» Articles » PMID: 33705667

Neuroimaging of the Syllable Repetition Task in Children With Residual Speech Sound Disorder

Overview
Date 2021 Mar 11
PMID 33705667
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose This study investigated phonological and speech motor neural networks in children with residual speech sound disorder (RSSD) during an overt Syllable Repetition Task (SRT). Method Sixteen children with RSSD with /ɹ/ errors (6F [female]; ages 8;0-12;6 [years;months]) and 16 children with typically developing speech (TD; 8F; ages 8;5-13;7) completed a functional magnetic resonance imaging experiment. Children performed the SRT ("SRT-Early Sounds") with the phonemes /b, d, m, n, ɑ/ and an adapted version ("SRT-Late Sounds") with the phonemes /ɹ, s, l, tʃ, ɑ/. We compared the functional activation and transcribed production accuracy of the RSSD and TD groups during both conditions. Expected errors were not scored as inaccurate. Results No between-group or within-group differences in repetition accuracy were found on the SRT-Early Sounds or SRT-Late Sounds tasks at any syllable sequence length. On a first-level analysis of the tasks, the TD group showed expected patterns of activation for both the SRT-Early Sounds and SRT-Late Sounds, including activation in the left primary motor cortex, left premotor cortex, bilateral anterior cingulate, bilateral primary auditory cortex, bilateral superior temporal gyrus, and bilateral insula. The RSSD group showed similar activation when correcting for multiple comparisons. In further exploratory analyses, we observed the following subthreshold patterns: (a) On the SRT-Early Sounds, greater activation was found in the left premotor cortex for the RSSD group, while greater activation was found in the left cerebellum for the TD group; (b) on the SRT-Late Sounds, a small area of greater activation was found in the right cerebellum for the RSSD group. No within-group functional differences were observed (SRT-Early Sounds vs. SRT-Late Sounds) for either group. Conclusions Performance was similar between groups, and likewise, we found that functional activation did not differ. Observed functional differences in previous studies may reflect differences in task performance, rather than fundamental differences in neural mechanisms for syllable repetition.

Citing Articles

Effects of Intervention Strategies-Based on Positive Psychology on the Emotional Cognition, Mental Health, and Recovery of Speech Function in Speech Disabilities.

Luo Z, Wang N Iran J Public Health. 2024; 53(5):1068-1076.

PMID: 38912140 PMC: 11188662. DOI: 10.18502/ijph.v53i5.15588.


Neural Changes in Children With Residual Speech Sound Disorder After Ultrasound Biofeedback Speech Therapy.

Spencer C, Vannest J, Preston J, Maas E, Sizemore E, McAllister T J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2023; 66(9):3223-3241.

PMID: 37524116 PMC: 10558148. DOI: 10.1044/2023_JSLHR-22-00430.

References
1.
Lewis B, Avrich A, Freebairn L, Taylor H, Iyengar S, Stein C . Subtyping Children With Speech Sound Disorders by Endophenotypes. Top Lang Disord. 2012; 31(2):112-127. PMC: 3404745. DOI: 10.1097/TLD.0b013e318217b5dd. View

2.
Hickok , Poeppel . Towards a functional neuroanatomy of speech perception. Trends Cogn Sci. 2000; 4(4):131-138. DOI: 10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01463-7. View

3.
Smith S, Nichols T . Threshold-free cluster enhancement: addressing problems of smoothing, threshold dependence and localisation in cluster inference. Neuroimage. 2008; 44(1):83-98. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.03.061. View

4.
Dugan S, Li S, Masterson J, Woeste H, Mahalingam N, Spencer C . Tongue Part Movement Trajectories for /r/ Using Ultrasound. Perspect ASHA Spec Interest Groups. 2020; 4(6):1644-1652. PMC: 7286630. DOI: 10.1044/2019_pers-19-00064. View

5.
Ackermann H . Cerebellar contributions to speech production and speech perception: psycholinguistic and neurobiological perspectives. Trends Neurosci. 2008; 31(6):265-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.02.011. View