Talk:Electronic fluency device

message: An issue was raised whether to include two studies of SpeechEasy devices that were presented at professional conferences but not published. A discussion of this issue is at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Are_papers_presented_at_scientific_conferences_reliable.3F. Based on the discussion I've included the two studies.--TDKehoe 17:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing studies presented at conferences.

message: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images says "Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include: ...When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts...On a lead image that captures the essence of the article." These cases described the lead photo and the two charts, so I suggest setting them at 320px.--TDKehoe 21:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image sizes

message: The way the devices are listed, they can't be linked to. E.g., if another website wanted to refer to all of the studies of SpeechEasy devices, there's no way to link to just the SpeechEasy section. These should be changed to sub-sections.--TDKehoe 23:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Devices not linkable

message: User:Slp1 removed the following section because it was "US specific funding information." I disagree with that edit. IMHO, US-specific information can best be improved by adding information about other countries, not by removing information about the United States.--TDKehoe 15:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree that balancing the article is the correct response in most cases of systematic bias, though obviously if information for every country in the world was given in such detail the article would be way too long (and very tedious);)  However, in this case I also do not feel that this funding information is in itself encyclopedic, making the article seem more like an ad than it is already. Please note that similar articles such Hearing aids Artificial limbs do not have such a section on getting funding.  Given that TDKehoe is also a manufacturer of one of these devices review/Anti-stuttering devices/archive1, there is also the COI issue to be considered.--Slp1 17:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Telecommunications Relay Service is an article about state programs that are similar to the special telephone equipment distribution programs (STEDP). In most states these are the same programs. Perhaps there should be an article about STEDP, with a link from the anti-stuttering devices article?--TDKehoe 20:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third-party payment for anti-stuttering devices

message: TdKehoe, as you have acknowledged involvement with CasaFuturaTech, this article needs to carefully cited and held to all Wiki standards.  I'm sure you've already aware of Wiki's conflict of interest guidelines.
* Please explain the need for the advert list of devices, in relation to WP:NOT and WP:ADVERT.
:Good point. My original intentional was that a NPOV would list every anti-stuttering device. But now that the list is complete I can see that the value in this section is in the studies. I'll change this section to "Studies of anti-stuttering devices" and delete the devices that don't have studies.--TDKehoe (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll reword that section.--TDKehoe (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That section isn't an FAQ because the questions are unanswered. But I'll rephrase the wording and change the title of the section.--TDKehoe (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I've cleaned up the section headings.--TDKehoe (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:ITALICS says to use italics for "words as words" so italics in the "terms used" section is correct.--TDKehoe (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Cleaned up, there was only one case of this.--TDKehoe (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, you removed the previous advert and cleanup tags, with the edit summary: "I removed the 'cleanup' and 'advert' tags because this article was peer-reviewed two months ago and no changes have been made in over a month."  The peer review had no input other than mention of your conflict of interest, and "no work done" is not a reason to remove tags.  Work done to correct issues would be a reason to remove tags.  The article is somewhat cleaner in terms of WP:MOS issues than it was months ago, but it still has a lack of peer-reviewed citations and what appears to be biased original research with an advert quality, including the types of issues raised on the stuttering FAR.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm going to take a break and tackle the references later. I'm waiting for Amazon to deliver the new edition of Bloodstein's Handbook of Stuttering, which will help with the references.--TDKehoe (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I may not be able to look in again until after holiday guests leave; will see how things go.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup, advert, COI, and refimprove

message: I was the one who originally notified you of conflict of interest concerns on this article and your contributions to it. While I agree completely with SandyGeorgia's comments above, I have other concerns on a complete lack of citations for much of the material in the article. Please see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on no original research and verifiability.
Here are some more comments on the article as it now is (most of these are more  sepecifics on Sandy's comments above):
*The current lead paragraph does not meet the criteria in WP:LEAD. The lead needs to summarize the article, just as an abstract does in a scientific paper. No information should be solely in the lead and all major topics (headers and subheaders) should be mentioned in the lead paragraphs. References in the lead are not needed except for direct quotes or extraordinary claims. 
*In addition to the questionable references, many of the sections or subsections within them have no references at all. Specifically:
**There are no references in the "Terms used" section - these  all need citations.
**Four of the eight bulleted points in "Types of altered-auditory feedback (AAF)" have no references - these  all need citations.
**Two of five bulleted points in "Unknown effects of altered auditory feedback (AAF)"  have no references - these  all need citations.
**Two of four bulleted points in "Other differences between anti-stuttering devices" have no references - these  all need citations. The Manual of Style also says not to include the title of the article in section headers, so this and the nextsection need new section titles.
*At least three references appear to be presentations that were not actually published. These are current numbers 4 (Brenaut, L., Morrison, S., Kainowski, J., Armson, J., Stuart, A. (1995). "Effect of Altered Auditory Feedback on Stuttering During Telephone Use. Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Presentation at American Speech-Language Hearing Association convention, 1995".), 19 (Runyan, C., Runyan, Sara. (2006). "[The Speech Easy: A Two Year Study". presentation at the American Speech-Language Hearing Association convention, November 2005. A follow-up study was presented at the American Speech-Language Hearing Association convention, November 2006..), and 29 (Hyde L (August). "Comparison of the SpeechEasy and Casa Futura/Jabra fluency devices". presentation to the Canadian Association of Persons who Stutter conference.). Please see the policy on reliable sources, which says that they must be published. I am also leery of current reference #30 (Pollard, R., Ellis, J.. Ramig, P., Finan, D. (2007). "A longitudinal study of the effects of the SpeechEasy device in naturalistic environments" (PDF). presentation to American Speech-Language Hearing Association convention, November 2006; an updated study was presented at the International Stuttering Association conference, May 2007.) which does not appear to be peer reviewed, just the handout from the presentation.
Please address these concerns as soon as possible. thanks, Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 00:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other concerns 

message: Does this statement need five sources?  Is there one source that is more comprehensive, or more of a review, than the others, so that it can be reduced to one or two definitive sources?  Since the studies are disputed, I'm unclear why we include all of them?  Also, there's an extra word in there.
*Studies have shown that altered auditory feedback (including delayed auditory feedback, frequency altered feedback) can reduce stuttering in by 40 to 80 per cent.[25][16][26][27][28]
Something is goofed up in this sentence:
*The longterm effects of altered feedback are also unclear: anecdotal reports suggest that receive continued but lessened effects in the long term.
The prose here needs re-working to avoid based, based, based.
*In particular, studies have tended to be based in a laboratory-based, and based on short speech samples and reading tasks. 
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: "Electronic fluency aids" is a poor choice of title because the field of fluency disorders includes stuttering (properly called developmental stuttering); cluttering; spastic dysphonia; a wide variety of neurogenic fluency disorders including speech disorders associated with Parkinson's disease, strokes, and head injuries; and psychogenic fluency disorders. While the same devices are often used to treat both stuttering and other fluency disorders, this article covers only the use of the devices with stuttering. I dislike the term "anti-stuttering device" because it suggests a device that you put on and your stuttering is instantly and completely gone.  I would like the devices to be called "stuttering treatment devices" because this suggests that the devices are one way (among many) to treat stuttering, that the devices can be used with other stuttering treatments, etc. However this term hasn't caught on. My suggestion is to title the article "Stuttering treatment devices" but make "Anti-stuttering devices" a search phrase that links to this article.--TDKehoe 17:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this article covers only the use of devices with stuttering, it should be expanded to cover all devices.  There is consensus established already against the term "anti-suttering devices", as it is not supported by the sources.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name Change

message: delayed auditory feedback (DAF) merger... sure whatever. I've never read about Electronic fluency device but I'm not usually reading that stuff either. --CyclePat (talk) 06:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: I added some references and removed some overbroad generalizations. I also added references for the two graphics. I was going to add references to some sections such as the size of devices or that some devices remove background noise, but these references would be to commercial websites (including my company's website); would that be a conflict of interest?--TDKehoe (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see that you'd added the full reference to "Ward, 2006" because you listed this reference without a reference number, when all of the other references have reference numbers. Please put reference numbers on all your references. I didn't need to reference my statement that different AAF devices are different because the article has pages of material discussing the differences between AAF devices, with about 40 references. For example, reference #26 (Stuart, 1997) compared two types of AAF (monaural vs. binaural).--TDKehoe (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See above for response re formatting of references. Yes you do need to specifically reference your edits, to the claims made.  --Slp1 (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The references are on the pages for the graphics.--TDKehoe (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had already noted this. But my main point, (that you did not describe your edits accurately: you did not add references, you added the graphics) still stands--Slp1 (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The Pollard study was complete when it was presented at the ISA conference in May, 2007. Wikipedia policy allows citing studies presented at conference, see Template:Cite_conference. The Pollard study was presented at two of the most respected conferences. But if you don't like it I'll change the reference to the Armson study in which AAF devices where used in several speaking situations, including public speaking.--TDKehoe (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which Armson study are you talking about?--Slp1 (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You're confusing the results after one year and the results after four years. I reported the two studies accurately.--TDKehoe (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm no. Your edit claimed "I.e., the computers were most effective, the parents next most effective, and the speech-language pathologists were least effective in the long term. At the 1% disfluency level, the computers and the parents were about four times more effective than the speech-language pathologists." The conclusion of the first, 1996  study says: "The results of the present study showed that all three treatments were reasonably successful for children aged 9-14 years who stutter and there were no statistically significant differences between, the treatment groups means in treatment efficacy as measured by stuttering frequency across time." The Hancock et all 1998 study confirms this saying "The 3-month results of the controlled trial showed all 3 experimental groups had substantially and significantly lower levels of stuttering in comparison to the no-treatment controls. There were no significant differences between the 3 treatments up to 1 year post-treatment in terms of treatment effectiveness", and "Results demonstrate that treatment gains were maintained in the long term, with rates of stuttering similar to the 1 -year postoutcomes.There were no significant differences among the 3 treatments in long-term effectiveness." Your claim that some treatments were better than others are not supported by the conclusions of the authors of either study,(see above) nor subsequent researchers who have quoted the study (e.g. Ward p. 241,).  You also include other original research and commentary: "This may have been due to the more dysfluent children receiving additional speech therapy."  Nowhere in Hancock's 1998 study is this suggestion made, and in fact, it is specifically stated that only 12% had received any additional therapy. So, overall, no, I do not believe that you have reported the study accurately.Slp1 (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks again for your feedback, it has been very helpful.--TDKehoe (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Added references, removed generalizations

message: I've added a biofeedback section. When I have time I'll add studies of CAFET system and other non-EMG devices. Again, to add references for some items I'll need to reference commercial websites such as Dr. Fluency and Hollins. Is this acceptable?--TDKehoe (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Added biofeedback section

message: 1. "Electronic fluency devices (also known as..." The FDA uses the term "anti-stammering device." "Assistive devices" and "electronic aids" are too broad terms to be meaningful in this context.--TDKehoe (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistakes (December 22, 2009)

message: 13. There are 13 mentions of SpeechEasy devices in this article, one mention each of four other devices (three no longer on the market), and no mentions of VoiceAmp or Casa Futura Technologies devices (these three companies have more or less equal market share, with Fluency Master a more distant fourth). The reference list has three studies of Casa Futura Technologies devices (Zimmerman, 1997;Van Borsel, 2003; Radford, 2005) and four studies of SpeechEasy devices (Stuart 2004 and 2006; Armson, 2006; O'Donnell, 2008; Pollard, 2009). I'm aware of 14 other studies of Casa Futura Technologies devices, I'm not aware of any other studies of SpeechEasy devices. Also the sentence "Current devices may be similar in size and appearance to a hearing aid, including in-the-ear and completely-in-the-canal models" is another reference to SpeechEasy, which makes the only ITE and CIC devices. Vocaltech and Casa Futura Technologies devices don't look like hearing aids, they look more like iPods. Did a SpeechEasy employee or a dealer edit this article to promote SpeechEasy? Maybe someone could go through the edit history and see if one person made all 13 mentions of SpeechEasy.--TDKehoe (talk) 04:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias towards SpeechEasy?

message: 14. In general this article is confusing. It makes general statements and then supports the general statement with a specific study of one device used in one speaking situation. It would be less confusing to readers if descriptions of studies specified what device was used, what the speaking situation was, whether speech therapy was used in conjunction with the device, etc. There are only seven studies in peer-reviewed scientific journals that I know of that investigated long-term and/or high-stress use of the devices (Zimmerman, 1997;Van Borsel, 2003; Radford, 2005; Stuart 2004 and 2006; Armson, 2006; O'Donnell, 2008; Pollard, 2009). It might be better to summarize the seven studies, then present the conclusions that can be drawn from a meta-analysis of the studies, e.g., the issues of "wearing off" of effectiveness over time, long-term carryover fluency (training the user to no longer need the device), high-stress vs. low-stress speaking situations, and using devices in conjunction with stuttering therapy vs. no therapy. Those four issues pretty much cover effectiveness. Another important issue is hearing loss (both temporary and permanent) but no studies have investigated this. I've written summaries of the seven studies at , I'll give permission to copy my summaries, although they may be too technical for Wikipedia standards. I believe that I uploaded the graphics to Wikipedia a few years ago. If an editor wishes to read the original studies, I have PDF versions of most of them.--TDKehoe (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarity

message: Welcome back, Thomas, and I hope all is well with you.  Thanks for your extensive comments and feedback on the article. I appreciate that you have chosen to comment rather than edit the article directly. I have added some numbers to your comments, and will attempt to respond them briefly using these as indicators. 
*1. Per WP:V, we must reflect the peer-reviewed sources we cite, not our views on the "correct" term/interpretation.  On a very simple level, as in 2. "Computerized feedback devices" is the actual term used by Ward. Also per your comment at 2.  Ingham et al says "As yet, no data have been published demonstrating the effectiveness of any of these commercial systems in a clinical context." In 3. you claim that the Edinburgh Masker is not discontinued.  But it was according to the sources given, and the VoiceAmp only has software to "emulate" it according to this. Do you have any reliable sources to support your claim? If so, please produce it.  I also don't believe that you correctly interpret the authors' intent in 4. And in your comment 10, this is precisely the view of the secondary source cited. e.g. p 296 "Anecdotal reports from those who have tried DAF devices over a period of time are equivocal. Some had reported a continued but lessened benefit over a period of a few months, others found little benefit to start with, and did not continue with the device." If you honestly feel that the article does not reflect the sources cited, you have a point.  If you don't agree with the sources, then we get into original research, my point 2. 
*2. We cannot include our own personal research and opinion or meta analysis  Your attempt to reinterpret the evidence of peer-reviewed authors is obvious in 8,9,14 in particular.  Unless there is a reliable source that states what you consider to be "more accurate", then we are stuck with reporting with what they do say.   We also cannot report on what has not been studied.  The suggestion in 4.  that "The paragraph fails to mention that there is another type of FAF (frequency-shifting) which is used in SpeechEasy and VoiceAmp devices and has never been investigated in a peer-reviewed study: is an absolute no-no of original research, fine on your website or but contrary to policy here.  In addition, you refer to Craig et al (1996), and Hancock et al (1998),(in 2.) but as I pointed out two years ago, the conclusions of the authors of these studies do not support your personal conclusions. These issues of reinterpretation of published data also covers your comments in 5,7,8,9,10,12. In 12, for example, the abstract specifically states that "no conclusions are possible", as multiple intervention approaches were used at the same time. 
*3. Using Wikipedia to promote (or to reduce the negative view) of your product is a no-no. If you can prove that your products are less likely to have problems in noisy situations,(see 11.) let's see your sources.  Ditto with your comments in 14 where you complain about the preponderance of SpeechEasy references. I did an extensive search of the journal literature in the spring of 2009. The new articles I found were for the most part about about the Speech-Easy. What I found has been included, and you might be thankful, as the news about long-term Speech-Easy effectiveness has not been very good. If you have suggestions of peer-reviewed studies about your products (or those of your competitors) that I have missed, I would be glad to see them listed here. This is particularly important if you are going to claim for example, per the suggestion in 8. that "the long-term effects of altered-auditory feedback are different for different devices,". This kind of statement requires a peer-reviewed study that actual shows that one product is more effective than another, a study, that as far as I know, does not exist. But if it does I would be glad to be pointed in its direction.
*I'd like to say that some of your suggestions for improvement are useful. As the main editor here (and someone who has absolutely no connection to SpeechEasy or any other of these devices, despite allegations above), I will be happy to look into the more relevant critiques over the holiday season. --Slp1 (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for posting the peer review request, and thus reminding me (albeit somewhat obliquely) of my promise to address your legitimate points above.  As you will have seen I have made some changes in response to your posts above.  Those things I haven't changed are because I don't think policies and guidelines support your reasoning, as I have explained above.  If you still have questions or concerns, you could try asking me, or, if you want to get outside opinions, try posting a third opinion request. Peer review isn't actually used to sort out this kind of content dispute question, though I agree that one might think so based on the title. --Slp1 (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Tdkehoe

message: The article article about Hearing_aids has a section about third-party payers such as national health services that subsidize the cost of hearing aids. Is it allowable for the Electronic_fluency_devices to have a similar section?--TDKehoe (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is necessary or appropriate since we are not a how to manual. I'd also be concerned about finding reliable sources about the matter.  I'm not actually in favour of the list on the hearing aid page either.  It will becoming totally unmanageable as increasing numbers of countries get added. --Slp1 (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Third-party payers

message: The paragraph on "Masking" contains several mistakes. The Edinburgh Masker did not produce white noise, it produced sine waves synchronized to the user's fundamental frequency of phonation; effectiveness did not fade with time; and no study compared its effectiveness to DAF or FAF. “The Long Term Use of an Automatically Triggered Auditory Feedback Masking Device in the Treatment of Stammering,” Ann Dewar, A.D. Dewar, W.T. S. Austin, H.M. Brash, British Journal of Disorders of Communication, Vol. 14, No. 3., winter 1979/80 stated: “The sound produced by the instrument is a ‘humming’ noise of mixed low frequencies and harmonics of up to approximately 500 Hz with peak frequencies of 125-250 Hz but varying with the mean frequency of the subject’s vocal cords.” (page 220) That study found that of 195 stutterers (144 classed as severe, 43 as moderate, and 8 as slight) 89% “responded well to the device.” Of the 21 who did not respond well initially, 9 had silent blocks, 2 of whom then received therapy and were able to use the device; 6 showed a “satisfactory response to the device” but refused to use the device for “cosmetic or other reasons”; 3 wore hearing aids; and the remainder had stuttering accompanied by other disorders (dysarthria, Parkinsonism, mentally retarded). 67 subjects were then followed for periods from 6 to 28 months (average, 12 months). All responded to a questionnaire, and some were contacted by telephone, mail or direct clinical observation. The result was that 42% reported that the device was of “great” benefit, 40% of “considerable” benefit, and 18% of “slight” benefit. 67% reported carryover fluency (“as a result of using the Masker, their unaided speech fluency had improved”). Five said that they had “become fully fluent as the result of the using the Masker and have not needed to use the device for some time.” 70% said that there was no adaptation or “wearing off” of effectiveness, 25% said it was “slightly less” effective and 5% said it was “much less” effective. The devices of 14 subjects who’d reported loss of effectiveness were examined and all were found to be faulty, e.g., low batteries or broken wires. The average user used the device 3.3 hours per day. The volume in the users’ ears was measured in ten subjects and found to average 77.6 dBA, with a range of 70 to 85 dBA. The hearing of 5 subjects was tested and no indications of hearing damage were found. Another study (Block, S., Ingham, R.J., & Bench, R.J. (1996). The effects of the Edinburgh Masker on stuttering. Australian Journal of Human Communication Disorders, 24, 11-18.) found that the device reduced stuttering 50% both in the speech clinic and beyond. Herb Goldberg, who provided nearly 3000 devices to American stutterers, wrote to me on September 9, 1994, “I am in contact with over 500 people who use or have used the Masker. In most cases the end result is the person uses the device less and less as time passes due to less need for it.”--TDKehoe (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Edinburgh Masker

message: This sentence is misleading:
A 2006 review of stuttering treatments noted that none of the treatment studies on altered auditory feedback met the criteria for experimental quality.
The above sentence should be removed or changed to:
A 2006 review of stuttering treatments noted that three treatment studies of the SpeechEasy device did not the criteria for experimental quality.
The sentence in question suggests that the Bothe (2006) article was a review of all altered auditory feedback (AAF) treatment studies. There are hundreds of such studies, many done in speech labs with large, heavy devices. For example, the original delayed auditory feedback (DAF) devices in the 1960s were modified reel-to-reel tape recorders. The Bothe (2006) article reviewed three studies, all of the wearable SpeechEasy device. The article stated why most AAF studies were excluded: “Laboratory-bound investigations of fluency-inducing conditions…were excluded as not meeting [the review] criterion.” In other words, they only wanted to review studies of wearable AAF devices.
The Lincoln (2006) article reviewed 17 treatment studies of wearable AAF devices from at least four companies. The Lincoln (2006) review is discussed in this article and is, in my opinion, a superior review article. This article only mentions the Bothe (2006) review once, and the sentence is misleading if not inaccurate. The sentence should be removed. Alternatively the sentence should be modified to clarify that only three studies, all of devices from the same company, were examined. The sentence shouldn't suggest that all studies of the SpeechEasy device were examined. This article references seven studies of SpeechEasy devices, plus two letters to editors about the devices.--TDKehoe (talk) 03:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done   I made this edit for you. Edhaves (talk) 08:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request: Bothe (2006) review