Recognition of Vocabulary in Children and Adolescents with Cerebral Palsy: A Comparison of Two Speech Coding Schemes

The effects of speech ability (speaking versus non-speaking) and type of AAC presentation scheme (static versus dynamic) on vocabulary recognition were examined for children and adolescents with cerebral palsy using an extensive test-with-feedback procedure. Participants initially made fewer errors on the static scheme than on the dynamic scheme, primarily because of the low noun error rates associated with the static scheme. Error rates for presentation schemes became equivalent by the third trial and by the eighth trial, performance was better for the dynamic scheme. The primary cause of errors on the dynamic display was found to be difficulty in recognizing each target's category. On the static display, participants had difficulty recognizing word-icons and correct part-of-speech. These results indicate that unique difficulties in vocabulary recognition arise for each presentation scheme. Additionally, individual differences affected performance across presentation schemes, instead of differentially affecting them. Specific training implications are discussed.

[1]  S. Harnad,et al.  Origins and Evolution of Language and Speech , 1976 .

[2]  K. Bloomberg,et al.  The comparative translucency of initial lexical items represented in five graphic symbol systems and sets. , 1990, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[3]  W. Montague,et al.  Category norms of verbal items in 56 categories A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms , 1969 .

[4]  W. S. Yovetich,et al.  The Effects of Representativeness and Concreteness on the "Guessability" of Blissymbols. , 1988 .

[5]  U Bellugi,et al.  TWO FACES OF SIGN: ICONIC AND ABSTRACT * , 1976, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[6]  利一 中司,et al.  脳性まひ児の視知覚に関する研究 : Motor-Free Visual Perception Testの 結果 , 1980 .

[7]  Scott E. Maxwell,et al.  Designing Experiments and Analyzing Data: A Model Comparison Perspective , 1990 .

[8]  Jan L. Bedrosian,et al.  Limitations in the use of nondisabled subjects in AAC research , 1995 .

[9]  William K. Estes,et al.  Reaction time in relation to display size and correctness of response in forced-choice visual signal detection , 1966 .

[10]  R. Colarusso Mvpt-3: Motor-Free Visual Perception Test , 2003 .

[11]  L L Lloyd,et al.  Effects of initial element teaching in a story-telling context on Blissymbol acquisition and generalization. , 1993, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[12]  Rose A. Sevcik,et al.  Roles of graphic symbols in the language acquisition process for persons with severe cognitive disabilities , 1991 .

[13]  M. McDaniel,et al.  Many-to-one and one-to-many associative learning in a naturalistic task. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[14]  Walter S. Woltosz,et al.  Dynamic Displays: The Changing Face of Augmentative Communication , 1994, ICCHP.

[15]  Pat Mirenda,et al.  Designing pictorial communication systems for physically able-bodied students with severe handicaps , 1985 .

[16]  Janice Light,et al.  The Semantic Organization Patterns of Young Children: Implications for Augmentative and Alternative Communication , 2003 .

[17]  J Reichle,et al.  Transparency and recall of symbols among intellectually handicapped adults. , 1989, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[18]  David R. Beukelman,et al.  Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Management of Severe Communication Disorders in Children and Adults , 1995 .

[19]  Mark A McDaniel,et al.  The fruitfulness of a nomothetic approach to investigating AAC: comparing two speech encoding schemes across cerebral palsied and nondisabled children. , 2003, American journal of speech-language pathology.