Search results

This paper, a theoretical article, aims to revisit the augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) communication model and its transmission processes and interface as proposed by Lloyd, Quist and Windsor in 1990. More specifically, the focus of this paper is on the classifications of the SELECT (i.e. the means to select symbols) and TRANS (i.e. the means to transmit messages) components of the AAC transmission processes and interface.

The field of AAC is evolving at a rapid rate. As the field continues to evolve in terms of its clinical, social, research and theoretical underpinnings, it is incumbent upon academics and practitioners in AAC to be cognizant of terminological and theoretical changes that may be needed to keep pace with the evolution of the field.

The authors welcome feedback from academics and clinicians with the hope that a more thorough discussion will lead stakeholders to more accurate and descriptive terminology related to the means to select and transmit components of the AAC model transmission processes.

The goal of this article was to suggest that the aided versus unaided classification continue to be used to classify the means to select but a new taxonomy be adopted for the means to transmit, thereby eliminating the use of the terms high and low technology. Terminology developed to describe TRANS should be unambiguous, include both expressive and receptive communication and be clinically relevant. In the opinion of the authors, the proposed taxonomy meets all three of these criteria.

When the augmentative and alternative communication (ACC) model (Lloyd et al., 1990) was proposed, these components of symbols were not considered, nor were they contemplated when superordinate (Lloyd and Fuller, 1986) and subordinate levels (Fuller et al., 1992) of AAC symbol taxonomy were developed. The purpose of this paper is to revisit the ACC model and propose a new symbol classification system called multidimensional quaternary symbol continuum (MQSC)

The field of AAC is evolving at a rapid rate in terms of its clinical, social, research and theoretical underpinnings. Advances in assessment and intervention methods, technology and social issues are all responsible to some degree for the significant changes that have occurred in the field of AAC over the last 30 years. For example, the number of aided symbol collections has increased almost exponentially over the past couple of decades. The proliferation of such a large variety of symbol collections represents a wide range of design attributes, physical attributes and linguistic characteristics for aided symbols and design attributes and linguistic characteristics for unaided symbols.

Therefore, it may be time to revisit the AAC model and more specifically, one of its transmission processes referred to as the means to represent.

The focus of this theoretical paper then, is on the current classification of symbols, issues with respect to the current classification of symbols in terms of ambiguity of terminology and the evolution of symbols, and a proposal for a new means of classifying the means to represent.

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon10.1108/JET-04-2021-0024

Graphic symbols have been used widely in the field of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). The advancement of technology in recent years has stimulated their development even further, thereby providing speech-language pathologists (SLPs) a wide range of options to choose for the individuals they support. However, existing literature on graphic symbols is scant and clinicians must base their decisions almost solely on clinical judgment. This paper aims to investigate the factors SLPs consider when choosing corpuses of graphic symbols for their clients.

An online survey was used that allowed multiple-choice responses. Data were analyzed and presented primarily as percentages.

Most respondents used graphic symbols with people having developmental disorders, and the corpuses of symbols they drew upon were based predominantly on availability, characteristics of the individual’s impairment or disability and intelligibility to the user and his or her communication partners. Existing policies related to graphic symbols also influence clinicians’ choices. SLPs search for support mainly from professional associations and training providers. In terms of use with technology, ready-made symbol packages for clinicians to use were found to be attractive.

Professional associations and institutions that focus on AAC need to provide adequate support to clinicians with a foundation based on evidence-based practice.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first research that focuses on current practices concerning the factors SLPs take into consideration when choosing the optimum graphic symbol corpus(es) for their clients.

This paper aims to present a critical discussion of theoretical concepts that drive the main contributions of the academic partners, by highlighting the contrasting perspectives and identifying areas of commonality.

The paper follows a contextualised approach to debating the issues of access and participation for people with ID in learning environments. Each discipline considers the user of ICT within a social context but draws on the theoretical domains and published literature associated with its own area.

Resonances are to be found across the academic disciplines in terms of an ecological or holistic view of the person with ID as a user of a learning environment. This is what binds the multi‐disciplinary perspective together.

This paper is a rare attempt to integrate three distinct academic disciplines to provide a coherent picture of the theoretical perspectives underpinning research by the authors into the development and use of an ICT system for people with learning difficulties.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the communication applications (apps) that can be used with devices such as the iPad, iPod and iPhone to support augmentative and alternative communication (AAC).

A brief discussion of the research into the use of high‐technology communication aids is followed by an introduction to the iPad, iPod and iPhone AAC apps.

These devices and apps clearly have a role within the spectrum of AAC devices currently available. They may have some distinct advantages in cost, ease of use and acceptability but more research into their use is needed.

This article starts with a model of communicative competence and presents some recent research into barriers in the use of high‐technology AAC. It suggests some ways in which AAC apps may address some of the barriers to implementation and functional use. Finally, the need for individual assessment to determine specific communication needs is stressed. These devices and apps may not always be the best solution for people with complex communication needs.

The purpose of this paper is to document augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) training provision by clinical services in England.

A questionnaire was used to obtain the following information concerning AAC training provision; frequency, length, type, content and cost, trainee occupations and numbers, and future training priorities, and information concerning training providers – service type, geographical area.

In total, 98 clinical service training providers in England responded. Services commonly reported providing AAC training to speech and language therapists, teaching assistants and teachers. Training around “use of specific AAC products, systems and technology” and “introducing/awareness raising of AAC products” were rated as high priority for future training and were two of the three subject areas where services reported the highest percentage of training. Training was predominantly provided at a foundation (basic) level.

There is no consensus on the amount or content of AAC training which professionals in England must receive. Evidence suggests that AAC training for pre-qualification professionals is limited and this paper has identified variation in the amount and type of post-qualification AAC training. While knowledge concerning specific AAC systems is necessary, focussing training primarily on this area may not address critical gaps in knowledge. There is a need for specific recommendations regarding AAC training for professionals in this field, to ensure professionals can fully support people who use AAC.

The purpose of this paper is to present an evaluation of a programme of training and support provided to staff, which aimed to encourage supported communication environments for people with learning disabilities.

Training, monitoring and support for communication, specifically augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) strategies, was provided by speech and language therapy staff to two residential services over 46 weeks. Staff and service user communications were observed pre- and post-intervention.

In one provision there was an increase in service user initiations and the use of some AAC strategies by support staff. In the other provision there was no change in service user initiations and a decrease in the range of AAC strategies used. It appears that some forms for AAC remain challenging for staff to implement.

This evaluation explores ways of using specialist support services to improve communication environments for people with learning difficulties. Possible reasons for differences in the outcome of the intervention are discussed. Future research into the types of communication interactions experienced by people with learning disabilities across the range of communication styles may be useful so that support staff can be better helped to provide sustained and enriched communication environments.

This chapter presents an exploration of the phenomenon of speaking with, or perhaps better stated “through,” a device. Autobiographical works and other published accounts of perceptions of Speech-Generating Devices (SGDs) by persons who have used them are reviewed. The bulk of the chapter focuses on insights gathered from research into the lived experiences of young people who use SGDs. Emerging themes focus on what is “said” by a person who cannot speak, how SGDs announce one’s being in the word, the challenge of one’s words not being one’s own, and the constant sense of being out of time. Reflections on these themes provide insights for practice in the fields of speech language pathology, education, and rehabilitation engineering. The importance of further qualitative inquiry as a method to gather and listen to the voices and experiences of these often unheard individuals is stressed.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate an idea of producing an assistive and augmentative communication (AAC) tool that uses natural human computer interfacing to accommodate the disabilities of children with cerebral palsy (CP) and assist them in their daily communication.

The authors developed a prototype that recognizes the real time detected emotions display on the face and send alerts to the caretakers through Short Messaging System (SMS) or loud speaker.

The evaluation result shows that the proposed prototype recognizes real time facial expressions from the children with CP with an average of 79.4 per cent, and a maximum of 88.3 per cent (standard deviation of 7.4 per cent) on ten children with CP. Evaluations were also conducted to investigate the effectiveness of the prototype to deliver critical expression messages to their caretakers. The result showed that 98.5 per cent of SMS was sent successfully to the caretakers (pre‐defined mobile phone number) with an average waiting time of 8.3 seconds.

The paper demonstrates the potential of the proposed prototype to assist children with CP to communicate with their caretakers in real time.

This paper discusses the opinions of people who use communication aids regarding the development of a voice input voice output communication aid (VIVOCA) using speech recognition technology. It uniquely combines the views of users of communication aids with those of speech and language therapists. Semi structured questionnaires were completed by 12 users of communication aids and 34 speech and language therapists discussed the concept of a VIVOCA in three focus groups. A thematic analysis of the information was carried out. Input, output and hardware requirements are discussed leading to specifications that therapists and users perceive would be required for a VIVOCA.