A motor learning perspective for optimizing intervention intensity

Abstract 4 has addressed the critical issue of optimizing intervention intensity in the field of speech-language pathology. While this provides a useful framework from which to examine treatment intensities across a variety of approaches, it does little to inform how certain factors (e.g., feedback frequency, practice schedules) might be manipulated to optimize learning in ways that are effective and efficient. Evidence from the speech and non-speech motor learning literature suggests that the optimal intensities for utilizing practice and feedback are dependent on interactive factors such as task variability, target complexity, and therapeutic goals. In light of the complex interactions of treatment factors, it is proposed that the principles of motor learning be used as a guide to develop precise, interactive models that describe the optimal treatment conditions for specific approaches to intervention in speech-language pathology.

[1]  J. Gierut.  Natural domains of cyclicity in phonological acquisition. , 1998, Clinical linguistics & phonetics.

[2]  E. Baker.  Optimal intervention intensity , 2012, International journal of speech-language pathology.

[3]  Heiner Deubel,et al.  Reduced feedback frequency enhances generalized motor program learning but not parameterization learning , 1993 .

[4]  R. Schmidt,et al.  Methodology for motor learning: a paradigm for kinematic feedback. , 1991, Journal of motor behavior.

[5]  P. Littlejohns,et al.  Trial of intensive compared with weekly speech therapy in preschool children. , 1992, Archives of disease in childhood.

[6]  C. Thompson,et al.  Complexity in treatment of syntactic deficits. , 2007, American journal of speech-language pathology.

[7]  R. Schmidt,et al.  Effects of feedback frequency and timing on acquisition, retention, and transfer of speech skills in acquired apraxia of speech. , 2008, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[8]  R. Ruben.  Redefining the Survival of the Fittest: Communication Disorders in the 21st Century , 2000, The Laryngoscope.

[9]  Katherine M. Keetch,et al.  The Effect of Self-Regulated and Experimenter-Imposed Practice Schedules on Motor Learning for Tasks of Varying Difficulty , 2007, Research quarterly for exercise and sport.

[10]  J. Shea,et al.  Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill. , 1979 .

[11]  M. Fey,et al.  Recast density and acquisition of novel irregular past tense verbs. , 2007, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[12]  Charles H Shea,et al.  Sequence Learning: Response Structure and Effector Transfer , 2005, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[13]  B. Prizant,et al.  Communication disorders and emotional/behavioral disorders in children and adolescents. , 1990, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[14]  C. Shea,et al.  Principles derived from the study of simple skills do not generalize to complex skill learning , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[15]  Charles H Shea,et al.  Effect of Practice on Effector Independence , 2003, Journal of motor behavior.

[16]  R. Schmidt,et al.  Reduced frequency of knowledge of results enhances motor skill learning. , 1990 .

[17]  R. Schmidt,et al.  New Conceptualizations of Practice: Common Principles in Three Paradigms Suggest New Concepts for Training , 1992 .

[18]  R. Schmidt,et al.  Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis, 4th ed. , 2005 .

[19]  M G Fischman,et al.  Please Scroll down for Article Journal of Motor Behavior Influence of Extended Practice on Programming Time, Movement Time, and Transfer in Simple Target-striking Responses , 2022 .

[20]  D. Robin,et al.  Treatment of sound errors in aphasia and apraxia of speech: Effects of phonological complexity , 2002, Aphasiology.

[21]  Timothy D. Lee,et al.  Motor Control and Learning: A Behavioral Emphasis , 1982 .

[22]  S. Canter.  Social skills. , 1994, The British journal of clinical psychology.

[23]  C. Shea,et al.  Frequent feedback enhances complex motor skill learning. , 1998, Journal of motor behavior.

[24]  S. Warren,et al.  Differential treatment intensity research: a missing link to creating optimally effective communication interventions. , 2007, Mental retardation and developmental disabilities research reviews.

[25]  K. Ballard,et al.  The role of syntactic complexity in training wh-movement structures in agrammatic aphasia: Optimal order for promoting generalization , 1998, Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society.

[26]  S. Rvachew,et al.  The effect of target-selection strategy on phonological learning. , 2001, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[27]  B. Brinton,et al.  Social Skills of Children With Specific Language Impairment , 1996 .

[28]  Judith A. Gierut,et al.  Complexity in Phonological Treatment: Clinical Factors. , 2001, Language, speech, and hearing services in schools.

[29]  S. Kiran.  Complexity in the treatment of naming deficits. , 2007, American journal of speech-language pathology.

[30]  R. Schmidt,et al.  Influence of order of stimulus presentation on speech motor learning: A principled approach to treatment for apraxia of speech , 2000 .

[31]  Judith A Gierut,et al.  Phonological complexity and language learnability. , 2007, American journal of speech-language pathology.

[32]  D. Robin,et al.  Treating control of voicing in apraxia of speech with variable practice , 2007 .

[33]  C H Shea,et al.  Composition of practice: influence on the retention of motor skills. , 1991, Research quarterly for exercise and sport.

[34]  C. Gildersleeve-Neumann,et al.  The importance of production frequency in therapy for childhood apraxia of speech. , 2011, American journal of speech-language pathology.