AIS clinician Chamonix Olsen introduces you to a great research article on the SpeechEasy written by current AIS intern Ryan Pollard and John Ellis. [embedded video]
You can read the article – The SpeechEasy: Emerging evidence for interested clinicians and prospective buyers – on The Stuttering Homepage.
The article has also been published in the Journal for Speech, Language, and Hearing Research for those of you who have subscriptions to that journal.
Please leave any comments or questions for Ryan in the comments, and Ryan will do his best to respond!
Related posts:
[...] Tom Weidig featured Chamonix’s video post on the SpeechEasy article on his blog The Stuttering Brain. Tom critically reviews the latest [...]
Pingback by Chamonix spotlighted by The Stuttering Brain and PediaStaff « American Institute for Stuttering — May 28, 2009 @ 4:26 pm
Chamonix. Thanks for addressing the Speech Easy device. I must take issue with your statement about being “biased” If in your professional capacity, people who have bought a Speech Easy report dissatisfaction and come to you for more help. That is fact, not opinion and is not bias.
If you saw evidence that it worked great and you found reason to dismiss this because it didn’t fit your treatment model, that would be bias.
Comment by Jody — February 3, 2010 @ 6:40 pm
Your point is well taken. Thanks for the comment.
Comment by Chamonix — February 4, 2010 @ 9:01 am
I “graduated” from CRC –the center Cathy ran in 1981 and that was a life changing experience. Her work, dedication and all she does for those who stutter are remarkable gifts to all of us who stutter. I personally will never be able to repay her for her efforts in my life but my colleagues and I have, in some small way paid it forward to others who stutter. Our work with the Speech Easy and altered auditory feedback (AAF) is more of a tribute than a challenge to all those who work so hard in the behavioral/cognitive modality
My colleagues and I suggest that stuttering therapy should consist of anything that helps that individual who stutters. That may be behavioral/cognitive therapy alone, altered auditory feedback devices, AAF and behavioral/cognitive strategies together or no therapy at all. The client should make choices based on what works for them. We respect consumer choice!
We recently had a replied to Pollard article in JSHLR, that reply pointed out a number of methodological and interpretive concerns on our part. This reply should appear in JSHLR in the next few issues, the authors of the study will reply in kind. We will let the readership of that journal decide for them what was really found in that study.
We know a few things for certain:
1. Altered auditory feedback is a powerful stuttering inhibitor (choral speech, shadow speech, delayed auditory feedback (DAF), frequency altered feedback (FAF), reverberation, etc
2. The Speech Easy generates a form of AAF that is helpful to many people who stutter, and although the Pollard study showed a lack overt improvement, most of the users in that study were pleased with the SpeechEasy. Some purchased the SpeechEasy, while others said it was something that would use if it were provided for free (e.g., insurance, vocational rehabilitation). That is very strange….. All other peer-reviewed journal publications on the Speech Easy revealed significant, long-lasting improvements. With this in mind, more research will reveal the true nature of AAF in stuttering therapy ..
We are all working for the betterment of those who stutter. It may appear that we are on different roads but that is illusionary, we all want the day to come when oral communication by a person who stutters is free of overt an covert symptoms (e,g avoidances, substitutions, circumlocutions), is natural sounding, and effortless. No therapy modality (drugs, behavioral/cognitive therapy, AAF) perfectly achieves that goal as of today. We all continue our quest and hope others see our vigorous debates as a sign of a vibrant, intellectual community that is in pursuit off the best answers. The road is long, and some of the travelers are tired and getting old, but we know that others will continue the quest for unbridled fluency and one day that dream will come true.
I wish you, Cathy and all those at the center the best of luck and am grateful for all you do.
Comment by Joe Kalinowski — February 4, 2010 @ 1:59 pm
[...] interesting discussion is taking place in the comments of our May 2009 post “A great research article on the SpeechEasy.” We’d like to bring this exchange to the forefront rather than have it remain [...]
Pingback by More discussion on research of the SpeechEasy device « American Institute for Stuttering — February 19, 2010 @ 10:28 am
As one of the early purchasers of the SpeakEasy Device in the early 2,000’s for my then 12 year old son, I must comment not only about the complete lack of efficacy of the product, but the attitude of the researchers that there was something ‘wrong with my son’s brain’ when it became clear that he was unable to gain any improvements from the device. The entire experience, and in particular this comment from the lead researcher, was devastating for my son and for us his parents – so much so that he refused any form of speech therapy from that point forward.
Catherine Montgomery was a great support to us during this time, and helped our family to put the experience into a helpful perspective.
Regarding SpeakEasy’s willingness to work with you if you are dissatisfied, we found that to be totally false. We wasted $5,000 on this device, and I am happy to finally have a forum in which to make our experience public.
Comment by Joan Parsons — February 22, 2010 @ 4:00 pm
Chamonix has responded and the discussion is being continued on this more recent blog post.
Comment by Eric — February 22, 2010 @ 5:19 pm