abc of imp - fcei 2012 of imp.pdf · the relationship between obligatory cortical auditory evoked...

21
The ABC of IMP: IMPlementing the Infant Monitor of vocal Production . . FCEI 2012, Bad Ischl, Austria Robyn Cantle Moore, PhD. The Impetus

Upload: others

Post on 03-Aug-2020

5 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: ABC of IMP - FCEI 2012 of IMP.pdf · The relationship between obligatory cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) and functional measures in young infants. Journal of the American

The ABC of IMP: IMPlementing the

Infant Monitor of vocal Production . . FCEI 2012, Bad Ischl, Austria

Robyn Cantle Moore, PhD.

The Impetus

Page 2: ABC of IMP - FCEI 2012 of IMP.pdf · The relationship between obligatory cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) and functional measures in young infants. Journal of the American

An obligation

� A family-centred approach imperative.� Parent knowledge & autonomy the focus.� Distinct strategies needed:

(a) to guide professionals(b) to support parent understanding &

expand skills.� Ensure benefits of earlier identification

do not dissipate.

Précis

Infant Monitor of vocal Production (IMP)Cantle Moore (2004, 2006, 2008).

� AAAAuthentic assessment procedure.

� BBBBasic (foundational) evaluation instrument.

� CCCCriterion referenced clinical tool.

Page 3: ABC of IMP - FCEI 2012 of IMP.pdf · The relationship between obligatory cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) and functional measures in young infants. Journal of the American

AAAAuthentic assessment

� A systematic process of observation.

� An account of naturally occurring behaviours.

� An evaluation derived from the informed

opinion of a familiar observer / parent.

Advantages of authentic assessment

� More thorough & extensive sampling of

behaviour than ‘one-off’ / direct elicitation.

� Evaluates levels of functional ability.

� Consistent with family-centred practice and

upholds parent autonomy.

What? Why? When?

Page 4: ABC of IMP - FCEI 2012 of IMP.pdf · The relationship between obligatory cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) and functional measures in young infants. Journal of the American

Pitfalls of authentic assessment

� Accuracy of parent perception is variable.

� “Informed opinion” can be reliable and valid if structured by procedure (Bagnato et al., 2008)

e.g., using face-to-face interview /probe question technique (Ching & Hill, 2007; Sparrow et al.,

1984; Robbins et al., 1991).

� Process guides parent to reflect and evaluate, thus enhancing informed opinion.

Expectations and challenges

� PROMPT INFORMATIONVisually literate

Experiential learners – “do something / discover”Feedback – “how’s it going? / Why?”

Make own decisions – “I think / believe..”(McQueen, 2010; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005; Ryan, 2009).

Gen X Gen Y have different experience / different expectations.

Page 5: ABC of IMP - FCEI 2012 of IMP.pdf · The relationship between obligatory cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) and functional measures in young infants. Journal of the American

The IMPreport

for parents

����

��������

��������

����

��������

��������

������������ ����

������������

����

BBBBasic evaluation instrument

(Kuhl, 2004).

PerceptionPerception

ProductionProduction

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Universal speech production

Language specific speech production

First words

Non-speech sounds

Vowel-like sounds

‘Canonical babbling’

MONTHSMONTHS

Universal speech perception

Language specific speech perceptionPhonetic contrasts all languages

Language specific vowels

Language specific sound combinations

Native language consonants

Typical infant vocal development (Birth – 12 months)

Page 6: ABC of IMP - FCEI 2012 of IMP.pdf · The relationship between obligatory cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) and functional measures in young infants. Journal of the American

Adapted from: Oller (2000) Nathani, Ertmer, & Stark (2006)

“Pre-Linguistic”

INTEGRATIVE BABBLE

LEVEL 5

Advanced Forms

“Pre-Lexical”

CANONICAL BABBLE

LEVEL 4

Basic Canonical Syllables “emergence is striking”

LEVEL 3

Expansion

LEVEL 2

Control of Phonation

EXPANSION

“Gooing”

PRIMITIVE

ARTICULATION

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Months of Age

LEVEL 1

Reflexive

PHONATION

Vowel-like sounds

Non-speech sounds

‘Canonical babbling’

Language specific speech production

First words

Kuhl (2004)

Stages of infant vocal production

An educational strategy

� To engage parents in the nature and pace of

>12mth auditory-vocal development .

� To give value to parent observations of a

baby’s vocal ability.

� To encourage parents to descriptively report,

reflect on, and evaluate baby’s vocalizations.

Page 7: ABC of IMP - FCEI 2012 of IMP.pdf · The relationship between obligatory cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) and functional measures in young infants. Journal of the American

A clinical tool

� To document hierarchical changes. (Nathani, Ertmer, & Stark, 2006; Oller, 2000).

� To demonstrate transition / / or lack of timely transition, to an Audition-Production Loop.

(Koopsman-Van Beinum et al., 2001; Mayne et al., 1998; O’Donoghue et al., 1999; Oller et al., 1985; Stoel-Gammon, 1989)

� To illustrate steady/accelerating/slowing rate of vocal progress >12mth HAge.

IMP examines the emergent relationship

SPEECH

AUDITORY PERCEPTION

RECEPTION

ORO-MOTOR ORGANIZATION

EXPRESSION

AUDITORYPROCESSINGCAPACITY

Page 8: ABC of IMP - FCEI 2012 of IMP.pdf · The relationship between obligatory cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) and functional measures in young infants. Journal of the American

A diagnostic aid

� Impact of ANSD on auditory processing. (Rance & Barker , 2008; Sirimanna , 2010)

� Environmental inconsistency / opportunity. (Hart & Risley, 1995; Huttenlocher ,1998; Moeller et al., 2009)

� Oro-motor challenges to speech production. (Davis & Velleman, 2000; Evans Morris 1982; Maassen, 2002)

� Developmental – not related to hearing loss. (Riou et al., 2009)

CCCCriterion referenced clinical tool.

A typical IMP presentation takes 15 minutes:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12BaselineBaseline

AGE IN MONTHS

Page 9: ABC of IMP - FCEI 2012 of IMP.pdf · The relationship between obligatory cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) and functional measures in young infants. Journal of the American

“Pre-Linguistic”

INTEGRATIVE BABBLE

LEVEL 5

Advanced Forms

“Pre-Lexical”

CANONICAL BABBLE

LEVEL 4

Basic Canonical Syllables “emergence is striking”

LEVEL 3

Expansion

LEVEL 2

Control of Phonation

EXPANSION

“Gooing”

PRIMITIVE

ARTICULATION

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Mont hs of Age

LEVEL 1

Reflexive

PHONATION

Adapted from: Oller (2000) Nathani, Ertmer & Stark (2006)

Stages: IMP Baseline

� Physical / “anatomical drivers”(Ingram, 1989; Oller, 2000; Vihman, 1996).

and maturation of the vocal system.

(Koopsman-van Beinum et al., 2001).

� Consistencies across languages (MacNeilage et al., 2000).

and in the presence of hearing loss. (Moore et al., 2007).

IMP: Question 3

Playful “cooing” (Ingram, 1989) and the emergence of

throaty consonantal sounds – [g] or [k] – (Roug, Landberg &

Lundberg, 1989) may give the impression of primitive syllables (Koopmans-van Beinum & Van der Stelt, 1986).

Page 10: ABC of IMP - FCEI 2012 of IMP.pdf · The relationship between obligatory cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) and functional measures in young infants. Journal of the American

Video: Baseline parent interview

Integrity of the Audition-Production Loop

Beginnings of the Audition-Production Loop

BASELINEPhysiological Control

“Pre-Linguistic”

INTEGRATIVE BABBLE

LEVEL 5

Advanced Forms

“Pre-Lexical”

CANONICAL BABBLE

LEVEL 4

Basic Canonical Syllables “emergence is striking”

LEVEL 3

Expansion

LEVEL 2

Control of Phonation

EXPANSION

“Gooing”

PRIMITIVE

ARTICULATION

12

11

10

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Months of Age

LEVEL 1

Reflexive

PHONATION

Adapted from: Oller (2000) Nathani, Ertmer & Stark (2006)

IMP Question 13

IMP Question 16

IMP Question 10

IMP Question 7

Transition to the Audition-Production Loop

Page 11: ABC of IMP - FCEI 2012 of IMP.pdf · The relationship between obligatory cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) and functional measures in young infants. Journal of the American

Video: Transition stage, generic example

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytWPh6oNthM&feature=related

IMP: Question 10

The first consonant + vowel (CV) combinations around 6

months of age may be a ‘by-product’ of motor practice (Oller,

2000). Early CV often accompany more frequent production of

labial consonants [b], [m] in sound play (Ingram,1989).

Page 12: ABC of IMP - FCEI 2012 of IMP.pdf · The relationship between obligatory cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) and functional measures in young infants. Journal of the American

Video: Transition to A-P Loop interview

Integrity of the Audition-Production Loop

Beginnings of the Audition-Production Loop

BASELINEPhysiological Control

“Pre-Linguistic”

INTEGRATIVE BABBLE

LEVEL 5

Advanced Forms

“Pre-Lexical”

CANONICAL BABBLE

LEVEL 4

Basic Canonical Syllables “emergence is striking”

LEVEL 3

Expansion

LEVEL 2

Control of Phonation

EXPANSION

“Gooing”

PRIMITIVE

ARTICULATION

12

11

10

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Months of Age

LEVEL 1

Reflexive

PHONATION

Adapted from: Oller (2000) Nathani, Ertmer & Stark (2006)

IMP Question 13

IMP Question 16

IMP Question 10

IMP Question 7

Integrity of the Audition-Production Loop

Page 13: ABC of IMP - FCEI 2012 of IMP.pdf · The relationship between obligatory cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) and functional measures in young infants. Journal of the American

What do you hear?

LISTEN…

Can you describe it?

� Did the infant seem to ‘talk’ to himself

while playing alone? What did he do?

Page 14: ABC of IMP - FCEI 2012 of IMP.pdf · The relationship between obligatory cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) and functional measures in young infants. Journal of the American

IMP: Question 13

Pre-lexical babble has rhythmic timing and is voluble (Oller et

al., 1985; Stoel-Gammon, 1989). Babble variety & complexity reflects

biomechanical “frame” theory (Davis et al., 2005).

Documenting CV babble variety

Page 15: ABC of IMP - FCEI 2012 of IMP.pdf · The relationship between obligatory cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) and functional measures in young infants. Journal of the American

Interpreting the IMP

TYPICALTYPICAL

Interpreting sequential IMP results

Page 16: ABC of IMP - FCEI 2012 of IMP.pdf · The relationship between obligatory cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) and functional measures in young infants. Journal of the American

Sequential scoring graphic: Case Study 53

“Sam”

1 1

13

Innate Transition to A-P Integrity of A-P Loop Loop

Sequential ranking graphic: Case Study 53

“Sam”

“Sam”

1 1

13

Page 17: ABC of IMP - FCEI 2012 of IMP.pdf · The relationship between obligatory cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) and functional measures in young infants. Journal of the American

Sequential scoring graphic: Case Study 4

“Larry”

1 1

13 21

ANSD /Change in hearing?

Oro-motor challenges?

Other developmental concerns?

Environmental inconsistency?

Innate Transition to A-P Integrity of A-P Loop Loop

Sequential scoring graphic: Case Study 4

“Larry”

“Larry”

1 1

13 21

Page 18: ABC of IMP - FCEI 2012 of IMP.pdf · The relationship between obligatory cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) and functional measures in young infants. Journal of the American

Scatter plot of scores: Normal Hearing

100

80

60

40

20

0

MONTHS HEARING AGE

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

IMP

%Q

.Ceiling &

Ranking

Vocal Proficiency

Ranking > 80%

Ranking 50-80%

Ranking < 50%

NORMAL HEARING (n=14)(R2 = 0.710)

Transition to A-P Integrity of A-PLoop Loop

Scatter plot of scores: Hearing Aided

100

80

60

40

20

0

MONTHS CHRONOLOGICAL AGE

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

IMP

%Q

.Ceiling &

Ranking

Vocal Proficiency

Ranking > 80%

Ranking 50-80%

Ranking < 50%

BILATERAL HEARING AIDED (n=41)(R2 = 0.207)

Transition to A-P Integrity of A-PLoop Loop

Page 19: ABC of IMP - FCEI 2012 of IMP.pdf · The relationship between obligatory cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) and functional measures in young infants. Journal of the American

Scatter plot of scores: C-Implanted

100

80

60

40

20

0

MONTHS CHRONOLOGICAL AGE

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

IMP

%Q

.Ceiling &

Ranking Vocal Proficiency

Ranking > 80%

Ranking 50-80%

Ranking < 50%

COCHLEAR IMPLANTED (n=12)(R2 = 0.427)

Transition to A-P Integrity of A-PLoop Loop

Transition to A-P Loop

100

80

60

40

20

0

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Normal hearing

Hearing aided

Cochlear implanted

MONTHS HEARING AGE

TREND OF SCORES AT EQUIVALENT HEARING AGE

Normal hearing (n=14) : Bilateral hearing aided (n=41) : Cochlear implanted (n=12)

Transition to A-P Integrity of A-PLoop Loop

IMP

%Q

.Ce

iling & R

ankin

g

Page 20: ABC of IMP - FCEI 2012 of IMP.pdf · The relationship between obligatory cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) and functional measures in young infants. Journal of the American

Thankyou for listening

Online IMP training is free of charge, however you are required to register before you can access the training modules . We also ask that you share data collected using the IMP via the online form, available within the training website.

Go to http://www.ridbcrenwickcentre.com/imp to register. Once registered, you will receive an email containing your login credentials.

Questions?

Contact:

Dr Robyn Cantle MooreRIDBC Renwick [email protected]

RIDBC Renwick Centre for Research and Professional EducationAdministered by the Royal Institute for Deaf and Blind Childrenin affiliation with The University of Newcastle, Australiawww.ridbcrenwickcentre.com/imp/

Page 21: ABC of IMP - FCEI 2012 of IMP.pdf · The relationship between obligatory cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) and functional measures in young infants. Journal of the American

ReferencesBagnato, S.J., McKeating-Esterle, E., Fevola, A.F., & Bartolomasi, P. (2008). Valid use of clinical judgement (informed opinion) for early intervention eligibility.

Infants &Young Children, 20(1), 35-48.Camaioni, L., Caselli, M.C., Longobardi, E., & Volterra, V. (1991). A parent report instrument for early language assessment. First Language 11, 345-359.Ching, T.Y.C., Hil,l M. (2007). The Parents’ Evaluation of Aural/oral performance of Children (PEACH) scale: normative data. Journal American Academy of

Audiology, 18(3), 221-237.Dale, P.S., Bates, E., Reznick, J.S., & Morisset, C. (1989). The validity of a parent report instrument of child language at twenty months. Journal of Child Language,

16, 239-249.Davis, B.L., & Velleman, S.L., (2000). Differential diagnosis and treatment of developmental apraxia of speech in infants and toddlers. Infant-Toddler

Intervention, 10, 177–192.Evans Morris, S. (1982) Pre-speech Assessment Scale. New Jersey: J.A. Preston Corporation.Golding, M., Pearce, W., Seymour, J., Cooper, A., Ching, T., & Dillon, H. (2007). The relationship between obligatory cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) and

functional measures in young infants. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 18, 117-125.Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore: Brookes.Huttenlocher, J. (1998). Language input and language growth. Preventive Medicine 27,195-199. Ingram, D. (1989). Phonological disability in children (2nd ed.). London: Cole and Whurr Ltd. Koopmans-van Beinum, FJ. Clement, CJ. & van den Dikkenberg-Pot, I. (2001). Babbling and the lack of auditory speech perception: a matter of coordination?.

Developmental Science 4: 61-70.Kuhl, P.K., (2004). Early language acquisition: cracking the speech code. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 831-843.Lyytinen, P., Poikkeus, A-M., Leiwo, M., Ahonen, T., & Lyytinen, H. (1996). Parents as informants of their child's vocal and early language development. Early Child

Development & Care 126: 15-25.MacNeilage, P.F., Davis, B.L., Kinney, A., & Matyear, C.L. (2000). The motor core of speech: A comparison of serial organization patterns in infants and languages.

Child Development ,71(1), 153-163.McQueen, M. (2010). The new rules of engagement: A guide to understanding and connecting with Generation Y. Morgan James Publishing.Maassen, B. (2002) ‘Issues contrasting adult acquired versus developmental apraxia of speech’, Seminars in Speech and Language 23: 257–266.Mayne, A.M., Yoshinaga-Itano, C., Sedey, A.L., et al. Expressive vocabulary development of infants and toddlers who are deaf or hard of hearing. Volta Review

1998; 100:1–28.Moeller, M.P., Hoover, B., Putman, C., Arbataitis, K., Bohnenkamp, G., Peterson, B., Wood, S.L., Lewis, D.E., Pittman, A.L. & Stelmachowicz, P.G. (2007).

Vocalizations of infants with hearing loss compared to infants with normal hearing: Part I - Phonetic development. Ear & Hearing. 28, 605-627.

Moeller, M.P,. Hoover, B., Peterson, B., & Stelmachowicz, P. (2009). Consistency of hearing aid use in infants with early-identified hearing loss. American Journal of Audiology, 18(1),14–23

Moore, J.A., Prath, S., & Arrieta, A. (2007). Early Spanish speech acquisition following cochlear implantation. The Volta Review, 106(3), 321-341.Nathani, S., Ertmer, D.J., & Stark, R.E. (2006). Assessing vocal development in infants and toddlers. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 20(5): 351-369.O’Donoghue, G., Nikolopoulos, T., Archbold, S., & Tait, M.(1999). Cochlear implants in young children: The relationship between speech perception and speech

intelligibility. Ear & Hearing, 20, 419–425.Oblinger, D.G., & Oblinger, J.L. (Eds.) (2005). Educating the Net Generation. Available on-line: http://www.educause.eduOller, DK. (2000) The emergence of the speech capacity. Mawah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Oller, D K. (2006) 'Vocal language development in deaf infants: new challenges', in P. Spencer and M. Marschark (Eds.) The Spoken Language Development of

Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children, pp. 22-44. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Oller, D.K., Eilers, R.E., Bull, D.H. & Carney, A.E. (1985): “Prespeech vocalizations of a deaf infant: a comparison with normal metaphonological development”,

Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 28: 47-63.Pierce, W., Golding, M., & Dillon, H. (2007). Cortical evoked potentials in the assessment of auditory neuropathy: Two case studies. Journal of the American

Academy of Audiology, 18, 380-390.Rance, G., & Barker, E.J., (2008). Speech perception in children with auditory neuropathy/dyssynchrony managed with either hearing aids or cochlear implants.

Otology & Neurotology, 29, 179-182.Riou, E., Gosh, S., Francoeur, E., & Shevell, M. (2009). Global developmental delay and its relationship to cognitive skills. Developmental Medicine & Child

Neurology, 51, 600-606.Robbins A.M., Renshaw J.J., & Berry S.W. (1991). Evaluating meaningful auditory integration in profoundly hearing-impaired children. American Journal of

Otololaryngology, 12(Suppl), 144150.Ryan, K. (2009). Meet the Gen Y parents. Landor. Available on-line: http://www.landor.com/index.cfm?do=thinking.article&storyid=709Sirimanna, T. (May, 2010). Auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder (ANSD) in children: Aetiology, risk factors, categorization and outcome predictors'. Paper

presented at the 10th PAIG Conference, Reading, UK.Sparrow, S.S., Balla, D.A., & Cicchetti, D.V. (1984). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Stoel-Gammon, C. (1989). Prespeech and early speech development of two late talkers. First Language, 9,207–24.Thal, D., O’Hanlon, L., Clemmons, M., & Fralen, L. (1999). Validity of a parent report measure of vocabulary and syntax for preschool children with language

impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 482–496.Thal, D., DesJardin, J. L., & Eisenberg, L. S. (2007). Validity of the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories for measuring language abilities in

children with cochlear implants. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 16, 54–64.Vihman, MM. (1996) Phonological Development: The Origins of Language in the Child. Oxford: Blackwell.