scholarly journals Comparison of Preschooler Verbal and Graphic Symbol Production Across Different Syntactic Structures

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gat Savaldi-Harussi ◽  
Leah Fostick
Keyword(s):  
Augmentative And Alternative Communication ◽  
Linguistic Knowledge ◽  
Alternative Communication ◽  
Syntactic Structures ◽  
Graphic Symbols ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Language Knowledge ◽  
Graphic Symbol ◽  
Verbal Production ◽  
The Impact

The present study focuses on the impact of graphic symbols used in Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) on clause construction. It is not yet well-understood to what extent communication produced via graphic symbols differs from verbal production. This study attempts shed light on the impact of the graphic symbol modality on message construction beyond individual differences, language knowledge, and language-specific patterns by providing a direct comparison between children’s verbal and graphic symbol production. Nineteen typically developing Hebrew-speaking children aged 4–5 years were presented with 16 short videos of actions and were asked to express what they saw verbally and by choosing among graphic symbols displayed on an iPad communication board. The 570 clauses produced by the children were coded and analyzed. A significant difference was found in favor of verbal speech across different syntactic structures in terms of utilization of the target lexicon, syntactic complexity, and expected target word order. These results are consistent with the existing literature for English. Implications for AAC practices are discussed, highlighting the notion that using graphic symbols to represent spoken language may not reflect actual linguistic knowledge and that adequate, explicit instruction is necessary for graphic representation of more complex linguistic structures.

scholarly journals Early Sentence Productions of 3- and 4-Year-Old Children Who Use Augmentative and Alternative Communication

2017 ◽  
Vol 60 (7) ◽  
pp. 1930-1945 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cathy Binger ◽  
Jennifer Kent-Walsh ◽  
Marika King ◽  
Lindsay Mansfield
Keyword(s):  
Augmentative And Alternative Communication ◽  
Communication Systems ◽  
Single Case ◽  
Receptive Language ◽  
Speech Disorders ◽  
Alternative Communication ◽  
Baseline Phase ◽  
Rule Based ◽  
Graphic Symbols ◽  
Graphic Symbol

Purpose This study investigated the early rule-based sentence productions of 3- and 4-year-old children with severe speech disorders who used single-meaning graphic symbols to communicate. Method Ten 3- and 4-year-olds requiring the use of augmentative and alternative communication, who had largely intact receptive language skills, received instruction in producing up to four different semantic–syntactic targets using an Apple iPad with a communication app. A single-case, multiple-probe, across-targets design was used to assess the progress of each participant and target. Generalization to new vocabulary was assessed, and a subgroup also was taught to produce sentences using grammatical markers. Results Some targets (primarily possessor-entity) were mastered in the baseline phase, and the majority of the remaining targets were mastered during intervention. All four children who completed intervention for grammatical markers quickly learned to use the markers accurately. Conclusions Expressive language potential for preschoolers using graphic symbol–based augmentative and alternative communication systems should not be underestimated. With appropriate presentation and intervention techniques, some preschoolers with profound speech disorders can readily learn to produce rule-based messages via graphic symbols.

Exploring AAC graphic symbol choices: a preliminary study

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 171-185
Author(s):  
Eliada Pampoulou ◽  
Donald R. Fuller
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Augmentative And Alternative Communication ◽  
Developmental Disorders ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Professional Associations ◽  
Alternative Communication ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Graphic Symbols ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Graphic Symbol

Purpose 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. Design/methodology/approach An online survey was used that allowed multiple-choice responses. Data were analyzed and presented primarily as percentages. Findings 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. Practical implications Professional associations and institutions that focus on AAC need to provide adequate support to clinicians with a foundation based on evidence-based practice. Originality/value 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.

Preschool-aged children have difficulty constructing and interpreting simple utterances composed of graphic symbols

2009 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANN SUTTON ◽  
NATACHA TRUDEAU ◽  
JILL MORFORD ◽  
MONICA RIOS ◽  
MARIE-ANDRÉE POIRIER
Keyword(s):  
Augmentative And Alternative Communication ◽  
Individual Response ◽  
Response Patterns ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Alternative Communication ◽  
Typically Developing Children ◽  
Response Strategies ◽  
Graphic Symbols ◽  
Graphic Symbol ◽  
Simple Sentences

ABSTRACTChildren who require augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems while they are in the process of acquiring language face unique challenges because they use graphic symbols for communication. In contrast to the situation of typically developing children, they use different modalities for comprehension (auditory) and expression (visual). This study explored the ability of three- and four-year-old children without disabilities to perform tasks involving sequences of graphic symbols. Thirty participants were asked to transpose spoken simple sentences into graphic symbols by selecting individual symbols corresponding to the spoken words, and to interpret graphic symbol utterances by selecting one of four photographs corresponding to a sequence of three graphic symbols. The results showed that these were not simple tasks for the participants, and few of them performed in the expected manner – only one in transposition, and only one-third of participants in interpretation. Individual response strategies in some cases lead to contrasting response patterns. Children at this age level have not yet developed the skills required to deal with graphic symbols even though they have mastered the corresponding spoken language structures.

Early Sentence Productions of 5-Year-Old Children Who Use Augmentative and Alternative Communication

2016 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 131-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cathy Binger ◽  
Jennifer Kent-Walsh ◽  
Marika King ◽  
Eliza Webb ◽  
Elijia Buenviaje
Keyword(s):  
Augmentative And Alternative Communication ◽  
Single Case ◽  
Receptive Language ◽  
Task Demands ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Alternative Communication ◽  
Rule Based ◽  
Normal Limits ◽  
Graphic Symbols ◽  
Graphic Symbol

Four 5-year-old children with receptive language within normal limits and who required augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) received instruction in producing six different semantic–syntactic structures (three treatment and three generalization targets). Participants accessed single-meaning graphic symbols using an AAC app on an iPad to create their messages. A single-case, multiple probe across targets design was used to assess the progress of each participant, and supplementary measures including self-corrections and error types were analyzed. Three participants mastered all six targets during baseline, with a fourth mastering four of six targets in baseline. In contrast to prior reports, findings from the current study indicate that some young children who require AAC can learn to produce rule-based messages using single-meaning graphic symbols rapidly and with minimal instruction. Careful attention to participant characteristics and task demands are required in future research to further refine approaches to teaching young participants to produce rule-based graphic symbol messages.

Improving Patient Safety and Patient–Provider Communication

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. 1017-1027 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard R. Hurtig ◽  
Rebecca M. Alper ◽  
Karen N. T. Bryant ◽  
Krista R. Davidson ◽  
Chelsea Bilskemper
Keyword(s):  
Acute Care ◽  
Augmentative And Alternative Communication ◽  
Health Care Team ◽  
Provider Communication ◽  
Alternative Communication ◽  
Patient Provider Communication ◽  
Acute Care Settings ◽  
Nurses Perceptions ◽  
Communication Needs ◽  
The Impact

Purpose Many hospitalized patients experience barriers to effective patient–provider communication that can negatively impact their care. These barriers include difficulty physically accessing the nurse call system, communicating about pain and other needs, or both. For many patients, these barriers are a result of their admitting condition and not of an underlying chronic disability. Speech-language pathologists have begun to address patients' short-term communication needs with an array of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) strategies. Method This study used a between-groups experimental design to evaluate the impact of providing patients with AAC systems so that they could summon help and communicate with their nurses. The study examined patients' and nurses' perceptions of the patients' ability to summon help and effectively communicate with caregivers. Results Patients who could summon their nurses and effectively communicate—with or without AAC—had significantly more favorable perceptions than those who could not. Conclusions This study suggests that AAC can be successfully used in acute care settings to help patients overcome access and communication barriers. Working with other members of the health care team is essential to building a “culture of communication” in acute care settings. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.9990962

Production and comprehension of graphic symbol utterances expressing complex propositions by adults who use augmentative and alternative communication systems

2004 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 349-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANN SUTTON ◽  
JILL P. MORFORD ◽  
TANYA M. GALLAGHER
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Relative Clause ◽  
Augmentative And Alternative Communication ◽  
Communication Systems ◽  
Alternative Communication ◽  
Complex Sentences ◽  
Graphic Symbol ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Symbol Display ◽  
Voice Output

We explored production and comprehension of complex sentences constructed using a limited vocabulary on a graphic symbol display with voice output by 25 adults who use augmentative and alternative communication. When asked to construct subject (SS) and object (OS) relative clause sentences, only a minority of participants encoded SS and OS relative clause sentences using different word orders. When asked to interpret graphic symbol utterances, most participants chose an SS interpretation. Thus, the word order used most frequently in production appeared to have a single preferred interpretation. The relationship between the word orders produced in graphic symbol utterances and the way the same word orders are interpreted is not necessarily straightforward.

The Impact of Presupposition on the Syntax and Morphology of a Child Who Uses AAC

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (12) ◽  
pp. 13-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patti L. Solomon-Rice ◽  
Gloria Soto ◽  
Wesley Heidenreich
Keyword(s):  
Augmentative And Alternative Communication ◽  
Literacy Skills ◽  
Background Information ◽  
High Tech ◽  
Alternative Communication ◽  
Complex Sentences ◽  
Communication Partner ◽  
Communication Needs ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Pragmatic Presupposition

Children with complex communication needs often rely on augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) to communicate. Use of AAC can result in messages with limited syntax and morphology that are difficult for communication partners to understand. This case study examines the linguistic productions of a child who uses high-tech AAC, with emerging literacy skills, under two pragmatic presupposition conditions. In Condition 1, the child believes the communication partner has a larger amount of background information about the topic being discussed. In Condition 2, the child presupposes the communication partner has less background information about the topic being discussed. Condition 2 resulted in the child's production of more complex morphology and syntax in comparison to Condition 1. The results suggest pragmatic presupposition might have impacted the level of morphologic and syntactic complexity produced. Possible clinical implications and suggestions for facilitating production of linguistically complex sentences are discussed.

Teacher-Implemented AAC Intervention to Support Peer Interaction in an Inclusive Preschool Classroom: A Pilot Study

Inclusion ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 78-91
Author(s):  
Michelle C. S. Therrien
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Augmentative And Alternative Communication ◽  
Peer Interaction ◽  
Inclusive Classrooms ◽  
Alternative Communication ◽  
Inclusive Preschool ◽  
The Social ◽  
Communication Needs ◽  
Support Teacher ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Children with complex communication needs confront many barriers to peer interaction and, without intervention, are at risk for social isolation, even in inclusive classrooms. The aims of this pilot study were to determine the feasibility of training a preschool teacher to implement a peer interaction intervention and to measure the impact on the participating children. The teacher in this study was taught to program an augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) app and to implement a peer interaction intervention. The teacher's positive perception of the training and intervention, along with the social improvements seen in this pilot study are promising. More research is needed to increase confidence in the effectiveness of this training to support teacher-implemented intervention and peer interaction in inclusive classrooms.

Graphic symbols terminology: a call for a consensus

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 92-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eliada Pampoulou
Keyword(s):  
Augmentative And Alternative Communication ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Alternative Communication ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Graphic Symbols ◽  
Multidisciplinary Nature ◽  
Picture Communication Symbols ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Picture Communication

Purpose Graphic symbols, such as the Picture Communication Symbols, Makaton and Widgit, have been traditionally used in the field of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) in order to support people with little or no functional speech. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach However, given the fact that the terminology remains contested in the existing literature as well as the multidisciplinary nature surrounding graphic symbols, in more recent years and the number of terms used in different fields, it is vital that the terminology of graphic symbols is revisited again. Findings In the last section of the paper, a definition of graphic symbols is proposed. Originality/value The value of this paper lies in the fact that while field of graphic symbols have been used in the AAC for more than 30 years, there is still no consensus regarding the meaning of the terminology used.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document