Tagged "American Speech-Language-Hearing Association"

"Functional Assessment of Feeding Challenges in Children with Ankyloglossia"

Posted by Deborah Grauzam on

This poster was presented at the 2017 annual American Speech-Language & Hearing Association, Saturday, November 11, 11 a.m.-12:30 p.m.

"Functional Assessment of Feeding Challenges in Children with Ankyloglossia"

Authors: Robyn Merkel-Walsh, MA, CCC-SLPLori Overland, MS, CCC-SLP, C/NDT, CLC

TalkTools | TOTs poster

Click here to view the full poster


Presentation explores 1) current classification systems for ankyloglossia; 2) functional assessment of ankyloglossia; 3) oral sensory-motor feeding challenges associated with ankyloglossia and 4) implications for treatment.


Ankyloglossia is not a newly discovered condition, and about 3% of infants are born with a tongue-tie (Amir, James, & Donath, 2006). The International Association of Tongue-Tie Professionals (IATP) adds that tongue-tie is an embryological remnant of tissue in the mid-line between the under-surface of the tongue and the floor of the mouth that restricts normal tongue movement (IATP, 2016). Three terms are being used synonymously to identify this condition: 1) Ankyloglossia 2) Tongue-Tie and 3) Tethering of Oral Tissues (TOTS). Tethering of Oral Tissues (TOTS) is a fairly new term that was coined by Kevin Boyd, DDS at the International Association of Tongue-tie Professionals at their annual conference in Quebec, Montreal Canada in October of 2014. TOTS as a term is more inclusive of tissue restriction of the tongue, lips and buccal frena (Boyd, 2014). The terms do not seem to be committed to one field of specialty, but the ICD10 coding system introduced in October 2015 is still only using one label for this condition, ankyloglossia (ASHA, 2015).

Over the past few years, this topic has been more frequently discussed in the fields of lactation, speech pathology, oral surgery, orofacial myology and otolaryngology. In a clinical study, lactation consultations, otolaryngologists, speech pathologists and pediatricians were surveyed on their beliefs regarding the impact of ankyloglossia on feeding. 69 percent of lactation consultants, but a minority of physician respondents, believe tongue-tie is frequently associated with oral feeding problems (Messner & Lalakea, 2000).

TalkTools | TOTs pictures

There have been several professionals who have published tongue-tie classification tools such as: Alison Hazelbaker, Lawrence Kotlow and Carmen Fernando. The International Affiliation of Tongue-Tie Professionals (IATP) cautions that classification can never substitute for assessment because classification develops categories based on broad, general criteria whereas assessment uses specific, detailed criteria for the purpose of accuracy and thoroughness (IATP, 2016). Researchers are collecting evidence on the histological characteristics of the frenulum (de Castro Martinelli, Marchesan, Gusmao, de Castro Rodrigues & Berretin-Felix, 2014); however, many professionals cannot agree on a classification system or diagnostic protocol to uniformly label the anomaly.

Despite these classifications systems, there does not seem to be a comprehensive assessment protocol to date that specifically task analyzes function for all stages of feeding skills. The Lingual Frenulum Protocol for Infants provides quick functional assessments for infants who breast and/or bottle feed. The Lingual Frenulum Protocol provides a general functional assessment of feeding and speech skills. These tools assist in determining whether or not a frenulum release is warranted, but do give clinical implications for treatment (Martinelli, Marchesan & Berretin-Felix, 2012).

TalkTools | TOTs diagram

Functional assessment of ankyloglossia considers not only the structure, but the impact on lingual range of motion specifically for the pre-feeding skills required for all stages of feeding. Range of motion observations should include: lip closure as it relates to cup drinking and spoon feeding; lip protrusion as it relates to the breast, bottle and spoon; lip rounding as it relates to straw drinking; lingual retraction as it relates to oral transport of a
liquid or bolus; intraoral lateralization as it relates to chewing; and transporting a bolus and tongue tip elevation as it relates to swallowing (Overland & Merkel-Walsh, 2013). Assessment strategies will be dependent on the age of the child, cognitive ability and motor planning ability.

TalkTools | TOTs table


In summary, the assessment of ankyloglossia should not be limited to appearance alone. Oral motor skills including pre-feeding and feeding should be task analyzed. Since there is conflicting views on whether or not ankyloglossia should be surgically corrected, assessment must clearly consider the functional impact of the tongue-tie on feeding challenges (AABM, 2016; Ferres-Amat, Pastor-Vera, Ferres-Amat, Mareque-Bueno, Prats-Armengol & Ferres-Padro, 2016; Francis, Chinnadurai, Morad, Epstein, Kohanim, Krishnaswami, Sathe & McPheeters, 2015; Kummer, 2016; Merdad & Mascarenhas, 2010;
Sethi, Smith, Kortequee, Ward & Clarke, 2013).


American Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine (AABM). (2016). Protocol # 11: Guidelines for the evaluation and management of neonatal ankyloglossia and its complications in the breastfeeding dyad. Retrieved from: http://www.bfmed.org/Media/Files/Protocols/ankyloglossia.pdf

Amir, L.H., James, J.P. & Donath, S.M. (2006). Reliability of the Hazelbaker assessment tool for lingual frenulum function. International Breastfeeding Journal, 1(3).

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2015). ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Codes for Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology Preparing for Implementation. Retrieved from: http://www.asha.org/Practice/reimbursement/coding/ICD-10/

Boyd, K. (2014). Impact of tongue-tie over a lifetime: an anthropological perspective. Presentation at the IATP 2nd World Summit. Montreal, Quebec.

de Castro Martinelli, R.L., Marchesan, I.Q., Gusmao, R.J., de Castro Rodrigues, A. & Berretin-Felix, G. (2014). Histological characteristics of altered human lingual frenulum. International Journal of Pediatrics and Child Health, 2, 5-9.

Ferres-Amat, E., Pastor-Vera, T., Ferres-Amat, E., Mareque-Bueno, J., Prats-Armengol, J. & Ferres-Padro, E. (2016). Multidisciplinary management of ankyloglossia in childhood. Treatment of 101 cases. A protocol. Journal of Oral Medicine and Pathology, 1:21 (1):39-47

Francis, D.O., Chinnadurai, S., Morad, A., Epstein, R.A., Kohanim, S., Krishnaswami, S., Sathe, N.A. & McPheeters, M.L. (2015). Treatments for ankyloglossia and ankyloglossia with concomitant lip-tie. Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, No. 149. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK299120/.

International Affiliation of Tongue-Tie Professionals (2016). Classification. Retrieved from: http://tonguetieprofessionals.org/about/assessment/classification/

Kummer, A. (2016). To clip or not to clip? That’s the question. Presented at the annual convention of The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Philadelphia, PA.

Martinelli, R.L., Marchesan, I.Q., & Berretin-Felix, G. (2012). Lingual Frenulum Protocol with Scores for Infants. International Journal of Orofacial Myology, 38, 104-113.

Merdad, H. & Mascarenhas, A.K. (2010). Ankyloglossia may cause breastfeeding, tongue mobility, and speech difficulties, with inconclusive results on treatment choices. Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice, 10(3):152-3.

Messner, A.H. & Lalakea, M.L. (2000). Ankyloglossia: controversies in management. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 54(2):123-31.

Overland, L. & Merkel-Walsh, R. (2013). A sensory-motor approach to feeding. Charleston, SC: TalkTools.

Sethi N., Smith D., Kortequee S., Ward V.M. & Clarke S. (2013). Benefits of frenulotomy in infants with ankyloglossia. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 77(5): 762-5.

Read more →

Tongue Ties and Speech Sound Disorders: What Are We Overlooking?

Posted by Deborah Grauzam on

“The conversation for tongue tie in the speech pathology community is growing louder among some groups of speech-language pathologists (SLPs) (ASHA Leader, 2015). An ASHA literature search has suggested a correlation between tongue ties and difficulty producing lingual alveolar phonemes (Merkel-Walsh & Jahn, 2014). Furthermore, Eschler, Klein, and Overby (2010) indicated that SLPs’ diagnostic criteria, treatment, goals, and discharge criteria for ankyloglossia differ depending on comorbid behavior (i.e., SSDs or feeding/swallowing difficulty).

Recently, there is a rise in the identification of posterior tongue ties in infants who are having trouble feeding and toddlers/adolescents who are exhibiting continuous speech sound errors despite years of speech-language pathology services. Posterior ankyloglossia is characterized by a thickened frenulum (Type III) or a submucosal frenulum visualized as a flat, broad mound absent of any typical protruding frenular tissue, and restricts movement at base of tongue (Type IV) (Kutlow, 2011).”

Meaux, A., Savage, M., & Gonsoulin, C. presented the poster “Tongue Ties and Speech Sound Disorders: What Are We Overlooking?” at the 2016 Annual ASHA Convention, November 17-19 in Philadelphia, PA.

View the full poster here

Authors: Ashley Meaux, PhD, CCC-SLP, Meghan Savage, PhD, CCC-SLP, & Courtney Gonsoulin, MA, CCC-SLP

TalkTools | Tongue Ties and Speech Sound Disorders

Read more →

Preventing Vocal Burnout in Future Teachers: An Education & Prevention Program

Posted by Deborah Grauzam on

Did you know that 51.2% of Teachers sought medical care for voice disorders? That $2.5 billion was spent annually on sick leave and treatment of voice disorders of teachers?

Hume & Wegman elaborate on this subject on their poster "Preventing Vocal Burnout in Future Teachers: An Education & Prevention Program," that was presented at the 2016 Annual ASHA Convention, November 17-19 in Philadelphia, PA.

View the full poster here

Authors: Sue B. Hume, PhD, CCC-SLP & Allison Wegman, MS, CCC-SLP, The University of Tennesse, 2016.


Read more →

A Modern Look at Van Riper's Phonetic Placement Approach

Posted by Deborah Grauzam on

by Robyn Merkel-Walsh, MA, CCC-SLP

This poster was presented at the 2016 annual ASHA Connect Convention, Poster Session #PS02.

Download the poster here  


Presentation explores 1) traditional versus phonological therapy, 2) the sensory-motor system as it relates to speech, 3) the importance of tactile and proprioception in articulation therapy, 4) shaping placement of the articulators to improve speech clarity.  


1. Participants will be able to differentiate phonological versus traditional articulation therapy.  

2. Participants will be able to define the three stages of Van Riper’s Phonetic Placement Approach.  

3. Participants will be able to use at least three oral placement cues in order to facilitate speech movements.  


Two widely used models of articulation therapy include the traditional and phonological models (Bowen, 2005). While studies suggest that the phonological model may prove more positive results than the traditional model (Klein, 1996), Van Riper’s Phonetic Placement Approach (PPA) may be more useful for individuals who are not be able to achieve placement cues (Van Riper, 1978). In 1958, Van Riper stated:

"Every available device should be used to make the student understand clearly the positions of the tongue, jaw, and lips to be assumed."

Placement cues are based on the more traditional models of therapy, and rely on the concept that an individual can copy the motor plan suggested by the therapist, such as “place your tongue tip to the spot.” Therapists, however, often struggle with a population of individuals who do not respond well to “look at me and say what I say,” and those who require a tactile-kinesthetic approach to treatment (Bahr & Rosenfeld-Johnson, 2010). Individuals with dysarthria, dyspraxia and/or myofunctional disorders may make slow progress, or no progress at all, without the assistance of tactile cues. Even though therapists have heard the debate on oral motor therapy (Bowen, 2006; Lof, 2006; Lof, 2007; Lof, 2009), clinicians are still widely using the techniques because they yield positive treatment outcomes (Bahr, 2008).

Clinicians, who represent the Board of Directors for the Oral Motor Institute, have struggled with distinguishing “oral motor therapy” from the form of “Non Speech Oral Motor Exercises” (NSOME) presented by Gregory Lof (Lof, 2008). The term “Oral Placement Disorder” (OPD) was coined by Diane Bahr and Sara Rosenfeld-Johnson in 2010 (Bahr & Rosenfeld-Johnson, 2010). Children with OPD cannot imitate targeted speech sounds using auditory and visual stimuli (i.e., “Look, listen, and say what I say”). They also cannot follow specific instructions to produce targeted speech sounds (e.g., “Put your lips together and say m”). Although the term OPD is new, the concepts surrounding the term have been discussed by a number of authors and clinicians (Bahr, 2010; Hodge, 2012; Marshalla, 2007).

There has been question, and ongoing confusion, as to what is a NSOME, versus what is an oral placement technique (OPT) (Bahr & Rosenfeld-Johnson, 2010). Oral Placement Therapy (OPT) is a tactile teaching technique used for children and adults with Oral Placement Disorders (e.g., dysarthria), who cannot learn standard speech sound production using auditory and visual teaching methods alone. OPT facilitates the pre-requisite skills in muscle control to develop dissociation and grading in the muscles of the abdomen, velum, jaw, lips and tongue for clients who cannot approximate the standard speech sounds using the instructions. If the client can produce standard speech using adequate placement and duration using only auditory and visual cueing, OPT would not be included in that client’s program plan.

Gregory Lof’s research has even stated that the methods used in Van Riper’s Phonetic Placement Approach are not in fact considered NSOME (Lof, 2009). This is why it is important to explore current clinical techniques to determine what activities are considered unrelated to speech production, as opposed to those activities that in fact are an extension of Phonetic Placement Therapy (Marshalla, 2007).


(Van Riper, 1954) and The Feedback Model (Mysak, 1971).

It is based on a very common sequence (Bahr, 2001; Green, Moore & Reilly, 2000; Marshalla, 2007; Young and Hawk, 1955):

1. Facilitate speech movement with the assistance of a therapy tool (ex. horn, tongue depressor) or a tactile-kinesthetic facilitation technique (ex. PROMPT facial cue); use every available device (Marshalla, 2012);

2. Facilitate speech movement without the therapy tool and/or tactile-kinesthetic technique (cue fading);

3. Immediately transition movement into speech with and without therapy tools and/or tactile kinesthetic techniques.

TalkTools | Pam Marshalla


TalkTools | Van Riper tools


TalkTools | Van Riper new tools


Bahr, D. (2008). The oral motor debate: Where do we go from here? Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Chicago, IL. (Full handout at http://convention.asha.org/handouts.cfm)

Bahr, D. (2001). Oral motor assessment and treatment: Ages and stages. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bahr, D. & Rosenfeld-Johnson, S. (2010). Treatment of Children With Speech Oral Placement Disorders (OPDs): A Paradigm Emerges. Communication Disorders Quarterly, XX(X), 108.

Bowen, C. (2005). What is the evidence for oral motor therapy? ACQuiring Knowledge in Speech, Language and Hearing, Speech Pathology Australia, 7, 3, 144-147.

Green, R., Moore, C. A., & Reilly, K. J. (2000). The sequential development of jaw and lip control for speech. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 45, 66-79.

Hodge, M. M. (2002). Non-speech oral motor treatment approaches for dysarthria: Perspectives on a controversial clinical practices. Perspectives in Neurophysiology and Neurogenic Speech Disorders, 12 (4), 22-28.

Klein, E. S. (1996). Phonological/traditional approaches to articulation therapy. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, Vol. 27, 314-323.

Lof, G. L. (2007). Reasons why non-speech oral motor exercises should not be used for speech sound disorders. Presentation at the ASHA Annual Convention, Boston, MA, Nov. 17.

Lof, G. L. (2009). Nonspeech oral motor exercises: an update on the controversy. Presentation at ASHA Annual Convention, New Orleans, LA.

Lof, G. L. (2006). Logic, theory and evidence against the use of non-speech oral-motor exercises to change speech sound productions. Invited presentation at the ASHA Annual Convention, Miami, FL, Nov. 17.

Lof, G. L. & Watson, M. (2005). Survey of universities’ teaching: oral motor exercises and other procedures. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, San Diego, CA.

Lof, G. L. (2004). Ask the Expert: A response by Gregory L. Lof, PhD., CCC-SLP. The Apraxia-Kids Monthly, 5 (1).

Lof, G. L. & Watson, M. (2004). Speech-language pathologist’s use of non-speech oral-motor drills: National survey results. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Philadelphia, PA.

Lof, G. L. (2003). Oral motor exercises and treatment outcomes. Perspectives on Language Learning and Education, 10 (1), 7-11.

Marshalla, P. (2007). Oral motor techniques are not new. Oral Motor Institute, 1(1). Available at www.oralmotorinstitute.org.

Marshalla, P. (2012). Horns, whistles, bite blocks, and straws: A review of tools/objects used in articulation therapy by Van Riper and other traditional therapists. Oral Motor Institute, 4 (2). Available at www.oralmotorinstitute.org.

Mysak, E. (1971). Speech pathology and feedback therapy. Charles C. Thompson Publisher.

Van Riper, C. (1958, 1954, 1947). Speech Correction: Principles and Methods. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Young, E. H. & Hawk, S. S. (1955). Moto-kinesthetic speech training. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Read more →

Effects of Limited or Excessive Jaw Mobility During Conversational Speech

Posted by Deborah Grauzam on

by Sara Rosenfeld-Johnson

This presentation was made at the 2015 annual ASHA Convention, Session #1080.


Practicing Speech-Language Pathologists report that many clients demonstrate limited or excessive up-and-down jaw movements during communication as compared to their typically developing peers.  The results of this retrospective study suggest that atypical jaw skills are related to deficits in speech clarity in clients diagnosed with multiple articulation disorder and dysarthria.


Practicing Speech-Language Pathologists report that many clients, with diagnosed multiple articulation disorders, demonstrate limited or excessive up-and-down jaw movements during communication as compared to their typically developing peers.  The focus of this retrospective study was to determine if children and adults, diagnosed with multiple articulation disorders, were using the jaw heights needed to allow the tongue and lips to move independently for consonant and vowel productions on the conversational level. “Individual differences in jaw movement are real and often large; and the jaw is, in a real sense a primary articulator, controlling tongue height for an open vowel (Gay, 1974).   Video clips of clients’ jaw mobility during conversational speech, before and after bite block invention, will be shown throughout this presentation.

These same clients were often able to produce the targeted speech sound(s) on the word level in a standardized articulation test but could not produce these same phonemes consistently on the conversational level.  The sentence, “As the rate and complexity of the statement increases, the intelligibility decreases,” is  found in many SLP’s reports to describe this breakdown in speech clarity.

More than forty years ago Edward Mysak suggested that if articulatory efforts are disrupted by excessive orofacial activities, as observed in many children with cerebral palsy, therapeutic techniques designed to restrain these compounding events must be administered to facilitate speech improvement (Mysak 1968).  Ten years later James Dworkin proposed a causal relationship between the articulatory imprecision exhibited by certain school-age children and their co-occuring interruptive, hyperactive or hypoactive mandibular movement patterns” (Dworkin 1978).  Clinical focus was then shifted to a treatment method that could measure the degree of jaw activity.  Acrylic bite blocks of varying heights were positioned between the upper and lower central incisor teeth. The children were required to bite down gently on a given block, so as to stabilize the mandible.  Substantial improvements in speech proficiency and intelligibility were obtained in all of the children studied in a relatively short period of time (Dworkin 1978). Kent and Lybolt (1982), Rosenbek and LaPointe (1985), Netsell (1985), and Dworkin (1991) all discussed the potential diagnostic and therapeutic value of bite block use in the differential diagnosis and treatment of dysarthric patients.

Other studies support the idea that SLPs need to take a closer look at how jaw grading is related to speech production.  A 2000 study reported, “precise control of jaw movements precedes lip-control, control over jaw and lip coupling, and independence of upper- and lower-lip movement” and “the present results might be taken to suggest that limited mandibular control in early speech is a negative prognostic factor for later speech motor delays” (Green, 2000).  Research into myofunctional disorders identified the relationship between the tongue and jaw dissociation for speech (Meyer, 2000).

In 2003, the following comments were made in a response to the Green, Moore, and Reilly article (Green, 2002) in reference “to the select populations of children and adults with developmental or neurogenic articulation disorders who exhibit mandibular dyscontrol. On the basis of our present work with such patients and a reinforcing clinical literature database, we suggest that the mandible may play a leading role not only in normal articulatory development but also in the origin and persistence of certain abnormal speech behaviors (Dworkin, 2003).

In our present study the charts of several different clinical populations were examined.  Subjects were chosen based upon the examiner’s comment that limited or excessive mandibular activity was observed during conversational speech.  A video-based movement tracking system had been used to chart the jaw range of motion in connected speech for each of the subjects. In the initial evaluation both the Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation (G-FTA-2) and the DCOMT (Dworkin-Culatta Oral Mechanism Examination and Treatment System) had been administered.  Based on the results of these inventories, all subjects had been diagnosed with a multiple articulation disorder and dysarthria. Client’s with the diagnosis of motor speech disorders such as Childhood Apraxia of Speech (CAS) or Acquired Apraxia of Speech (AOS) were not included in this study.

Bite blocks representing the following jaw heights were used to assess skills at the high jaw placement (m, b, p, f, v, n, s, z, ∫, t∫, r, vocalic r, I, I, Ʋ, u – teeth almost touching), medium jaw placement (θ, ð, l, t, d,Λ, ɛ, ə, ɔ - teeth slightly more open) and low jaw placement (g, k, h,ɑ, æ - teeth even slightly more open) (Marshalla, 1982).

Prior to data collection, these same bite blocks were used to assess the jaw skills of twenty-five randomly selected children and adults between the ages of 2.5 and 50 years whose speech clarity was considered to be within normal limits as reported by an independent judge. The task was to use the back molars to bite-and-hold the jaw still for fifteen (15) seconds, at each bite block height, while an isometric pull was introduced.  Each of these twenty-five individuals was able to perform the bite block task without error.  The SRJ Therapies client charts, spanning a period of 12 years, were then examined.  The following clients qualified for the study: 1) Down syndrome: 230, 2) Cerebral Palsy: 24, 3) Benign Hypotonia: 180, 4) Other syndromes characterized by hypotonia: 33, and 5) Clients with no medical diagnosis who had been enrolled in speech therapy for a minimum of four years  and who had not demonstrated significant improvement: 42.  The clients ranged in age from 2.5 years to 47 years.

The results of this retrospective study are remarkable in that only 8% of the 509  client-subjects were able to perform the bite block task without error; 92%  could not complete the task. These results suggest that jaw skills are related to deficits in speech clarity in clients with the diagnosis of a muscle-based multiple articulation disorder and dysarthria.  Because this was a retrospective study the limitations are clear. The next step would be large sample, double-blind studies that would definitively address the use of bite blocks for diagnosis and treatment of clients with muscle-based speech clarity disorders.  

Learner Outcomes: 

  1. Participants will be able to identify client’s with atypical jaw mobility during conversational speech.
  1. Participants will understand the possible relationship between atypical jaw mobility and dysarthria
  1. Participants will be able to use bite blocks to assess jaw skills in clients with the diagnosis of dysarthria


Dworkin, J. P. (1978). A therapeutic technique for the improvement of lingua-alveolar valving abilities. Journal of Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 9, 162-175.

Dworkin, J. P. (1991). Motor speech disorders: A treatment guide- book. St. Louis: Mosby.

Dworkin, J. P. (1996). Bite block therapy for oromandibular dystonia. Journal of Medical Speech-Language Pathology, 4, 47-56.

Dworkin, J.P, Meleca, R.J., Stachler R.J. (2003) More on the Role of the Mandible in Speech Production: Clinical Correlates for Green, Moore, and Reilly’s (2002) Findings. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46 (pp. 1020-1021).

Gay, T. J., Ushijima, T., Hirose, H., & Cooper, F. S. (1974). Effect of speaking rate on labial consonant-vowel articulation. Journal of Phonetics, 2, 47-63.

Green, J. R., Moore, C. A., Higashikawa, M., & Steeve, R. W. (2000). The physiologic development of speech motor control: Lip and jaw coordination. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 239-255.

Green, J. R., Moore, C. A., & Reilly, K. J. (2002). The sequential development of jaw and lip control for speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 66-79.

Kent, R., & Lybolt, J. (1982). Techniques of therapy based on motor learning theory. In W. H. Perkins (Ed.), Current therapy of communication disorders: General principles of therapy (pp. 13-25). New York: Thieme-Stratton.

Marshalla, (Rosenwinkel), P. (1982) Tactile-proprioceltive stimulation techniques in articulation therapy. Seminar handbook. Champaign: Innovative concepts in Speech and Language.

Meyer, P.G. (2000). Tongue lip and jaw differentiation and its relationship to orofacial myofunctional treatment. Int J Orofacial Myology, 26, 44-52

Mysak, E. D. (1968). Neuroevolutional approach to cerebral palsy and speech. New York: Teachers College Press.

Netsell, R. (1985). Construction and use of a bite-block for the evaluation and treatment of speech disorders. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 50, 103-106.

Rosenbek, J. C., & LaPointe, L. L. (1985). The dysarthrias: Description, diagnosis, and treatment. In D. F. Johns (Ed.), Clinical management of neurogenic communicative disorders (pp. 97-152). Boston: College Hill Press.

Read more →