Speech and Sound disorder in Children

Luca Romano^*

Department of Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany

Abstract

According to McLeod and Baker (2017), a variety of difficulties with children's speech sound production are referred to as "Speech Sound Disorders" (SSDs). Psycholinguistic theory and practices, which largely establish a clear distinction between phonological processes and phonetics/articulation, have had a significant impact on the foundations of clinical assessment, classification, and intervention for children with SSD (Shriberg, 2010). Therefore, the complex relationships between the etiology (distal), processing deficits (proximal), and behavioral levels (speech symptoms) are under-specified in many current SSD classification systems (Terband et al., 2019a). Because they have implications for differential diagnosis and treatment planning, it is essential to comprehend the intricate interactions between these levels (Terband et al., 2019a).There have been a few hypothetical endeavors made towards understanding thesecommunications (e.g., McAllister Byun and Tessier, 2016) and portraying discourse designsin kids either exclusively as the result of discourse engine execution limits or simply as a result of phonological/linguistic capability has been tested (Inkelas and Rose, 2007; 2012 (McAllister Byun). Using an alternative perspective based on the idea of an articulatory "gesture" within the broader concepts of the Articulatory Phonology model (AP; ), we intend to reconcile the phonetic-phonology dichotomy and discuss the interconnectedness between these levels and the nature of SSDs in the present paper. 1992 Browman and Goldstein). The resulting articulatory movements are characterized by the articulatory "gesture," which serves as a unit of phonological contrast (Browman and Goldstein, 1992; Goldstein and van Lieshout, 2008). We present proof supporting the idea of articulatory signals at the degree of discourse creation and as reflected in charge processes in the mind and examine how anarticulatory "motion"- based approach can represent articulatory ways of behaving in regular also, confused discourse creation

Keywords

Speech Sound Disorders (SSD) • Dynamical systems theory • Articulatory phonology • Childhood apraxia of speech (CAS) • Dysarthria, • Articulation • Phonological disorders • Speech motor control • Motor speech development

Introduction

The distinction between articulation and phonology in clinical speech-language pathology (SLP) and the question of whether a speech sound error1 is caused by motor-based articulation issues or language/grammar-based phonological issues has been debated for decades. The hypothesisnonpartisan term Discourse Sound Problems (SSDs) is presently utilizedas a split the difference to sidestep the imperatives related with the verbalization versus phonological turmoil division. The current definition depicts SSD as a scope of hardships creating discourse sounds in kids that can be expected to different limits connected with perceptual, discourse engine, or on the other hand semantic cycles (or a mix) of known (e.g., Down condition, congenital fissure and sense of taste) and obscure beginning [1].

Phonetics and phonology have been theoretically attempted to be integrated into clinical S-LP. In this unique situation, the portrayal of discourse designs in kids either exclusively as the result of execution constraints (i.e., challenges in gathering phonetic necessities emerging from engine what's more, physical contrasts) or simply as a result of phonological/linguistic capability has been tested. McAllister Byun (2011, 2012) and McAllister Byun and Tessier (2016) recommend a "phonetically grounded phonology" approach where individual-explicit creation experience and discourse engine advancement is incorporated into the development of kids' phonological/ linguistic portrayals. The creators examine this approach utilizing a few models connected with the balance of discourse sounds in word beginning (with essential pressure) positions. According to them, children's positional velar fronting in these positions (where coronal sounds replace velar sounds) is thought to be caused by a combination of jaw-dominated, undifferentiated tongue gesture (e.g., Gibbon and Wood, 2002; For more information on velar fronting and undifferentiated tongue gestures, see Section "Speech Delay") and the child's subtle articulatory efforts to replicate positional stress (increased linguo-palatal contact into the coronal region) [2, 3].

Delaying of speech

Speech-Motor Delay, also known as MSD-NOS is a subpopulation of youngsters giving hardships in discourse engine control and coordination that isn't predictable with highlights of CAS or Dysarthria. The SMD subpopulation's nature, diagnosis, and treatment plans are being discovered According to the available data, this group exhibits poor motor control (for instance, greater upper lip displacements and higher articulatory kinematic variability between the upper lip, lower lip, and jaw). They exhibit behavioral errors such as less accurate lexical stress, epenthesis errors, consonantal distortions, errors in glide production, and less accurate phonemes. As many of SMD's speech and prosody precision and stability deficits (such as consonant distortions, epenthesis, differences in vowel duration, and decreased accuracy of lexical stress) and adaptive strategies to increase speech motor stability cross-over with CAS and different issues examined prior, we won't repeat potential clarifications for these inside the setting of the AP model. SMD is thought to be an execution disorder: a lag in the development of neuro motor precision and speech motor control stability [4].

Dysfunction of cognition

There is little that pharmacological interventions can do to improve cognition in children who have cognitive issues prior to the onset of epilepsy. However, pharmacological treatment may be beneficial to the child's cognitive development if the child also has a comorbid condition like ADHD or depression [5, 6].

Optimizing seizure control with AEDs, preferably in immunotherapy, may be beneficial if the child experiences cognitive decline following the onset of seizures. Based on their mechanism of action on neural networks, all AEDs are likely to affect cognition in some way, but most of the time, AEDs do not significantly affect cognition in children with epilepsy. Cognitive issues have been reported with clonazepam, phenobarbital, primidone, and valproate in the first generation of AEDs (carbamazepine, clonazepam, ethosuximide, felbamate, gabapentin, phenytoin, primidone, and valproate). Phenobarbital-treated febrile seizures have been associated with cognitive impairment in comparison to those in untreated children. A review of the AEDs of the second and third generations (eslicarbazepine, lacosamide, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, perampanel, rufinamide, tiagabine, topiramate, vigabatrin, and zonisamide) revealed that the medications had few cognitive side effects [7, 8]. Topiramate, which has been linked in some studies to cognitive impairment in children (attention, memory, and language function), had the highest rate of cognitive side effects. Treatment of seizures and interictal EEG abnormalities in one important group of children with epileptic encephalopathies may influence cognitive outcome. Epileptic encephalopathies allude to a gathering of problems where the unremitting epileptic actionadds to serious mental and conduct weaknesses far in excess of what may be anticipated from the hidden pathology alone, and these can deteriorate over the long haul, prompting moderate cerebral brokenness. The epileptic encephalopathies include messes for example, early myoclonic encephalopathy, Ohtahara condition, relocating fractional captures of outset, puerile fits and Lennox- Gastaut condition. The idea that suppressing epileptic activity may improve cognition and behavior is ingrained in the concept of epileptic encephalopathy. Successful and early mediation may as a matter of fact further develop seizure control and formative result at times. There is evidence that interictal discharges are contributing to the neurological symptoms in two other rare syndromes that fall under the category of epileptic encephalopathies: Landau- Kleffner Syndrome (231-233) and Electrical Status Epilepticus of Sleep (ESES), which is also known as Continuous Spike Wave of Sleep (CSWS) (234-636). However, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that treating interictal spikes enhances cognitive function [9, 10].

Conclusion

Comorbidities are common in children with epilepsy and can significantly increase the disease burden. A more effective treatment plan for the child can be developed by taking into account the fact that certain AEDs can either exacerbate or cause the comorbidities. When the comorbid condition can be treated with an AED this ought to be thought of. Children with epilepsy can safely take most medications used to treat depression, anxiety, ADHD, and migraine in children without epilepsy. There is no evidence that drugs used to treat comorbidities in children without epilepsy are any less effective in children with epilepsy, despite the fact that there are few studies that provide clear data on the efficacy of drugs to treat the comorbidities of childhood epilepsy.

References

1. Morningstar M, Hung A, Mattson WI, Gedela S et al. Internalizing symptoms in intractable pediatric epilepsy: Structural and functional brain correlates. Epilepsy Behav. 103, 106845 (2020).

Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

2. Riechmann J, Willems LM, Boor R, Kieslich M et al. Quality of life and correlating factors in children, adolescents with epilepsy, and their caregivers: A cross-sectional multicenter study from Germany. Seizure. 69, 92-98.  

Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

3. Puka K, Ferro MA, Camfield CS et al. Trajectories of quality of life 10 years following a diagnosis of epilepsy in childhood. Epilepsia. 61, 1453–63 (2020).

Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

4. Austin JK, Harezlak J, Dunn DW et al. Behavior problems in children before first recognized seizures. Pediatrics. 107, 115-122 (2001).

Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

5. Dunn DW, Austin JK, Huster GA. Behaviour problems in children with new-onset epilepsy. Seizure. 6, 283-287 (1997).

Indexed at, Google Scholar

6. Kanner AM. Psychiatric comorbidity in patients with developmental disorders and epilepsy: a practical approach to its diagnosis and treatment. Epilepsy Behav. 3, 7-13 (2002).

Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

7. Lewis A Melancholia. Bipolar depression: A historical review.  J Mental Sci. 80, 1-14 (1934).

Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

8. Swinkels WA, Kuyk J, van Dyck R et al. Psychiatric comorbidity in epilepsy. Epilepsy Behav. 7, 37-50 (2005).

Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

9. Dunn DW, Austin JK, Perkins SM. Prevalence of psychopathology in childhood epilepsy: categorical and dimensional measures. Dev Med Child Neurol. 51, 364-372 (2009).

Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

10.  Salayev KA, Sanne B, Salayev R. Psychiatric and Behavioural Problems in Children and Adolescents with Epilepsy. East Asian Arch Psychiatry. 7, 106–114 (2017).

Indexed at, Google Scholar