There are at least three potential ways of providing intensified, systematic, and repeated exposure to multiple exemplars of phonological structures and contrasts (Ingram, 1989): first, through the techniques developed by Blache (1982), Weiner (1981) and others, often referred to as minimal contrast therapy or minimal pairs therapy;  second, auditory bombardment (Hodson and Paden, 1983, Monahan, 1986); and third, auditory input therapy (Flynn & Lancaster, 1996).

Auditory Bombardment (Focused Auditory Stimulation) 
Hodson and Paden (1983) developed the therapy procedure called auditory bombardment. Auditory bombardment is a procedure in which the client is provided with intensified, repeated, systematic exposure to multiple exemplars of phonological targets and contrasts. In the program described in Hodson & Paden, 1991 (pp 107-109) auditory bombardment  is just one important component. It involves children listening to amplified (through headphones) target words at the beginning and end of every session. Most of the time in each session is devoted to games that specifically evoke production of the targets. Professor Hodson now prefers to use the term "focused auditory stimulation" (in preference to the term "auditory bombardment") because of some concerns of  caregivers and audiologists about possible connotations of the  word "bombardment".

Focused Auditory Input
Professor Hodson describes a second procedure called focused auditory input. It is intended for very young children who are unwilling or unable to produce targets when we first see them. In this case  NO production is demanded but the clinician designs the environment to provide for lots of opportunity for the child to hear the target sound or pattern.  The clinician essentially does language stimulation activities (following child's lead, talking about what the child is doing etc.) and in the process the child gets exposed to lots of examples of the target.  Focused auditory input may only be used for a single "cycle". 

By increasing lexical frequency, minimal contrast activities provide a means of facilitating the child’s ability to recognise contrastive phones. It confronts them with the interconnections between the way a word is pronounced, the transmission of meaning, and communicative effectiveness. Auditory bombardment also increases lexical frequency and controls phonological input for limited periods, potentially presenting an opportunity for children to discover underlying phonological patterns for themselves. Often, in the clinical setting, it has been observed to trigger spontaneous rehearsal of bombardment words by children.

In PACT Therapy (Bowen, 1996, 1998) auditory bombardment involves words with common phonetic features (e.g., all starting with a particular target sound), or minimally contrasted words exemplifying a phonological process (e.g., tea-key, tap-cap, etc for velar fronting; or moo-moon, buy-bite, etc for final consonant deletion; or top-stop, nail-snail, etc for cluster reduction). Auditory bombardment is used on the basis that phonological progress is sensitive to phonological input (Ingram, 1989).

Hodson and Paden (1983) proposed that auditory bombardment helped develop "auditory images", allowing the child to learn to monitor incorrect productions, while production practice produced kinaesthetic images, which also assisted in error monitoring. Commenting on Hodson and Paden’s proposal, Ingram (1989) posited that a theoretical explanation for the apparent usefulness of auditory bombardment might lie in preliminary data from cross-linguistic studies of phonological acquisition.

References

Blache, S.E. (1982). Minimal word pairs and distinctive feature training. In M. Crary (Ed.). Phonological intervention: Concepts and procedures. San Diego: College-Hill Press Inc.

Bowen, C. (1996). Evaluation of a phonological therapy with treated and untreated groups of young children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Macquarie University.

Bowen, C. (1998). Developmental phonological disorders: A practical guide for families and teachers. Melbourne: The Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd

Flynn, L., & Lancaster, G. (1996). Children’s Phonology Sourcebook. Oxford: Winslow Press.

Hodson, B., & Paden, E. (1983). Targeting intelligible speech: A phonological approach to remediation. Texas: Pro-Ed.
Ingram, D. (1989). Phonological disability in children.(2nd ed.). London: Cole & Whurr, Ltd.

Hodson, B., & Paden, E. (1991). Targeting intelligible speech: A phonological approach to remediation. (2nd ed.). Texas: Pro-Ed.

Monahan, D. (1986). Remediation of common phonological processes. Four case studies. Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 17, 187-198.

Pye, C., Ingram, D., & List, H. (1987). A comparison of initial consonant acquisition in English and Quiche. In K.E. Nelson & A. Van Kleek (Eds.). Children’s Language. Erlbaum: Hillsdale.

Weiner, F. (1981). Treatment of phonological disability using the method of meaningful contrast: Two case studies. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 46, 97-103

Page updated 04 Feb 2010

http://www.speech-language-therapy.com/audbomb-2.htm