An interventional study of Biofeedback-ultrasound and Biofeedback--visual-acoustic in Speech Sound Disorder, sponsored by New York University. Completed at 2 sites in United States. Open to participants aged 9 Years to 15 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-01-05.
Sponsored by New York University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
Children with speech sound disorder show diminished accuracy and intelligibility in spoken communication and may thus be perceived as less capable or intelligent than peers, with negative consequences for both socioemotional and socioeconomic outcomes. While most speech errors resolve by the late school-age years, between 2-5% of speakers exhibit residual speech errors (RSE) that persist through adolescence or even adulthood, reflecting about 6 million cases in the US. Both affected children/families and speech-language pathologists (SLPs) have highlighted the critical need for research to identify more effective forms of treatment for children with RSE. In a series of single-case experimental studies, research has found that treatment incorporating technologically enhanced sensory feedback (visual-acoustic biofeedback, ultrasound biofeedback) can improve speech in individuals with RSE who have not responded to previous intervention. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing traditional vs biofeedback-enhanced intervention is the essential next step to inform evidence-based decision-making for this prevalent population. Larger-scale research is also needed to understand heterogeneity across individuals in the magnitude of response to biofeedback treatment.
The overall objective of this proposal is to conduct clinical research that will guide the evidence-based management of RSE while also providing novel insights into the sensorimotor underpinnings of speech. The central hypothesis is that biofeedback will yield greater gains in speech accuracy than traditional treatment, and that individual deficit profiles will predict relative response to visual-acoustic vs ultrasound biofeedback. This study will enroll n = 118 children who misarticulate the /r/ sound, the most common type of RSE. This first component of the study will evaluate the efficacy of biofeedback relative to traditional treatment in a well-powered randomized controlled trial. Ultrasound and visual-acoustic biofeedback, which have similar evidence bases, will be represented equally.
Randomized Trial Component: Previous findings suggest that biofeedback interventions can outperform traditional speech therapy for children with RSE, but the research base to date is limited to small-scale studies that do not reach the level of evidence needed to support large-scale changes in practice. The primary objective of the C-RESULTS RCT is to test the working hypothesis that a group of individuals randomly assigned to receive biofeedback-enhanced treatment will show larger and/or faster gains in /r/ production accuracy than an equivalent group receiving the same dose of non-biofeedback treatment. To test this hypothesis, n=110 children will be randomly assigned to receive a standard course of intervention with or without biofeedback. Acoustic and perceptual measures will be used to test for differences in both short-term learning of treated targets (Acquisition) and longer-term carryover of learning to untreated contexts (Generalization). In addition, a survey assessing participants' socio-emotional well-being will be collected from caregivers both pre and post treatment.
42 studies on the registry are indexed under Speech Sound Disorder; 16 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 108 is above the median of 35 across 37 interventional studies indexed under Speech Sound Disorder.
Browse Speech Sound Disorder studies →New York University is the lead sponsor of 120 studies on the registry; 32 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
Traditional articulation treatment
Behavioral: Traditional articulation treatment
Biofeedback--visual-acoustic
Behavioral: Biofeedback--visual-acoustic · Behavioral: Traditional articulation treatment
Biofeedback-ultrasound
Behavioral: Biofeedback-ultrasound · Behavioral: Traditional articulation treatment
In ultrasound biofeedback, the elements of traditional treatment (auditory models and verbal descriptions of articulator placement) are enhanced with a real-time ultrasound display of the shape and movements of the tongue. One or two target tongue shapes will be selected for each participant, and a trace of the selected target will be superimposed over the ultrasound screen. Participants will be cued to reshape the tongue to match this target during /r/ production.
In visual-acoustic biofeedback treatment, the elements of traditional treatment (auditory models and verbal descriptions of articulator placement) are enhanced with a dynamic display of the speech signal in the form of the real-time LPC (Linear Predictive Coding) spectrum. Because correct vs incorrect productions of /r/ contrast acoustically in the frequency of the third formant (F3), participants will be cued to make their real-time LPC spectrum match a visual target characterized by a low F3 frequency. They will be encouraged to attend to the visual display while adjusting the placement of their articulators and observing how those adjustments impact F3.
Traditional articulation treatment involves providing auditory models and verbal descriptions of correct articulator placement, then cueing repetitive motor practice. Images and diagrams of the vocal tract will be used as visual aids; however, no real-time visual display of articulatory or acoustic information will be made available.
Change in F3-F2 Distance (Hz) Across Sessions, Measured From /r/ Sounds Produced in Syllables or Words During Practice.
F3-F2 distance is a number (in Hz) that reflects how close a child's /r/ sound is to a typical adult-like /r/. Smaller numbers indicate more accurate /r/ production; larger numbers indicate a distorted /r/. In typical peers, accurate /r/ is roughly \~500 Hz, whereas distorted /r/ values are often \>1000 Hz. During Phase I (3 sessions over \~1 week), children produced /r/ in syllables/words. For this Outcome, we report change across sessions: a single model-based estimate of how much F3-F2 decreased from Session 1 to Session 3 (i.e., the rate of improvement). A more negative change indicates greater improvement.
Time frame: Phase I: three 90-min treatment sessions delivered over ~1 week; reported value is the change from Session 1 to Session 3 (slope across sessions)
Change From Pre to Post in Percent "Correct" Ratings by Untrained Listeners, for /r/ Sounds Produced in Word Probes.
The outcome is the percentage of untrained listeners, blinded to time point and treatment condition, who judged each /r/ production as "correct" from word-probe recordings (0-100%; higher = better). Children completed word probes at Pre and Post. Results in the table summarize change from Pre to Post using a mixed-effects model: specifically, the treatment × time interaction, which estimates the between-group difference in improvement from Pre to Post. A positive change indicates improvement.
Time frame: Pre (before initiation of treatment) and Post (after the end of all treatment; ~10 weeks later).
Impact of Speech Disorder on Social, Emotional, and Academic Well-being (Parent Survey)
Parents completed a questionnaire assessing the impact of their child's speech disorder on social, emotional, and academic well-being. Each item was rated on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 3 = neutral, 5 = strongly agree). Scores were averaged across items to yield an overall impact score ranging from 1 to 5, with higher values indicating a greater negative impact. A decrease from Pre to Post indicates improvement.
Time frame: Pre (before initiation of treatment) and Post (after completion of all treatment; ~10 weeks later)
| Milestone | Group 1: Traditional Articulation Treatment | Group 2: Biofeedback--visual-acoustic | Group 3: Biofeedback-Ultrasound |
|---|---|---|---|
| Started | 45 | 32 | 31 |
| Primary outcome assessment | 45 | 32 | 31 |
| Completed | 45 | 32 | 31 |
| Not completed | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Milestone | Group 1: Traditional Articulation Treatment | Group 2: Biofeedback--visual-acoustic | Group 3: Biofeedback-Ultrasound |
|---|---|---|---|
| Started | 45 | 32 | 31 |
| Secondary outcome assessment | 45 | 32 | 31 |
| Completed | 41 | 31 | 30 |
| Not completed | 4 | 1 | 1 |
| Withdrew: Withdrawal by subject | 4 | 1 | 1 |
F3-F2 distance is a number (in Hz) that reflects how close a child's /r/ sound is to a typical adult-like /r/. Smaller numbers indicate more accurate /r/ production; larger numbers indicate a distorted /r/. In typical peers, accurate /r/ is roughly \~500 Hz, whereas distorted /r/ values are often \>1000 Hz. During Phase I (3 sessions over \~1 week), children produced /r/ in syllables/words. For this Outcome, we report change across sessions: a single model-based estimate of how much F3-F2 decreased from Session 1 to Session 3 (i.e., the rate of improvement). A more negative change indicates greater improvement.
| Hertz / session | Group 1: Traditional Articulation Treatment | Group 2: Biofeedback--visual-acoustic | Group 3: Biofeedback-Ultrasound |
|---|---|---|---|
| Change in F3-F2 Distance (Hz) Across Sessions, Measured From /r/ Sounds Produced in Syllables or Words During Practice. | 38.2 ± 66.0 | 66.7 ± 103.0 | 85.2 ± 152.0 |
The outcome is the percentage of untrained listeners, blinded to time point and treatment condition, who judged each /r/ production as "correct" from word-probe recordings (0-100%; higher = better). Children completed word probes at Pre and Post. Results in the table summarize change from Pre to Post using a mixed-effects model: specifically, the treatment × time interaction, which estimates the between-group difference in improvement from Pre to Post. A positive change indicates improvement.
| Percent words rated correct | Group 1: Traditional Articulation Treatment | Group 2: Biofeedback--visual-acoustic | Group 3: Biofeedback-Ultrasound |
|---|---|---|---|
| Change From Pre to Post in Percent "Correct" Ratings by Untrained Listeners, for /r/ Sounds Produced in Word Probes. | 44.5 ± 34 | 43.2 ± 33 | 49.6 ± 34 |
Parents completed a questionnaire assessing the impact of their child's speech disorder on social, emotional, and academic well-being. Each item was rated on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 3 = neutral, 5 = strongly agree). Scores were averaged across items to yield an overall impact score ranging from 1 to 5, with higher values indicating a greater negative impact. A decrease from Pre to Post indicates improvement.
| Impact score | Group 1: Traditional Articulation Treatment | Group 2: Biofeedback--visual-acoustic | Group 3: Biofeedback-Ultrasound |
|---|---|---|---|
| Impact of Speech Disorder on Social, Emotional, and Academic Well-being (Parent Survey) | 1.9 ± 1.1 | 1.9 ± 1.1 | 2.1 ± 1.2 |
Collected over From enrollment until end of follow-up, roughly 13 weeks". Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.
| Group | Deaths | Serious | Other |
|---|---|---|---|
| Group 1: Traditional Articulation Treatment | 0/45 (0%) | 0/45 (0%) | 0/45 (0%) |
| Group 2: Biofeedback--visual-acoustic | 0/32 (0%) | 0/32 (0%) | 0/32 (0%) |
| Group 3: Biofeedback-Ultrasound | 0/31 (0%) | 0/31 (0%) | 0/31 (0%) |
| Age, Continuous(years) | Group 1: Traditional Articulation Treatment | Group 2: Biofeedback--visual-acoustic | Group 3: Biofeedback-Ultrasound | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 10.72 ± 1.54 | 10.86 ± 1.87 | 10.71 ± 1.3 | 10.8 ± 1.57 |
| Sex: Female, Male(Participants) | Group 1: Traditional Articulation Treatment | Group 2: Biofeedback--visual-acoustic | Group 3: Biofeedback-Ultrasound | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | 15 | 16 | 9 | 40 |
| Male | 30 | 16 | 22 | 68 |
| Race (NIH/OMB)(Participants) | Group 1: Traditional Articulation Treatment | Group 2: Biofeedback--visual-acoustic | Group 3: Biofeedback-Ultrasound | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| American Indian or Alaska Native | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Asian | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Black or African American | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| White | 36 | 31 | 27 | 94 |
| More than one race | 5 | 0 | 1 | 6 |
| Unknown or Not Reported | 3 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)(Participants) | Group 1: Traditional Articulation Treatment | Group 2: Biofeedback--visual-acoustic | Group 3: Biofeedback-Ultrasound | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hispanic or Latino | 4 | 1 | 3 | 8 |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 40 | 29 | 25 | 94 |
| Unknown or Not Reported | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 |
| Response to dynamic assessment session(Participants) | Group 1: Traditional Articulation Treatment | Group 2: Biofeedback--visual-acoustic | Group 3: Biofeedback-Ultrasound | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| High initial responders | 21 | 14 | 15 | 50 |
| Low initial responders | 24 | 18 | 16 | 58 |
Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.
Plan to share: No
This study is completed, as verified in Mar 2025. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
New York University