The latest medical research on Speech Pathologist

Tongue manometry (i.e., tongue pressure measurement) is a commonly used assessment for patients with suspected oral-motor involvement in swallowing disorders. Availability of lingual manometry has changed in recent years, with the introduction of the Tongueometer device being a more affordable tongue manometry system. The purpose of this study was to test concurrent (criterion) validity of the Tongueometer compared to the current standard reference device, the Iowa Oral Performance Instrument (IOPI).

Adults without dysphagia were recruited for participation in this study. Standard lingual measurements (swallowing-related pressures, maximum isometric pressure [MIP], and maximum isometric endurance) were recorded, with the bulb anteriorly placed, with both devices, in a randomized order. The Bland-Altman method was used to determine concurrent (criterion) validity of these measurements compared to the clinical standard IOPI device. A recently available suggested corrective value by Curtis et al. (2023) was also applied, with comparisons made between devices both with and without the Curtis correction.

The final sample included 70 adult participants aged 20-89 years (Mage = 52.3 years). Measures with the Tongueometer device were significantly lower when compared with the same measures taken using the IOPI (p < .01) for all measures including MIP, endurance, and swallow pressures. The correction suggested by Curtis and colleagues did not ameliorate these differences.

The Tongueometer lingual measurements were consistently lower compared to the IOPI. Clinical use of values taken with the Tongueometer device should be compared to normative data published for each specific device. Available features of each device (e.g., display, bulb texture, technology/application) should be considered when selecting which device to use with an individual patient.

This report describes a hearing device and corresponding fitting protocol designed for use in a transitional intervention for debilitating loudness-based hyperacusis.

The intervention goal is to transition patients with hyperacusis from their typical counterproductive sound avoidance behaviors (i.e., sound attenuation and limited exposure to healthy low-level sounds) into beneficial sound therapy treatment that can expand their dynamic range to the point where they can tolerate everyday sounds and experience an improved quality of life. This requires a combination of counseling and sound therapy, the latter of which is provided via the hearing device technology, signal processing, and precision fitting approach described in this report. The device combines a miniature behind-the-ear sound processor and a custom earpiece designed to maximize the attenuation of external sounds. Output-limiting loudness suppression is used to restrict exposure to offending high-level sounds while unity gain amplification maximizes exposure to healthy and tolerable lower level sounds. The fitting process includes measurement of the real-ear unaided response, the real-ear measurement (REM) system noise floor, the real-ear occluded response, real-ear insertion gain, and the output limit. With these measurements, the device can achieve the prescribed unity gain needed to provide transparent access to comfortable sound levels. It also supports individualized configuration of the therapeutic noise from an on-board sound generator and adaptive output limiting based on treatment-induced increases in dynamic range.

The utility of this device and fitting protocol, in combination with structured counseling, is highlighted in the outcomes of a successful 6-month trial of the transitional intervention described in a companion report in this issue.

We present results from a 6-month field trial of a transitional intervention for debilitating primary hyperacusis, including a combination of structured counseling; promotion of safe, comfortable, and healthy sound exposure; and therapeutic broadband sound from sound generators. This intervention is designed to overcome barriers to successful delivery of therapeutic sound as a tool to downregulate neural hyperactivity in the central auditory pathways (i.e., the maladaptive mechanism believed to account for primary hyperacusis) and, together with the counseling, reduce the associated negative emotional and physiological reactions to debilitating hyperacusis.

Twelve adults with normal or near-normal audiometric thresholds, complaints consistent with their pretreatment loudness discomfort levels ≤ 75 dB HL at multiple frequencies, and hearing questionnaire scores ≥ 24 completed the sound therapy-based intervention. The low-level broadband therapeutic sound was delivered by ear-level devices fitted bilaterally with either occluding earpieces and output-limiting loudness suppression (LS; to limit exposure to offensive sound levels) or open domes to maximize comfort and exposure to sound therapy. Thresholds for LS (primary outcome) were incrementally adjusted across six monthly visits based on treatment-driven change in loudness judgments for running speech in sound field. Secondary outcomes included categorical loudness judgments, speech understanding, and questionnaires to assess the hyperacusis problem, quality of life, and depression. An exit survey assessed satisfaction with and benefit from the intervention and the counseling, therapeutic sound, and LS components.

The mean change in LS (34.8 dB) was highly significant (effect size = 2.045). Eleven of 12 participants achieved ≥ 16-dB change in LS, consistent with highly significant change in sound-based questionnaire scores. Exit surveys indicated satisfaction with and benefit from the intervention.

The transitional intervention was successful in improving the hyperacusis conditions of 11 of 12 study participants while reducing their sound avoidance behaviors and reliance on sound protection.

People with aphasia (PWA) often experience higher levels of anxiety and social isolation than people without aphasia. Although the presence of anxiety is appreciated in PWA, literature examining the etiology and persistent nature of anxiety in PWA is underdeveloped. Safety-seeking behaviors, or maladaptive acts used by individuals to decrease anxiety from a feared outcome, have been reported as key facilitators of long-term anxiety toward feared situations across a variety of clinical populations. The purpose of this viewpoint is to explore the concept of safety-seeking behaviors and discuss their potential relevance to the maintenance of anxiety in PWA. We further discuss the distinction between maladaptive (i.e., safety seeking) and adaptive (i.e., coping) behaviors and how this knowledge may improve the quality of clinical services for PWA.

The present review advocates for further exploration of the safety-seeking behaviors that are used by PWA. Until critical attention is given to this subject, clinicians may remain ill-equipped to identify and depict whether a self-management strategy is facilitative or inhibitive to PWA's communicative participation goals. Critically, a behavior that may be "maladaptive" for one individual may be "adaptive" for another. Future research should seek to identify common behavioral and cognitive strategies that PWA implement to reduce acute perceptions of anxiety. This knowledge may help facilitate holistic aphasia rehabilitation by allowing clinicians to foster conversations around behaviors that inhibit or promote successful communicative participation.

Screening for cognitive-communication challenges in people with Alzheimer's disease (AD) or Parkinson's disease (PD) may benefit from multiple kinds of information about the client (e.g., patient-reported, performance-based). The purposes of this report are (a) to describe, using recently published score range descriptors (e.g., "mild," "moderate"), the patient-reported communication challenges of people with AD or PD using the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB) and the Aphasia Communication Outcome Measure (ACOM); and (b) to examine the relationships between the performance-based Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), a cognitive screener, and patient-reported CPIB and ACOM scores.

Participants were a convenience sample of 49 community-dwelling adults with AD or PD. Participants completed the measures in person as part of a larger assessment battery.

MoCA total scores ranged from 7 to 28. CPIB T-scores fell in the following ranges: 31% were "within normal limits," 57% reflected "mildly" restricted participation, and 12% reflected "moderately" restricted participation. ACOM T-scores fell in the following ranges: 50% were either "within normal limits" or reflected "mild" impairment, 29% reflected "mild-moderately" impaired functional communication, and 21% reflected "moderately" impaired functional communication. There were only weak and nonsignificant correlations between T-scores on the ACOM or CPIB and scores on the MoCA, and there were no group differences on the ACOM or CPIB between individuals who screened positive versus negative on the MoCA.

When screening individuals with AD or PD, patient-reported communication challenges seem to be complementary to information provided by the MoCA and perhaps most useful in screening for mild communication challenges.