasks and/or reported satisfaction
with the device, indicating that the SpeechEasy may be viewed as a
viable treatment option by some who stutter. Furthermore, the subjects
who participated in the study sampled their devices at no cost and may
have conceivably been less motivated and emotionally invested in a
positive outcome than those who actively seek out and purchase a
SpeechEasy. Finally, subjects in this study were trained and encouraged
to use active techniques such as easy vocal onsets or initial sound
prolongations as needed to initiate voicing when wearing the
SpeechEasy; however, additional stuttering therapy was not provided.
Because recent clinical evidence indicates that including traditional
stuttering therapy may improve SpeechEasy outcomes (Armson et al.,
2006), it appears that in at least some cases, the expertise provided
by a certified speech-language pathologist to provide additional
stuttering treatment may be needed in order to maximize benefits
derived from SpeechEasy use.
Find complete article at http://www.stutteringhelp.org/default.aspx?tabindex=575&tabid=588
