LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Publisher: Karger
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
Background/Aims: In the last 20 years the range of high technology augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) aids has rapidly expanded. This review aimed to provide a “state of the art” synthesis, to provide evidence-based information for researchers, potential users and service providers. \ud \ud Methods: Electronic databases were searched from 2000 to 2010, together with reference lists of included papers and review papers. The review considered work of any design which reported an intervention using high tech AAC with people who have communication difficulties (excluding those with solely hearing or visually loss) published in peer-reviewed journals. \ud \ud Results: Sixty five papers reporting interventions using high tech AAC were identified. There was evidence that high technology AAC may be beneficial across a range of diagnoses and ages. The evidence however is currently drawn from studies using designs considered to be at high risk of bias. \ud \ud Conclusion: The review suggests that the high level of individual variation in outcome requires a greater understanding of characteristics of clients who may or may not benefit from this technology. Also, the wide range of outcomes measured requires further work in the field to establish what a “good outcome” from intervention may be.\ud
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • [11] Baxter S, Enderby P, Evans P, Judge S. Barriers and facilitators to use of high technology Int J Lang Commun Dis 2012: 47; 115-129.
    • [12] West S, King V, Carey T, Lohr K, McKoy N, Sutton S, Lux L: Systems to Rate the Strength of [14] Van de Sandt-Koenderman W, Wiegers J, Wielaert, S, Duivenvoorden H, Ribbers G: High-tech AAC and severe aphasia: Candidacy for TouchSpeak (TS). Aphasiology 2007: 21; 459-474.
    • [15] Linebarger M, Romania J, Fink R, Bartlett M, Schwartz M: Building on residual speech: A portable processing prosthesis for aphasia. J Rehabil Res Devel 2008: 45; 1401-1414.
    • [16] Linebarger M, Schwartz, M: AAC for hypothesis testing and treatment of aphasic language production: Lessons from a "processing prosthesis". Aphasiology 2005: 10; 930-942.
    • [17] Fink R, Bartlett M, Lowery J, Linebarger, M. Schwartz M: Aphasic speech with and without SentenceShaper: two methods for assessing informativeness. Aphasiology 2008: 22; 679-690.
    • [18] Albright E, Purves B: Exploring SENTENCESHAPER: treatment and augmentative possibilities. Aphasiology 2008: 22; 741-752.
    • [19] Hough M, Johnson R: Use of ACC to enhance linguistic communication skills in an adult with chronic severe aphasia. Aphasiology 2009: 23; 965-976.
    • [20] Johnson R, Hough M, King K, Vos P, Jeffs T: Functional communication in individuals with chronic severe aphasia using augmentative communication. Augment Altern Comm 2008: 24; 269-280.
    • [21] Linebarger M, Schwartz M, Romania J, Kohn S, Stephens D: Grammatical encoding in aphasia: Evidence from a 'processing prosthesis. Brain Lang 2000: 75; 416-427.
    • [22] Koul R., Corwin M, Hayes S: Production of graphic symbol sentences by individuals with aphasia: Efficacy of a computer-based augmentative and alternative communication intervention. Brain Lang 2005: 92; 58-77.
    • [23] Nicholas M., Sinotte M, Helm-Estabrooks N: Using a computer to communicate: effect of executive function impairments in people with severe aphasia. Aphasiology 2005: 19; 1052-1065.
    • [24] Bruce C, Edmundson A and Coleman M: Writing with voice: an investigation of the use of a voice recognition system as a writing aid for a man with aphasia. Int J Lang Comm Dis 2003: 38; 131-148.
    • [25] Hux K, Rankin-Erickson J, Manasse N, Lauritzen E: Accuracy of three speech recognition systems: case study of dysarthric speech. Augment Altern Comm 2000: 12000; 186-196.
    • [26] Wade J, Petheram B, Cain R. Voice recognition and aphasia: can computers understand aphasic speech? Disabil Rehabil 2001: 23; 604-613.
    • [27] Dahl D, Linebarger M, Berndt R: Improving automatic speech recognition of aphasic speech through the use of a processing prosthesis. Technol Disabil 2008: 20; 283-294.
    • [28] Fager S, Beukelman D, Karantounis R, Jakobs, T: Use of safe-laser access technology to increase head movement in persons with severe motor impairment: a series of case reports. Augment Altern Comm 2006: 22; 222-229.
    • [29] Lancioni G, Singh N, O'Reilly M, Sigafoos J, Buonocunto F, Sacco V et al: Microswitch- and VOCA-Assisted Programs for Two Post-Coma Persons with Minimally Conscious State and Pervasive Motor Disabilities. Res Dev Disabil 2009a: 30; 1459-1467.
    • [30] Lancioni G, Singh N, O'Reilly M, Sigafoos J, Buonocunto F, Sacco V et al: Two persons with severe post-coma motor impairment and minimally conscious state use assistive technology to access stimulus events and social contact. Disabil Rehab: Assist Technol 2009b: 4; 367-372.
    • [31] Lancioni G, Singh N, O'Reilly M, Sigafoos J, Buonocunto F, Sacco V et al: Post-coma persons with motor and communication/consciousness impairments choose among environmental stimuli and request stimulus repetitions via assistive technology. Res Dev Disabil 2010: 31; 777-783.
    • [32] Fox L, Rau M: Augmentative and alternative communication for adults following glosssectomy and laryngectomy surgery. 2001 Augment Altern Comm 2001: 17; 161-166.
    • [33] Birbaumer N, Kubler A, Ghanayim N, Hinterberger T, Perelmouter J, Kaiser J et al: The thought translation device (TTD) for completely paralyzed patients. IEEE T Rehabil Eng 2000: 8; 190-193.
    • [34] Kubler A, Furdea A, Halder S, Hammer E, Nijboer F, Kotchoubey B: A brain-computer interface controlled auditory event-related potential (p300) spelling system for locked-in patients. Annals NY Acad Sci 2009: 1157; 90-100.
    • [35] Kubler A, Neumann N, Kaiser J, Kotchoubey B, Hinterberger T, Birbaumer N: Brain-computer communication: self-regulation of slow cortical potentials for verbal communication. Arch Phys Med Rehab 2001: 82; 1533-1539.
    • [36] Nijboer F, Sellers E, Mellinger J, Jordan M, Matuz T, Furdea A, Halder S, Mochty U, Krusienski D, Vaughan T, Wolpaw J, Birbaumer N, Kubler A: A P300-based brain-computer interface for people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Clin Neurophysiol, 2008: 119; 109-1916.
    • [37] Sellers, E, Kubler A, Donchin E: Brain-computer interface research at the University of South Florida cognitive psychophysiology laboratory: The P300 speller. IEEE T Neural Sys Rehabil Eng 2006; 14, 221-224.
    • [38] Kaiser J, Kubler A, Hinterberger T, Neumann N, Birbaumer N: A non-invasive communication device for the paralyzed. Minim Invas Neurosurg 2002: 45; 19-23.
    • [39] Kaiser J, Perelmouter J, Iversen I, Neumann N, Ghanayim N, Hinterberger T et al: Self-initiation of EEG-based communication in paralyzed patients. Clin Neurophysiol 2001: 112; 551-554.
    • [40] Neshige R: Communication aid device utilizing event-related potentials for patients with severe motor impairment. Brain Res 2007: 1141; 218-227.
    • [41] Pattee C, Von Berg S, Ghezzi P: Effects of alternative communication on the communicative effectiveness of an individual with a progressive language disorder. Int J Rehabil Res 2006: 29; 151- 153.
    • [42] Fried-Oken M., Rowland C, Baker G, Dixon M, Mills C, Schultz D, Oken B: The effect of voice output on AAC-supported conversations of persons with Altzheimer's disease. ACM T Access Comput 2009: 1; Article 15.
    • [43] Olive M, de la Cruz B, Davis T, Chan J, Lang R, O'Reilly M. Dickson S: The effects of enhanced milieu teaching and a voice output communication aid on the requesting of three children with autism. J Autism Dev Disord 2007: 37, 1505-1513.
    • [44] Olive M, Lang R, Davis T: An analysis of the effects of functional communication and a Voice Output Communication Aid for a child with autism spectrum disorder. Res Autism Spectrum Disord 2008: 2; 223-236.
    • [45] Schlosser R, Sigafoos J, Luisell J, Angermeier K, Harasymowzy U, Schooley K, Belfiore P: Effects of synthetic speech output on requesting and natural speech production in children with autism: A preliminary study. Res Autism Spectrum Disord 2007: 1; 139-163.
    • [46] Sigafoos J, Drasgow E, Halle J, O'Reilly M, Seely-York S, Edrisinha C, Andrews A: Teaching VOCA use as a communicative repair strategy. J Autism Dev Disord 2004a: 34; 411-422.
    • [47] Sigafoos J, O'Reilly M, Seely-York S, Edrisinha C: Teaching students with developmental disabilities to locate their AAC device. Res Dev Disabil 2004b: 25; 371-383.
    • [48] Sigafoos J, Didden R, O'Reilly M: Effects of speech output on maintenance of requesting and frequency of vocalizations in three children with developmental disabilities. Augment Altern Comm 2003: 19; 37-47.
    • [49] Sigafoos J, Green V, Payne D, Son S, O'Reilly M, Lancioni G: A comparison of picture exchange and speech-generating devices: acquisition, preference, and effects on social interaction. Augment Altern Comm 2009: 25; 99-109.
    • [50] Son S, Sigafoos J, O'Reilly M, Lancioni G: Comparing two types of augmentative and alternative communication systems for children with autism. Pediatr Rehabil 2006: 9; 389-395.
    • [51] Trembath D, Balandin S, Togher L and Stancliffe R: Peer-mediated teaching and augmentative and alternative communication for preschool-aged children with autism. J Intell Dev Disabil 2009: 34; 173-186.
    • [52] Brady N: Improved comprehension of object names following voice output communication aid use: Two case studies. Augment Altern Comm 2000: 16; 197-204.
    • [53] Thunberg G, Ahlsen E, Dahlgren Sandberg A: Children with autistic spectrum disorders and speech-generating devices: Communication in different activities at home. Clin Linguist Phonet 2007: 21; 457-479.
    • [54] Thunberg G, Dahlgren Sandberg A, Ahlsen E: Speech-generating devices used at home by children with autism spectrum disorders: A preliminary assessment. Focus Autism Other Dev Disabil 2009: 24; 109-114.
    • [55] Sigafoos J, O'Reilly M, Seely-York S, Weru J, Son S, Green V, Lancioni G: Transferring AAC intervention to the home. Disabil Rehabil 2004c: 26; 1330-1334.
    • [56] Raghavendra P, Rosengren E, Hunnicutt S: An investigation of different degrees of dysarthric speech as input to speaker-adaptive and speaker-dependent recognition systems. Augment Altern Comm 2001: 17; 265-275.
    • [57] Havstam C, Buchholz M, Hartelius L: Speech recognition and dysarthria: a single subject study of two individuals with profound impairment of speech and motor control. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol 2003: 28; 81-90.
    • [58] Hawley M, Enderby P, Green P, Cunningham S, Brownsell S, Carmichael J, et al: A speechcontrolled environmental control system for people with severe dysarthria. Med Eng Phys, 2007: 29; 586-593.
    • [59] Betke M, Gips J, Fleming P: The camera mouse: visual tracking of body features to provide computer access for people with severe disabilities. IEEE T Rehabil Eng 2002: 10: [60] Redstone F: A training program for the use of the Cyberlink control system for young children with cerebral palsy. Technol Disabil 2006: 18; 107-115.
    • [61] Neuper C, Muller G, Kubler A, Birbaumer N, Pfurtscheller G: Clinical application of an EEG-based brain-computer interface: a case study in a patient with severe motor impairment. Clin Neurophysiol 2003: 11; 399-409.
    • [62] Ferm U, Amberntson B, Thunberg G: Development and evaluation of a MINSPEAK application using Blissymbols: experiences from two case studies. Augment Altern Comm 2001: 17: 233-244.
    • [63] Todman J: Rate and quality of conversations using a text-storage AAC system: Single-case training study. Augment Altern Comm 2000: 164-179.
    • [64] File P, Todman J: Evaluation of the coherence of computer-aided conversations. Augment Altern Comm 2002: 18; 228-241.
    • [65] Bain C, Ferguson A, Mathisen B: Effectiveness of the Speech Enhancer on intelligibility: a case study. J Med Speech-Lang PA 2005: 13; 85-95.
    • [66] Evans Cosbey J, Johnston S: Using a Single-Switch Voice Output Communication Aid to Increase Social Access for Children with Severe Disabilities in Inclusive Classrooms. Res Pract Persons Severe Disabil 2006: 31; 144-156.
    • [67] Mathisen B, Arthur-Kelly M, Kidd J, Nissen C: Using MINSPEAK: A case study of a preschool child with complex communication needs. Disabil Rehab: Assist Technol 2009: 4: 376-383.
    • [68] Bruno J, Trembath D: Use of aided language stimulation to improve syntactic performance during a weeklong intervention program. Augment Altern Comm 2006: 22; 300-313.
    • [69] Lancioni G, O'Reilly M, Singh N, Sigafoos J, Oliva D, Severini L: Three persons with multiple disabilities accessing environmental stimuli and asking for social contact through microswitch and VOCA technology. J Intell Disabil Res 2008: 52; 327-336.
    • [70] Lancioni G, Singh N, O'Reilly M, Oliva D, Montironi G, Piazza F, et al: Using computer systems as microswitches for vocal utterances of persons with multiple disabilities. Res Devel Disabil 2004a: 25; 183-192
    • [71] Lancioni G, Singh N, O'Reilly M, Sigafoos J, Oliva D, Montironi G: Evaluating a computer system used as a microswitch for word utterances of persons with multiple disabilities. Disabil Rehabil 2004b: 26; 1286-1290.
    • [72] Lancioni G, Singh N, O'Reilly M, Oliva D, Montironi, G: A computer system serving as a microswitch for vocal utterances of persons with multiple disabilities: two case evaluations. Research Report. J Visual Impair Blin 2004c: 98; 116-120.
    • [73] DiCarlo C, Banajee M: Using voice output devices to increase initiations of young children with disabilities. J Early Interv 2000: 23; 191-199.
    • [74] Bock S, Stoner J, Beck A, Hanley L, Prochnow J: Increasing functional communication in nonspeaking pre-school children: comparison of PECS and VOCA. Educat Train Dev Disabil 2005: 40; 264-278.
    • [75] Sevcik R, Romski M, Adamson L: Research directions in augmentative and alternative communication for preschool children. Disabil Rehabil 2004: 26; 1323-1329.
    • [76] Bornman J, Alant E, Meiring E: The use of a digital voice output device to facilitate language development in a child with developmental apraxia of speech: A case study. Disabil Rehabil 2001: 23; 623-634.
    • [77] Romski M, Haarbauer-Krupa J, Cheslock M, Sevcik R, Adamson L: Language and communication changes in a child with holoprosencephaly: a case report. J Med Speech-Lang PA 2008: 16; 77-82.
    • [78] Dyches T, Davis A, Lucido B, Young J: Generalization of skills using pictographic and voice output communication devices. Augment Altern Comm 2002: 18; 124-131.
    • [79] Chan, K., Bhandari. (2011). Three minute critical appraisal of a case series article. Indian Journal of Orthopaedics, 45 (2), 103-104.
    • [80] Lund S, Light J: Long-term outcomes for individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication: Part I - what is a “good” outcome? Augment Altern Comm 2006: 22; 284-299
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article