لکنت شکن کانادایی ورژن2 easy speech | فخرآباد (اردبیل)
دلایل استفاده از لکنت شکن دیجیتال توسط درمانگردر سایر کشورها:
یک- داشتن دانش استفاده از آن توسط درمانگر ، زیرا اطلاعات پایه ای از آکوستیک ، الکترونیک ، کامپیوتر ، روانشناسی به انضمام آسیب شناسی گفتار و زبان را می طلبد .
دو- داشتن فرهنگ استفاده از آن توسط درمانجو، زیرا بکار بردن دستگاه در طول مدت شش ماه تا یکسال هر روز و هرروز بدور از تحت تاثیر قرار گرفتن توسط اطرافیان و دوستانی که توان مالی تهیه آنرا ندارند ، تا حصول نیجه نهایی الزامیست .
لازم به ذکر است که قیمت لکنت شکن در حال حاضربین دوازده تا شانزده میلین تومان است ، لذا به دلیل محدودیت مالی شرکت تهیه کننده ، این دستگاه به صورت استیجاری و امانت در طول مدت درمان ، پس از ارزیابی اولیه دراختیار فرد متقاضی قرار داده خواهد شد .
سه- داشتن صرفه اقتصادی، نسبت به حضور در جلسات درمانی هفتگی .
چهار – دنبال کردن پروتکل درمانی هفتگی توسط درمانجو، بنا به صلاحدید درمانگر در طول دوره درمان .
پنجم – الزام به ارسال روزمره نتایج درمان توسط درمانجو به صورت فایل صوتی از طریق پیام رسانهای جمعی ، حتی پس از بهبود کامل به مدت یکسال به منظور جلوگیری از پدیده بازگشت لکنت زبان .
the mdel speaker, rather than prviding a nn¬distrted mtr template fr the persn wh stutters t match, instead prvides a pacing r rhythmic ne (Jhnsn & Rsen, 1937); a perspective that wuld appear cnsistent with Kalinwski et al’s findings. It is wrth nting that all f thse mentined abve have als been levelled at the fluency enhancing prperties f delayed auditry feedback (DAF), which we discuss belw. (The relatinship between chral speech and DAF is an imprtant ne, and we return t this with regard t therapy in chapter 14.)
This is a type f cued speech which is very clsely related t chral and unisn versins. Technically, shadwed speech ccurs where there is a slight delay between the speech f the mdel speaker and the persn wh stutters, as ppsed t the simultaneus utput prduced during unisn and chral speech. The difference is that while with chral speech the speaker knws exactly what the mdel speaker is ging t say, shadwed speech can be used t fllw the nvel speech f the mdel speaker. Like chral/unisn speech, shadwing can prduce dramatic results (Cherry & Sayers, 1956; Kelham & McHale, 1966), but like them the gains in fluency tend t be lst nce the stimulus f the mdel speaker has ended. Because f this, the use f chral r shadwed speech is nw rare, and usually cnfined nly t mments in therapy r assessment, where it is cnsidered imprtant t have the client experience a mment f fluency, albeit in the knwledge that this methd f prducing it will nt prvide any basis fr sustainable imprvement. What is interesting frm ur present perspective, hwever, is the ptential relatinship between shadwed speech and delayed auditry feedback. As we will see in chapter 16, the fluency enhancing effect f shadwed and chral speech has been put t use in devices which use DAF and frequency auditry feedback (FAF) t apprximate the effects f speaking alngside ther speakers.
Delayed auditry feedback
It is nw ver 40 years since Gldiamnd and clleagues first stumbled n the ptential fluency enhancing effects f delayed auditry feedback (Flanagan, Gldiamnd, & Azrin, 1958, 1959; Gldiamnd, 1965). Findings frm the earliest experiments centred arund the vicarius discvery that sme peple wh stuttered experienced imprved fluency when they put n headphnes and heard their speech played back t them with a slight time delay. (Sme readers may already have experienced DAF as an ech effect when speaking n a pr transcntinental telephne line.) Cmmnly, DAF als results in reduced fluency in nnstuttering speakers (Fukawa, Yshika, zawa, & Yshida, 1988; Stuart, Kalinwski, Rastatter, & Lynch, 2002), althugh
Fukawa et al. bserved that peple wh stutter were significantly mre likely t be affected by DAF than nnstutterers, and that male nnstutterers were mre susceptible t the effect than females. Mst nticeably, Gldiamnd (1965) fund a tendency fr speakers t slw their rate f speech in an effrt t cunteract the disruptive influences f the delayed feedback. Particularly, at arund 250 ms delay (0.25 f a secnd) a prlnged speech pattern was prduced, where vwels became disprprtinately mre stretched than cn¬snants. The further finding that the extent f the prlnged speech culd be cntrlled by altering the delay times lead t the develpment f a number f “prlnged speech” prgrams which used DAF in a systematic way t elicit fluent speech. (See chapter 12 as t hw prlnged speech prgrams have develped.) During the early stages f therapy, DAF was set t encurage excessive prlngatin, usually arund 250 ms. When clients were able t demnstrate 100 percent fluency in their speech at this delay setting, the next stepwise decrease in DAF (usually in 50 ms increments) was intrduced t encurage a slightly faster rate f speech. Again, the client learned t cntrl fluency using decreased prlngatin assciated with the reduced DAF. The prcedure was then repeated at incrementally reduced delay levels, with clients having t demnstrate cmpletely fluent speech at each ne befre prgressing t the next decreased DAF setting. Eventually, the client reached the pint where he was able t maintain fluency withut any delay in auditry feedback (e.g., Curlee & Perkins, 1969, 1973). At this time it was thught that the fluency enhancing effects f DAF culd be explained simply as by¬prducts f the slwer rate speech that it prduced. During the mid-1970s and thrugh the 1980s there was a lull in DAF research as clinicians lked t alternative ways f slwing speech fr therapy. It was nt until the early 1990s when a resurgence f interest ccurred, largely driven by findings that increased fluency culd indeed result under DAF at nrmal and even fast rates f speech (e.g., Stuart & Kalinwski, 1996). This finding has led t a new generatin f clinicians and researchers becming interested in DAF as a treatment ptin fr stuttering. We examine the mre recent applicatins in relatin t therapy elsewhere (see chapter 14).
Aside frm the therapeutic implicatins, the early findings that DAF culd enhance fluency fr at least sme peple wh stutter led t a number f theries f stuttering, based n the assumptin that timing perceptin is disturbed.
There is a range f evidence that pints t the ntin that stuttering is assci¬ated with disrupted auditry prcessing, althugh the exact nature f this disruptin remains bscure. Shadwed speech can prduce high levels f fluency, but this may have little t d with any timing misperceptin induced by a faulty prcessing system; we knw that unisn speech similarly prduces high levels f fluency with n delay. We als knw that DAF and FAF can have dramatic fluency enhancing effects fr sme peple wh stutter, yet thers remain DAF and FAF negative, fr reasns which are currently unknwn. Als, and as we see in chapter 14, there are reprts frm sme peple wh stutter that the effects f altered feedback can wear ff ver time. Perhaps these findings suggest that distractin may play as big a part in inducing fluency as crrecting any misperceptin f a disrupted auditry timing prcessing system? As we see in chapter 2, brain studies have shwn differences in functining between peple wh stutter and cntrl grup
speakers acrss linguistic and mtr areas. The dichtic listening prcedure prvides ne testable methd f determining hemispheric dminance fr lin¬guistic decding, and findings frm such studies, thugh far frm definitive, lend tentative supprt t the idea that auditry prcessing t might be a prduct f the right hemisphere, at least in sme peple wh stutter. ne f the biggest issues faced is that auditry prcessing is just ne part f the cmmunicatin chain and des nt ccur in a vacuum. Bth prductin and perceptin theries must allw fr the fact that ne is affected by the ther. This can lead t a chicken and egg situatin, as brught int sharp fcus in the criticism f Harringtn’s thery f linguistic rhythm and auditry feedback: it can be almst impssible t determine what is cause and what is effect.
The deaf ppulatin is the nly ne in which stuttering is underrepresented.
Stuttered speech may be imprved under a number f cnditins which serve t disrupt r alter auditry feedback, such as masking, delayed auditry feedback (DAF), frequency altered feedback (FAF), chral and unisn speech.
Peple wh stutter may be mre reliant n auditry feedback than thse wh d nt stutter.
The Buency enhancing effects f altered feedback devices may wrk by cnvincing the brain that the speaker© speech is actually the prduct f an external speech surce.
There is evidence that, like prcessing fr speech prductin, audi-try prcessing fr speech may be a prduct f right hemisphere prcessing amngst lder children and adults wh stutter.
It has been argued that stuttering might result due t misperceptin f the timing f stressed vwels in speech (Harringtn, 1988).
It is pssible that auditry prcessing anmalies may in fact merely represent Cknck-nCeffects f a dehcit that are in essence prduc¬tin based.