Introduction: The purpose of the current study was to evaluate speech intelligibility and speech rate in individuals with Parkinson’s disease using altered auditory feedback (AAF) in comparison to age-matched healthy controls. Based on prior research, it is hypothesized that the use of AAF will improve participants’ speech intelligibility. Methods: Five individuals with Parkinson’s disease (clinical group) and five age-matched healthy controls aged 50 years and above participated in this pre-/post-group experiment. All participants completed reading and monologue tasks with and without AAF. The AAF delayed the participants’ auditory feedback by 150 ms and altered it by 1/20 octave. Thirty-two naïve listeners listened to the recorded participants’ speech samples (with and without AAF) randomly and rated the participants’ speech intelligibility. Results: Results of the mixed model ANOVA revealed that participants in the control group had significantly higher speech intelligibility scores than the participants in the clinical group. Post hoc tests indicated that only participants in the clinical group were more intelligible with AAF than without AAF. Participants in the clinical group had better speech intelligibility when reading the passage than speaking the monologue. With regards to speech rate, participants spoke more slowly with AAF than without. Finally, there was a negative correlation between speech rate and speech intelligibility. Discussion: The current findings support our hypothesis that AAF improves speech intelligibility in people with Parkinson’s disease, though not in healthy controls. Future research should evaluate the long-term effect of AAF use on speech intelligibility in people with Parkinson’s disease.

1.
Jankovic J. Parkinson’s disease: clinical features and diagnosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2008;79(4):368–76.
2.
Liotti M, Ramig LO, Vogel D, New P, Cook CI, Ingham RJ, et al. Hypophonia in Parkinson’s disease: neural correlates of voice treatment revealed by PET. Neurology. 2003;60(3):432–40.
3.
Duffy JR. Motor speech disorders: substrates, differential diagnosis, and management. 3rd ed. St. Louis (MO): Elsevier Mosby; 2013.
4.
Blanchet PG, Snyder GJ. Speech rate treatments for individuals with dysarthria: a tutorial. Percept Mot Skills. 2010;110(3 Pt 1):965–82.
5.
Yorkston KM, Hammen VL, Beukelman DR, Traynor CD. The effect of rate control on the intelligibility and naturalness of dysarthric speech. J Speech Hear Disord. 1990;55(3):550–60.
6.
Van Nuffelen G, De Bodt M, Wuyts F, Van de Heyning P. The effect of rate control on speech rate and intelligibility of dysarthric speech. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2009;61(2):69–75.
7.
Hammen VL, Yorkston KM. Speech and pause characteristics following speech rate reduction in hypokinetic dysarthria. J Commun Disord. 1996;29(6):429–44; quiz 444-5.
8.
Tjaden K, Wilding G. The impact of rate reduction and increased loudness on fundamental frequency characteristics in dysarthria. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2011;63(4):178–86.
9.
Lowit A, Dobinson C, Timmins C, Howell P, Kröger B. The effectiveness of traditional methods and altered auditory feedback in improving speech rate and intelligibility in speakers with Parkinson’s disease. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2010;12(5):426–36.
10.
Van Nuffelen G, De Bodt M, Vanderwegen J, Van de Heyning P, Wuyts F. Effect of rate control on speech production and intelligibility in dysarthria. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2010;62(3):110–9.
11.
Natke U, Grosser J, Kalveram KT. Fluency, fundamental frequency, and speech rate under frequency-shifted auditory feedback in stuttering and nonstuttering persons. J Fluen Disord. 2001;26(3):227–41.
12.
Van Borsel J, Reunes G, Van den Bergh N. Delayed auditory feedback in the treatment of stuttering: clients as consumers. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2003;38(2):119–29.
13.
Sparks G, Grant DE, Millay K, Walker-Batson D, Hynan LS. The effect of fast speech rate on stuttering frequency during delayed auditory feedback. J Fluency Disord. 2002;27(3):187–200; quiz 200-1, III.
14.
Downie AW, Low JM, Lindsay DD. Speech disorder in parkinsonism-usefulness of delayed auditory feedback in selected cases. Br J Disord Commun. 1981;16(2):135–9.
15.
Rousseau B, Watts CR. Susceptibility of speakers with Parkinson disease to delayed feedback. J Med Speech Lang Pathol. 2002;10(1):41–50.
16.
Brendel B, Lowit A, Howell P. The effects of delayed and frequency shifted feedback on speakers with Parkinson’s Disease. J Med Speech Lang Pathol. 2004;12:131–8.
17.
Wang EQ, Metman LV, Bernard BA. Treating festinating speech with altered auditory feedback in Parkinson’s disease: a preliminary report. J Med Speech Lang Pathol. 2008;16(4):275–83.
18.
Max L, Guenther FH, Gracco VL, Ghosh SS, Wallace ME. Unstable or insufficiently activated internal models and feedback-biased motor control as sources of dysfluency: a theoretical model of stuttering. Contemp Issues Commun Sci Disord. 2004;31:105–22.
19.
Martin CD, Niziolek CA, Duñabeitia JA, Perez A, Hernandez D, Carreiras M, et al. Online adaptation to altered auditory feedback is predicted by auditory acuity and not by domain-general executive control resources. Front Hum Neurosci. 2018;12:91.
20.
Robey RR. A five-phase model for clinical-outcome research. J Commun Disord. 2004;37(5):401–11.
21.
Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(4):695–9.
22.
Goetz CG, Poewe W, Rascol O, Sampaio C, Stebbins GT, Counsell C, et al. Movement disorder society task force report on the Hoehn and Yahr staging scale: status and recommendations. Mov Disord. 2004;19(9):1020–8.
23.
Davis DH, Creavin ST, Yip JL, Noel-Storr AH, Brayne C, Cullum S. Montreal Cognitive Assessment for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;2015(10):CD010775.
24.
Carson N, Leach L, Murphy KJ. A re-examination of Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) cutoff scores. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2018;33(2):379–88.
25.
Chan KM, Yiu EM. A comparison of two perceptual voice evaluation training programs for naive listeners. J Voice. 2006;20(2):229–41.
26.
Boersma P, Weenink D. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.3.20, retrieved 24 October 2023. Available from: http://www.praat.org/.
27.
Baum SR. An acoustic analysis of rate of speech effects on vowel production in aphasia. Brain Lang. 1993;44(4):414–30.
28.
Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–63.
29.
Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992;112(1):155–9.
30.
Akoglu H. User’s guide to correlation coefficients. Turk J Emerg Med. 2018;18(3):91–3.
31.
Blanchet PG, Hoffman PR. Factors influencing the effects of delayed auditory feedback on dysarthric speech associated with Parkinson’s disease. Commun Disord Deaf Stud Hearing Aids. 2014;2(106):2.
32.
Desmurget M, Grafton S. Forward modeling allows feedback control for fast reaching movements. Trends Cogn Sci. 2000;4(11):423–31.
33.
Wolpert DM, Ghahramani Z, Jordan MI. An internal model for sensorimotor integration. Science. 1995;269(5232):1880–2.
34.
Wolpert DM, Miall RC, Kawato M. Internal models in the cerebellum. Trends Cogn Sci. 1998;2(9):338–47.
35.
Chon H, Kraft SJ, Zhang J, Loucks T, Ambrose NG. Individual variability in delayed auditory feedback effects on speech fluency and rate in normally fluent adults. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2013;56(2):489–504.
36.
Sidtis D, Cameron K, Bonura L, Sidtis JJ. Speech intelligibility by listening in Parkinson speech with and without deep brain stimulation: task effects. J Neurolinguistics. 2012;25(2):121–32.
37.
Stolwyk RJ, Triggs TJ, Charlton JL, Iansek R, Bradshaw JL. Impact of internal versus external cueing on driving performance in people with Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord. 2005;20(7):846–57.
38.
Shaver JP. What statistical significance testing is, and what it is not. J Exp Educ. 1993;61(4):293–316.
39.
Thompson B. Statistical significance and effect size reporting: portrait of a possible future. Res Sch. 1998;5(2):33–8.
40.
Robey RR. A meta-analysis of clinical outcomes in the treatment of aphasia. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1998;41(1):172–87.
41.
Schafer WD. Interpreting statistical significance and nonsignificance. J Exp Educ. 1993;61(4):383–7.
You do not currently have access to this content.