Volume 6 -                   MEJDS (2016) 6: 232 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Vahidi S, Shafiei B, Ghaderi A, Baharizadeh M. Investigating and Comparing the Effectiveness of Neurofeedback Training, the Lidcombe Program and the Combination of These Two Approaches on Preschool Stuttering Therapy: A Single-Case Study. MEJDS 2016; 6 :232-242
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-632-en.html
Investigating and Comparing the Effectiveness of Neurofeedback Training, the Lidcombe Program and the Combination of These Two Approaches on Preschool Stuttering Therapy: A Single-Case Study
Sudabeh Vahidi1 , Bijan Shafiei * 1, Amirhosein Ghaderi2 , Maryam Baharizadeh1
1- Isfahan University of Medical Sciences
2- University of Tabriz
Abstract:   (5496 Views)

Abstract
Objective: Various therapeutic approaches to stuttering are involved in different causal factors. Most of existing therapies for stuttering are behavioral and concentrate on its apparent characteristics, while deficit in the underlying neural processing of speech is also one of the factors involved in stuttering. Therefore, the objective of this study is to investigate and compare the effectiveness of neurofeedback training, the Lidcombe Program, and the combination of these two approaches on preschool stuttering therapy.
Methods: The research used an ABAC/ACAB single-case experimental design. Subjects were four 5-6 years-old children with stuttering in Isfahan City. After the first baseline stage, subjects were randomly put in two situations. Two of subjects firstly received 15 sessions of neurofeedback training, followed by the second baseline stage and finally they underwent 15 weeks of Lidcombe Program. The other two subjects received the Lidcombe Program for 15 weeks at the beginning of the treatment stage, then the second baseline stage and finally 15 sessions neurofeedback training. One month after the end of the two interventions, all subjects received the follow-up stage. The research instrument was the calculation of the percentage of stuttered syllables in instances of conversational speeches of children. For data analysis, visual analysis of charts, descriptive statistics, and the effect size of the PND were used.
Results: Data analysis indicated that neurofeedback training did not significantly affect the reduction of stuttered syllables percentage (PND=13-46%), but the Lidcombe Program caused its reduction (PND=40-86%). In addition, the sequence of presentation of neurofeedback training-Lidcombe Program resulted in more reduction in frequency of stuttering in the follow-up stage.
Conclusion: Results showed that neurofeedback training is not effective for the reduction of apparent symptoms of stuttering, while the Lidcombe Program was found to be effective on the reduction of stuttering. Additionally, the combination of neurofeedback training with the Lidcombe Program via the increase in attention and learning results in longer retention of fluency.
 

Keywords: stuttering, neurofeedback training, the Lidcombe Program
Full-Text [PDF 726 kb]   (2755 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Original Research Article | Subject: Rehabilitation
References
1. Guitar B. Stuttering: An integrated approach to its nature and treatment [Internet]. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013.
2. Lattermann C, Euler HA, Neumann K. A randomized control trial to investigate the impact of the Lidcombe Program on early stuttering in German-speaking preschoolers. Journal of Fluency Disorders. 2008; 33 (1): 52-65. [DOI:10.1016/j.jfludis.2007.12.002]
3. Ward D. Stuttering and cluttering: frameworks for understanding and treatment [Internet]. Psychology Press; 2008. [DOI:10.4324/9780203892800]
4. Packman A. Theory and therapy in stuttering: A complex relationship. Journal of fluency disorders. 2012; 37 (4): 225-233. [DOI:10.1016/j.jfludis.2012.05.004]
5. Craig A. The developmental nature and effective treatment of stuttering in children and adolescents. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities. 2000; 12 (3): 173-186. [DOI:10.1023/A:1009463703647]
6. Blomgren M. Behavioral treatments for children and adults who stutter: a review. Psychology research and behavior management. 2013; 6: 9. [DOI:10.2147/PRBM.S31450]
7. Goodhue R, Onslow M, Quine S, O'Brian S, Hearne A. The Lidcombe program of early stuttering intervention: mothers' experiences. Journal of Fluency Disorders. 2010; 35 (1): 70-84. [DOI:10.1016/j.jfludis.2010.02.002]
8. Onslow M, Packman A, Harrison E. The Lidcombe Program of early stuttering intervention. Bakhtiar M, Seifpanahi MS, Karimi H. (Persian translators). First Edition. [Mashhad]: Sokhangostar Pub; 2008.
9. Harris V, Onslow M, Packman A, Harrison E, Menzies R. An experimental investigation of the impact of the Lidcombe Program on early stuttering. Journal of fluency disorders. 2002; 27 (3): 2013-2014. [DOI:10.1016/S0094-730X(02)00127-4]
10. Jones M, Onslow M, Packman A, Williams S, Ormond T, Schwarz I, et al. Randomised controlled trial of the Lidcombe programme of early stuttering intervention. bmj. 2005; 331 (7518): 659. [DOI:10.1136/bmj.38520.451840.E0]
11. Chang S-E, Erickson KI, Ambrose NG, Hasegawa-Johnson MA, Ludlow CL. Brain anatomy differences in childhood stuttering. Neuroimage. 2008; 39 (3): 1333-1344. [DOI:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.09.067]
12. Chang S-E, Horwitz B, Ostuni J, Reynolds R, Ludlow CL. Evidence of left inferior frontal-premotor structural and functional connectivity deficits in adults who stutter. Cerebral Cortex. 2011; 21 (11): 2507-2518. [DOI:10.1093/cercor/bhr028]
13. Brown S, Ingham RJ, Ingham JC, Laird AR, Fox PT. Stuttered and fluent speech production: an ALE meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging studies. Human brain mapping. 2005; 25 (1): 105-117. [DOI:10.1002/hbm.20140]
14. Moore WH. Hemispheric alpha asymmetries during an electromyographic biofeedback procedure for stuttering: A single-subject experimental design. Journal of Fluency Disorders. 1984; 9 (2): 143-162. [DOI:10.1016/0094-730X(84)90032-9]
15. Wells BG, Moore WH. EEG alpha asymmetries in stutterers and non-stutterers: effects of linguistic variables on hemispheric processing and fluency. Neuropsychologia. 1990;28(12):1295-305. [DOI:10.1016/0028-3932(90)90045-P]
16. Özge A, Toros F, Çömelekoğlu Ü. The role of hemispheral asymmetry and regional activity of quantitative EEG in children with stuttering. Child Psychiatry & Human Development. 2004; 34 (4): 269-280. [DOI:10.1023/B:CHUD.0000020679.15106.a4]
17. Ratcliff-Baird B. ADHD and stuttering: Similar EEG profiles suggest neurotherapy as an adjunct to traditional speech therapies. Journal of Neurotherapy. 2002; 5 (4): 5-22. [DOI:10.1300/J184v05n04_02]
18. Arns M, Heinrich H, Strehl U. Evaluation of neurofeedback in ADHD: the long and winding road. Biological psychology. 2014; 95: 108-115. [DOI:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.11.013]
19. Wang J-R, Hsieh S. Neurofeedback training improves attention and working memory performance. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2013; 124 (12): 2406-2420. [DOI:10.1016/j.clinph.2013.05.020]
20. Lansbergen MM, van Dongen-Boomsma M, Buitelaar JK, Slaats-Willemse D. ADHD and EEG-neurofeedback: a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled feasibility study. Journal of neural transmission. 2011; 118 (2): 275-284. [DOI:10.1007/s00702-010-0524-2]
21. Kouijzer ME, van Schie HT, de Moor JM, Gerrits BJ, Buitelaar JK. Neurofeedback treatment in autism. Preliminary findings in behavioral, cognitive, and neurophysiological functioning. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2010; 4 (3): 386-399. [DOI:10.1016/j.rasd.2009.10.007]
22. Hammond DC. What is neurofeedback? Journal of neurotherapy. 2007; 10 (4): 25-36. [DOI:10.1300/J184v10n04_04]
23. Malekzadeh T. Effectiveness of neurofeedback training on stuttering improvement [MSc Thesis in general psychology]. [Tabriz, Iran]: Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, University of Tabriz; 2012. [Persian]
24. Stewart AR. Neurofeedback as a Potential Treatment for Stuttering [Internet] [Thesis]. 2014.
25. Farahani HA, Abedi A, Aghamohammadi S, Kazemi Z. Methodology of single case designs in behavioral sciences and medicine (practical approach). Tehran: Psychology And Art Pub; 2013.[Persian].
26. Gast DL, Ledford JR. Single subject research methodology in behavioral sciences [Internet]. Routledge; 2009. [DOI:10.4324/9780203877937]
27. Zolfaghari M, Shafiei B, Tahmasebi Garmatani N, Ashoorioon V. Reliability of the Persian Version of the Stuttering Severity Instrument-(SSI-4) for Preschool-Age Children. Middle Eastern Journal of Disability Studies. 2014; 4 (2): 20-25. [Persian].
28. Klem GH, Lüders HO, Jasper HH, Elger C. The ten-twenty electrode system of the International Federation. The International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol Suppl. 1999;52:3-6.
29. Packman A, Onslow M, Webber M, Harrison E, Arnott S, Bridgman K, et al. The Lidcombe Program treatment guide [Internet]. 2015.
30. Egner T, Gruzelier JH. EEG biofeedback of low beta band components: frequency-specific effects on variables of attention and event-related brain potentials. Clinical neurophysiology. 2004; 115 (1): 131-139. [DOI:10.1016/S1388-2457(03)00353-5]
31. Lubar JF, Lubar JO. Neurofeedback assessment and treatment for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorders. 1999. [DOI:10.1016/B978-012243790-8/50006-7]
Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA
Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Middle Eastern Journal of Disability Studies

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb