A Meme's-Eye View of Nonspeech Oral-Motor Exercises

ABSTRACT

The ideas motivating the use of nonspeech oral motor exercises (NSOMEs) cluster into three memeplexes that reflect the rich history of oral motor and nonspeech activities in speech-language pathology; a bottom-up, discrete skill theory of learning; and common treatment practices. The lack of clinical guidance provided by research also plays a role in the use of NSOMEs. The essence of the oral motor memeplex is the history of oral motor activities in speech-language pathology and the often detailed coverage these activities receive in the most widely read textbooks and publications in our profession. The essence of the discrete skill memeplex is that complex behaviors, like speech production, can be broken down into discrete sequences of processes and behaviors, and the best instruction and intervention involves discrete skills training, bottom-up approaches, task analyses, and developmentally sequenced materials. The clinical practice memeplex reflects a set of common clinical practices that contribute to the use of NSOMEs. These factors include the desire to provide state-of-the art treatment, a preference for broad-based, eclectic treatment approaches, and diverse and engaging activities that offer opportunities for measurable success. There are so many reasons to use NSOMEs that the more interesting question may be why some clinicians (< 15%) do not use these activities.

Meme - oral motor - learning - treatment

REFERENCES

• 1 Kamhi A. A meme's eye view of speech-language pathology.  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2004;  35 105-112
• 2 Blackmore S. The Meme Machine. Oxford, United Kingdom; Oxford University Press 1999
• 3 Dawkins R. The Selfish Gene. Oxford, United Kingdom; Oxford University Press 1976
• 4 Marshalla P. “Oral motor treatment” vs “non-speech oral motor exercises.” Oral Motor Institute 2008;2(2). Available at: http://www.oralmotorinstitute.org/mons/v2n2_marshalla.html Accessed July 12, 2008
• 5 Wilson JM Oral-motor function and dysfunction in children. Conference proceedings May 25–28, 1977 Chapel Hill, NC; University of North Carolina
• 6 Newman P W, Creaghead N A, Second W. Assessment and Remediation of Articulatory and Phonological Disorders. Columbus, OH; Charles E Merrill 1985: 128-129
• 7 Bauman-Waengler J. Articulatory and Phonological Impairments: A Clinical Focus. 2nd ed. Boston, MA; Allyn & Bacon 2004
• 8 Bernthal J, Bankston N. Articulation and Phonological Disorders. 5th ed. Boston, MA; Allyn & Bacon 2004
• 9 Bleile K. The Late Eight. San Diego, CA; Plural 2006
• 10 Rosenfeld-Johnson S. Oral-Motor Exercises for Speech Clarity. Tucson, AZ; Talk Tools 2001
• 11 Van Riper C. Speech Correction: Principles and Methods. New York, NY; Prentice-Hall 1954
• 12 Berry M F, Eisenson J. Speech Disorders: Principles and Practices of Therapy. New York, NY; Appleton-Century-Crofts 1956
• 13 Vaughn G R, Clark R M. Speech Facilitation: Extraoral and Intraoral Stimulation Technique for Improvement of Articulation Skills. Springfield, MA; Charles C Thomas 1979
• 14 Secord W A, Boyce S E, Donohue J S, Fox R A, Shine R E. Eliciting Sounds: Techniques and Strategies for Clinicians. 2nd ed. Clifton Park, NJ; Thomson Delmar Learning 2007
• 15 Poplin M. The reductionistic fallacy in learning disabilities: replicating the past by reducing the present.  J Learn Disabil. 1988;  21 389-401
• 16 Kamhi A. Treatment decisions for children with speech-sound disorders.  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2006;  37 271-280
• 17 Van Riper C, Emerick L. Speech Correction: An Introduction to Speech Pathology and Audiology. 7th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ; Prentice-Hall 1984
• 18 Hodson B, Paden E. Targeting Intelligible Speech: A Phonological Approach to Remediation. 2nd ed. Austin, TX; Pro-Ed 1991
• 19 Kamhi A. Practice makes perfect: the incompatibility of practicing speech and meaningful communication.  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2000;  31 182-186
• 20 Gill K, DeNinno J. “Can Do” Oral-Motor Games. Super Duper Publications Web site. Available at: http://www.superduperinc.com/F-G_Pages/gb76.htm Accessed July 12, 2008
• 21 Kamhi A. To use or not to use: factors that influence the selection of new treatment approaches.  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 1999;  30 92-98
• 22 Wilcox M, Hadley P, Bacon C. Linking science and practice in management of childhood language disorders: models and problem-solving strategies.  Topics Lang Disord. 1998;  18 11-22
• 23 Gersten R, Brengelman S. The quest to translate research into classroom practice.  RASE. 1996;  17 67-74
• 24 Lof G L, Watson M M. A nationwide survey of nonspeech oral motor exercise use: implications for evidence-based practice.  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2008;  39 392-407
• 25 Gierut J. The conditions and course of clinically induced phonological change.  J Speech Hear Res. 1998;  35 1049-1063
• 26 Gierut J. Phonological intervention: the how or the what?. In: Kamhi A, Pollock K Phonological Disorders in Children: Clinical Decision Making in Assessment and Intervention. Baltimore, MD; Paul H Brookes 2005: 201-210
• 27 Weston A, Bain B. Current vs evidenced-based practice in phonological intervention: a dilemma. Poster presented at: annual convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 2003 Chicago, IL;
• 28 Lass N J, Pannbacker M. The application of evidence-based practice to nonspeech oral motor treatments.  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2008;  39 408-421
• 29 Ruscello D M. Nonspeech oral motor treatment issues related to children with developmental speech sound disorders.  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2008;  39 380-391