Apraxia
Apraxia
Apraxia
Location
According to ASHA it is recognized that
CAS is neurologic in origin, regardless of
differing beliefs of which structures and
circuits are affected.
Typically in the Left hemisphere,
depending on handedness.
-2007
Prevalence
1 2 per 1,000
- Shriberg, Aram, and Kwiatrkowski, 1997
Mayo Clinic Data (1987-2001) state the
most common disorders in clinical practice
is dysarthrias and AOS making up 58% of
diagnosis.
10,444 patients
-Andrianopoulos, M. V. (2008)
Diagnostic Features
According to ASHA there is no definitive
list of concomitant features which affect
individuals with CAS.
-2007
Non-Speech
Decreased AMRs
Fine and gross motor skills are impaired
Typically developing receptive language
Expressive language deficits
-Duffy 2005
History
The term Integral stimulation was introduced in
1954 by Milisen, who utilized it as a program for
treating articulatory disorders.
In the 70s Rosenbek suggested use of integral
stimulation to treat dysarthria and acquired AOS.
More recently, intergral stimulation methods
were then applied by Strand to children with
CAS (or developmental apraxia of speech).
- Strand 1999
Setting Goals
Improve the childs ability to plan and execute
sequential movements for the production of speech.
Using repeated opportunities
First with maximal cueing then systematically withdrawing
support so the child takes on increasing responsibilities for
his/her motor planning and movements.
-Strand 1999
Sessions
Frequency
Should be frequent
Length
Long enough to allow many repetitions of practice
Type of treatment
Meaningful and relevant to the childs needs
Stimuli
Decide on size of stimuli set for each session
Phonetic context for stimuli set
Procedures
Repetitive Practice
Need repeated opportunities to learn motor skill/movement.
Shaping
Feedback
Extrinsic
Knowledge of results
Knowledge of performance
Intrinsic
Tacticle and proprioceptive
-Strand 1999
Compelling Evidence
Strand and Debertine support that the
integral stimulation approach has efficacy
due to the fact that the child had previous
therapy (with a different approach) and
had no consistent intelligible utterances.
Case of C continued.
Motor speech examine revealed
She was able to simulatenously produce
vowels with little distortion (but did so with
extreme effort)
All imitated CV were in error
Was able to independently produce some CV
and CVC; however, placed in longer
utterances resulted in articulatory errors.
Case of C continued.
Treatment plan was devised by Cs
mother, School SLP and a private SLP.
Important to everyone that C establish
core utterances that all communication
partners could understand (because she
was entering kindergarten)
Decided on a core list of utterances and
intergral stimulation therapy was then
implemented.
Cs Therapy
Four hour sessions a week
2 private practice
2 at school
Cs Progress
4 months in to therapy
Vowels were consistently more accurate
Targeted phrases were being mastered
Nasality decreased
Conclusion
Integral stimulation case studies have
shown significant gains in the motor
planning and programming abilities of
individuals with CAS.
Further research
References
Andrianopoulos, M. (2008). Class notes.
Caruso, A., J. & Strand, E., A. (1999). Clinical management of motor speech disorder in
children. Thieme: New York.
Duffy, J. R. (2005). Motor speech disorders: Substrates, differential diagnosis, and management
Second edition. Philadelphia: Elsevier Mosby.
Glidersleeve-Neumann, C. (2007). Treatment for childhood apraxia of speech: A description of
the integral stimulation and motor learning. ASHA Leader, 5, 10-15.
Strand, E. A. What is the integral stimulation method? How is it used for treating
apraxia speech in children? A response by Edythe Strand. Retrieved on March 13, 2008, from
www.apraxia-kids.org
Strand, E. A., & Debertine, P. (2000). The efficacy of integral stimulation intervention with
development of apraxia of speech. Journal of Medical Speech-Language Pathology, 8, 295-300.