Recognition of vocabulary in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy: A comparison of two speech coding schemes

AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 45-62

  Hochstein, Dave D ^a   McDaniel, Mark A ^a   Nettleton, Sandra ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO   (United States)

^b Albuquerque Public Schools   (United States)

Author keywords

Augmentative and alternative communication; Dynamic display; Speech coding; Vocabulary recognition

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER APPLICATIONS; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL EQUIPMENT; ERRORS; GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACES; HANDICAPPED PERSONS; HUMAN REHABILITATION EQUIPMENT; SPEECH RECOGNITION;

AUGMENTATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE COMMUNICATION; CEREBRAL PALSY; DYNAMIC DISPLAY; VOCABULARY RECOGNITION;

SPEECH CODING;

EID: 2942655309     PISSN: 07434618     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/07434610410001699708     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Battig, W. F., & Montague, W. E. (1969). Category norms of verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 80(3, Pt. 2), 1-46.
2. Bedrosian, J. L. (1995). Limitations in the use of nondisabled subjects in AAC research. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 11, 6-10.
3. Bellugi, U., & Klima, E. (1976). Two faces of sign: Iconic and abstract. In S. Harnad, H. Steklis & J. Lancaster (Eds.), The origins and evolution of language and speech (pp. 514-538). New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.
4. Beukelman, D., & Mirenda, P. (1998). Principals of assessment. Augmentative and alternative communication: Management of severe communication disorders in children and adults (2nd edn.), Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks.
5. Bloomberg, K., Karlan, G. R., & Lloyd, L. L. (1990). The comparative translucency of initial lexical items represented in five graphic symbol systems and sets. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 33, 717-725.
6. Brown, L., Sherbenou, R. J., & Johnsen, S. K. (1997). TONI-3: Test of nonverbal intelligence (3rd edn.). Wood Dale, IL: Stoelting Co.
7. Burger, S. R. (1997). Spontaneous communication in augmentative and alternative communication (AAC): A comparison of dynamic display and Minspeak™. Unpublished master's thesis, College of Wooster, Wooster, Ohio.
8. Colarusso, R. P., & Hammill, D. D. (1972). Motor-Free visual perception test. Novato, CA: Academic Therapy Publications.
9. Dunn, L., & Dunn, L. (1981). Peabody picture vocabulary test - revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
10. Estes, W., & Wessel, C. (1966). Reaction time in relation to display size and correctness of responses in forced-choice visual signal detection. Perception & Psychophysics, 1, 369-373.
11. Fallon, K. A., Light, J., & Achenbach, A. (2003). The semantic organization patterns of young children: Implications for augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 19, 74-85.
12. Glennen, S. (1997). Augmentative and alternative communication assessment strategies. In S. L. Glennon & d. DeCoste (Eds.), The handbook of augmentative and alternative communication. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group.
13. Goossens, C., & Elder, P. (1988, February). Informal Assessment of Semantic Compaction. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southeast AAC Conference, Birmingham, AL.
14. Hochstein, D. D., McDaniel, M. A., Nettleton, S., & Neufeld, K. H. (2003). The fruitfulness of a nomothetic approach to investigating AAC: Comparing two speech encoding schemes across Cerebral Palsied and nondisabled children. American Journal of Speech, Language, Pathology, 12, 110-120.
15. McDaniel, M. A., Neufeld, K. H., & Damico-Nettleton, S. (2001). Many-to-one and one-to-many associative learning in a naturalistic task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 182-194.
16. McNaughton, S. (1990). Session summary: Methodological challenges in applying single case designs to problems in AAC. In J. Brödin & E. Bjorck-Åkesson (Eds), Methodological issues in research in augmentative and alternative communication (pp. 86-88). Stockholm, Sweden: The Swedish Handicap Institute.
17. Maxwell, S. E., & Delaney, H. D. (1990). Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective. Pacific Grove, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
18. Mirenda, P. (1985). Designing pictorial communication systems for physically able-bodied students with severe handicaps. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 1, 58-64.
19. Mizuko, M., & Reichle, J. (1989). Transparency and recall of symbols among intellectually handicapped adults. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, 627-633.
20. Romich, B. (1994, Summer). Knowledge in the world versus knowledge in the head: The psychology of AAC systems. Communication Outlook, 16(2), 19-21.
21. Schlosser, R. W., & Lloyd, L. L. (1993) Effects of initial element teaching in a story-telling context on Blissymbol acquisition and generalization. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 36(5), 979-995.
22. Sevcik, R. A., Romski, M. A., & Wilkinson, K. M. (1991). Roles of graphic symbols in the language acquisition process for persons with severe cognitive disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 7, 161-170.
23. UNITY Vocabulary Sort (1995). Pittsburgh, PA: Semantic Compaction Systems.
24. Woltosz, W. S. (1994). Dynamic Displays: The changing face of augmentative communication. Palmdale CA: Words + Inc.
25. Yovetich, W. S., & Young, T. A. (1988). The effects of representatives and concreteness on the "guessability" of Blissymbols. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 4, 35-39.