Testing orofacial abilities of children who stutter: the Movement, Articulation, Mandibular and Sensory awareness (MAMS) assessment procedure

Objective

The purpose of this article is to introduce a new assessment designed to measure the orofacial abilities of children who stutter (CWS), the Movement, Articulation, Mandibular and Sensory Awareness (MAMS) Orofacial Assessment. The new instrument was developed and validated to measure orofacial abilities in a comprehensive manner.

Design

A group of 43 CWS (mean age 13.10 years, S.D. 2.10 years) and a control group of 32 fluent children (mean age 13.4 years, S.D. 2.6 years) were tested with the new tool. It was hypothesized, that (a) the MAMS is a reliable and valid instrument to measure orofacial abilities in CWS, (b) fluent children have better orofacial abilities than CWS and (c) that the therapy outcome of CWS depend on their orofacial abilities.

Results

The MAMS Orofacial Assessment proved to be a valid and reliable instrument to assess orofacial abilities. Compared with their fluent peers, CWS had significantly worse orofacial abilities. CWS with better orofacial abilities had a better prognosis for therapy outcome.

Conclusions

The new instrument is a reliable and valid tool to measure orofacial abilities and MAMS distinguishes CWS and controls. Orofacial abilities are one set of factors that influence therapy outcome for CWS.Educational objectives: The reader will get an overview over of the literature on orofacial abilities in people who stutter and will learn about and be able to (1) describe different characteristics of orofacial abilities, (2) use the MAMS Orofacial Assessment in the diagnostic process for CWS and for research purposes, and (3) interpret the results of the MAMS to use them for therapy planning.     

Public Trust in Genomic Risk Assessment for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Patient trust in personal medical information is critical to increasing adherence to physician recommendations and medications. One of the anticipated benefits of learning of one’s genomic risk for common diseases is the increased adoption of screening, preventive care and lifestyle changes. However, the equivocal results thus far reported of the positive impact of knowledge of genomic risk on behavior change may be due to lack of patients’ trust in the results. As part of a clinical study to compare two methods of communication of genomic risk results for Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), we assessed patients’ trust and preferred methods of delivery of genomic risk information. A total of 300 participants recruited from the general public in Durham, NC were randomized to receive their genomic risk for T2DM in-person from a genetic counselor or online through the testing company’s web-site. Participants completed a baseline survey and three follow-up surveys after receiving results. Overall, participants reported high levels of trust in the test results. Participants who received their results in-person from the genetic counselor were significantly more likely to trust their results than those who reviewed their results on-line (p?=?0.005). There was not a statistically significant difference in levels of trust among participants with increased genetic risk, as compared to other those with decreased or same as population risk (p?=?0.1154). In the event they undergo genomic risk testing again, 55 % of participants overall indicated they would prefer to receive their results online compared to 28 % that would prefer to receive future results in-person. Of those participants preferring to receive results online, 77 % indicated they would prefer to have the option to speak to someone if they had questions with the online results (compared to accessing results online without the option of professional consultation). This is the first study to assess satisfaction with genomic risk testing by the method of delivery of the test result. The higher rate of trust in results delivered in-person suggests that online access reports may not result in serious consideration of results and lack of adoption of recommended preventive recommendations.     

The role of individual differences in cognitive training and transfer

Working memory (WM) training has recently become a topic of intense interest and controversy. Although several recent studies have reported near- and far-transfer effects as a result of training WM-related skills, others have failed to show far transfer, suggesting that generalization effects are elusive. Also, many of the earlier intervention attempts have been criticized on methodological grounds. The present study resolves some of the methodological limitations of previous studies and also considers individual differences as potential explanations for the differing transfer effects across studies. We recruited intrinsically motivated participants and assessed their need for cognition (NFC; Cacioppo & Petty Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42:116–131, 1982) and their implicit theories of intelligence (Dweck, 1999) prior to training. We assessed the efficacy of two WM interventions by comparing participants’ improvements on a battery of fluid intelligence tests against those of an active control group. We observed that transfer to a composite measure of fluid reasoning resulted from both WM interventions. In addition, we uncovered factors that contributed to training success, including motivation, need for cognition, preexisting ability, and implicit theories about intelligence.     

Setting semantics: conceptual set can determine the physical properties that capture attention

The ability of a stimulus to capture visuospatial attention depends on the interplay between its bottom-up saliency and its relationship to an observer’s top-down control set, such that stimuli capture attention if they match the predefined properties that distinguish a searched-for target from distractors (Folk, Remington, & Johnston, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 18, 1030–1044 1992). Despite decades of research on this phenomenon, however, the vast majority has focused exclusively on matches based on low-level physical properties. Yet if contingent capture is indeed a “top-down” influence on attention, then semantic content should be accessible and able to determine which physical features capture attention. Here we tested this prediction by examining whether a semantically defined target could create a control set for particular features. To do this, we had participants search to identify a target that was differentiated from distractors by its meaning (e.g., the word “red” among color words all written in black). Before the target array, a cue was presented, and it was varied whether the cue appeared in the physical color implied by the target word. Across three experiments, we found that cues that embodied the meaning of the word produced greater cuing than cues that did not. This suggests that top-down control sets activate content that is semantically associated with the target-defining property, and this content in turn has the ability to exogenously orient attention.