Explore the vast range of titles available.

Speeches of praise and blame constituted a form of oratory put to brilliant and creative use in the classical Greek period (fifth to fourth century BC) and the Roman imperial period (first to fourth century AD), and they have influenced public speakers through all the succeeding ages. Yet unlike the other classical genres of rhetoric, epideictic rhetoric remains something of a mystery. It was the least important genre at the start of Greek oratory, but its role grew exponentially in subsequent periods, even though epideictic orations were not meant to elicit any action on the part of the listener, as judicial and deliberative speeches attempted to do. So why did the ancients value the oratory of praise so highly?In Epideictic Rhetoric, Laurent Pernot offers an authoritative overview of the genre that surveys its history in ancient Greece and Rome, its technical aspects, and its social function. He begins by defining epideictic rhetoric and tracing its evolution from its first realizations in classical Greece to its eloquent triumph in the Greco-Roman world. No longer were speeches limited to tribunals, assemblies, and courts—they now involved ceremonies as well, which changed the political and social implications of public speaking. Pernot analyzes the techniques of praise, both as stipulated by theoreticians and as practiced by orators. He describes how epideictic rhetoric functioned to give shape to the representations and common beliefs of a group, render explicit and justify accepted values, and offer lessons on new values. Finally, Pernot incorporates current research about rhetoric into the analysis of praise.

Purpose: In this article, the authors report reliability and validity evidence for the Dynamic Evaluation of Motor Speech Skill (DEMSS), a new test that uses dynamic assessment to aid in the differential diagnosis of childhood apraxia of speech (CAS). Method: Participants were 81 children between 36 and 79 months of age who were referred to the Mayo Clinic for diagnosis of speech sound disorders. Children were given the DEMSS and a standard speech and language test battery as part of routine evaluations. Subsequently, intrajudge, interjudge, and test-retest reliability were evaluated for a subset of participants. Construct validity was explored for all 81 participants through the use of agglomerative cluster analysis, sensitivity measures, and likelihood ratios. Results: The mean percentage of agreement for 171 judgments was 89% for test-retest reliability, 89% for intrajudge reliability, and 91% for interjudge reliability. Agglomerative hierarchical cluster analysis showed that total DEMSS scores largely differentiated clusters of children with CAS vs. mild CAS vs. other speech disorders. Positive and negative likelihood ratios and measures of sensitivity and specificity suggested that the DEMSS does not overdiagnose CAS but sometimes fails to identify children with CAS. Conclusions: The value of the DEMSS in differential diagnosis of severe speech impairments was supported on the basis of evidence of reliability and validity. (Contains 5 tables and 2 figures.)

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to explore the extent to which child- and therapy-level factors contribute to gains in speech sound production accuracy for children with speech sound disorders in receipt of school-based services. Method: Data were obtained from 126 kindergarten and first- and second-grade children currently in receipt of speech therapy services in their public school setting. Pretest and posttest measures of spontaneous speech production and language ability were collected at the beginning and end of one academic year. Using a spontaneous speech sample, percentage of consonants correct (PCC) was calculated for each child; a gain score was computed by subtracting the pretest PCC score from the posttest PCC score. The children's speech-language pathologist completed weekly therapy logs during business-as-usual therapy, indicating the frequency, duration, and group composition of services throughout the school year. Results: Results supported that gain in PCC from pretest to posttest was predicted by several child- and therapy-level variables. Children's initial speech sound severity was negatively related to gains in PCC. Our results also supported that the total number of therapy sessions received in a year was positively predictive of PCC gain. Interestingly, the number of individual therapy sessions was negatively associated with PCC gain. Conclusion: Several malleable therapy factors contribute to gains in speech sound accuracy for children with speech sound disorders. Speech-language pathologists should consider how these factors may be manipulated to best tailor treatment to the individual needs of the children on their caseloads.

Purpose: The gold standard for diagnosing childhood apraxia of speech (CAS) is expert judgment of perceptual features. The aim of this study was to identify a set of objective measures that differentiate CAS from other speech disorders. Method: Seventy-two children (4-12 years of age) diagnosed with suspected CAS by community speech-language pathologists were screened. Forty-seven participants underwent diagnostic assessment including presence or absence of perceptual CAS features. Twenty-eight children met two sets of diagnostic criteria for CAS (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2007b; Shriberg, Potter, & Strand, 2009); another 4 met the CAS criteria with comorbidity. Fifteen were categorized as non-CAS with phonological impairment, submucous cleft, or dysarthria. Following this, 24 different measures from the diagnostic assessment were rated by blinded raters. Multivariate discriminant function analysis was used to identify the combination of measures that best predicted expert diagnoses. Results: The discriminant function analysis model, including syllable segregation, lexical stress matches, percentage phonemes correct from a polysyllabic picture-naming task, and articulatory accuracy on repetition of /p?t?k?/, reached 91% diagnostic accuracy against expert diagnosis. Conclusions: Polysyllabic production accuracy and an oral motor examination that includes diadochokinesis may be sufficient to reliably identify CAS and rule out structural abnormality or dysarthria. Testing with a larger unselected sample is required.

This exciting new text offers a comprehensive, engaging, and readable overview to the dynamic field of medical speech-language pathology. It is the first medical speech-language pathology textbook that is not focused on the various disorders, but instead examines the scope and key concepts of the profession, such as clinical reasoning, interprofessional practice, and the continuum of care. The book provides an in-depth overview of health care workplace settings (acute care, inpatient rehabilitation, skilled nursing, home health, outpatient care, pediatric service delivery, pharmacology, and neuroimaging).

Purpose Speech and language disorders are hallmark features of 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22qDS). Learning disabilities, cognitive deficits, palate abnormalities, velopharyngeal dysfunction, behavioral differences, and various medical and psychiatric conditions are also major features of this syndrome. The goal of this document is to summarize the state of the art of current clinical and scientific knowledge regarding 22qDS for speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and provide recommendations for clinical management. Method Best practices for management of individuals with 22qDS were developed by consensus of an expert international group of SLPs and researchers with expertise in 22qDS. These care recommendations are based on the authors' research, clinical experience, and literature review. Results This document describes the features of 22qDS as well as evaluation procedures, treatment protocols, and associated management recommendations for SLPs for the often complex communication disorders present in this population. Conclusion Early diagnosis and appropriate management of speech-language disorders in 22qDS is essential to optimize outcomes and to minimize the long-term effects of communication impairments. Knowledge of this diagnosis also allows anticipatory care and guidance regarding associated features for families, health care, and educational professionals.

Nowadays speech synthesis or text to speech (TTS), an ability of system to produce human like natural sounding voice from the written text, is gaining popularity in the field of speech processing. For any TTS, intelligibility and naturalness are the two important measures for defining the quality of a synthesized sound which is highly dependent on the prosody modeling using acoustic model of synthesizer. The purpose of this review survey is firstly to study and analyze the various approaches used traditionally (articulatory synthesis, formant synthesis, concatenative speech synthesis and statistical parametric techniques based on hidden Markov model) and recently (statistical parametric based on deep learning approaches) for acoustic modeling with their pros and cons. The approaches based on deep learning to build the acoustic model has significantly contributed to the advancement of TTS as models based on deep learning are capable of modelling the complex context dependencies in the input data. Apart from these, this article also reviews the TTS approaches for generating speech with different voices and emotions to makes the TTS more realistic to use. It also addresses the subjective and objective metrics used to measure the quality of the synthesized voice. Various well known speech synthesis systems based on autoregressive and non-autoregressive models such as Tacotron, Deep Voice, WaveNet, Parallel WaveNet, Parallel Tacotron, FastSpeech by global tech-giant Google, Facebook, Microsoft employed the architecture of deep learning for end-to-end speech waveform generation and attained a remarkable mean opinion score (MOS).

Purpose: The clinical diagnosis of motor speech disorders (MSDs) is mainly based on perceptual approaches. However, studies on perceptual classification of MSDs often indicate low classification accuracy. The aim of this study was to determine in a forced-choice dichotomous decision-making task (a) how accuracy of speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in perceptually classifying apraxia of speech (AoS) and dysarthria is impacted by speech task, severity of MSD, and listener's expertise and (b) which perceptual features they use to classify. Method: Speech samples from 29 neurotypical speakers, 14 with hypokinetic dysarthria associated with Parkinson's disease (HD), 10 with poststroke AoS, and six with mixed dysarthria associated with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (MD-FlSp [combining flaccid and spastic dysarthria]), were classified by 20 expert SLPs and 20 student SLPs. Speech samples were elicited in spontaneous speech, text reading, oral diadochokinetic (DDK) tasks, and a sample concatenating text reading and DDK. For each recorded speech sample, SLPs answered three dichotomic questions following a diagnostic approach, (a) neurotypical versus pathological speaker, (b) AoS versus dysarthria, and (c) MD-FlSp versus HD, and a multiple-choice question on the features their decision was based on. Results: Overall classification accuracy was 72% with good interrater reliability, varying with SLP expertise, speech task, and MSD severity. Correct classification of speech samples was higher for speakers with dysarthria than for AoS and higher for HD than for MD-FlSp. Samples elicited with continuous speech reached the best classification rates. An average number of three perceptual features were used for correct classifications, and their type and combination differed between the three MSDs. Conclusions: The auditory-perceptual classification of MSDs in a diagnostic approach reaches substantial performance only in expert SLPs with continuous speech samples, albeit with lower accuracy for AoS. Specific training associated with objective classification tools seems necessary to improve recognition of neurotypical speech and distinction between AoS and dysarthria.

The aim of this tutorial is to support speech-language pathologists (SLPs) undertaking assessments of multilingual children with suspected speech sound disorders, particularly children who speak languages that are not shared with their SLP. The tutorial was written by the International Expert Panel on Multilingual Children's Speech, which comprises 46 researchers (SLPs, linguists, phoneticians, and speech scientists) who have worked in 43 countries and used 27 languages in professional practice. Seventeen panel members met for a 1-day workshop to identify key points for inclusion in the tutorial, 26 panel members contributed to writing this tutorial, and 34 members contributed to revising this tutorial online (some members contributed to more than 1 task). This tutorial draws on international research evidence and professional expertise to provide a comprehensive overview of working with multilingual children with suspected speech sound disorders. This overview addresses referral, case history, assessment, analysis, diagnosis, and goal setting and the SLP's cultural competence and preparation for working with interpreters and multicultural support workers and dealing with organizational and government barriers to and facilitators of culturally competent practice. The issues raised in this tutorial are applied in a hypothetical case study of an English-speaking SLP's assessment of a multilingual Cantonese- and English-speaking 4-year-old boy. Resources are listed throughout the tutorial.