The Effects of Speech Output Technology in the Learning of Graphic Symbols

Abstract

The effects of auditory stimuli in the form of synthetic speech output on the learning of graphic symbols were evaluated. Three adults with severe to profound mental retardation and communication impairments were taught to point to lexigrams when presented with words under two conditions. In the first condition, participants used a voice output communication aid to receive synthetic speech as antecedent and consequent stimuli. In the second condition, with a nonelectronic communications board, participants did not receive synthetic speech. A parallel treatments design was used to evaluate the effects of the synthetic speech output as an added component of the augmentative and alternative communication system. The 3 participants reached criterion when not provided with the auditory stimuli. Although 2 participants also reached criterion when not provided with the auditory stimuli, the addition of auditory stimuli resulted in more efficient learning and a decreased error rate. Maintenance results, however, indicated no differences between conditions. Finding suggest that auditory stimuli in the form of synthetic speech contribute to the efficient acquisition of graphic communication symbols.

Selecting graphic symbols for an initial request lexicon: integrative review

“…However, in the absence of a control condition without speech output, the roles of the intervention as a causal change agent in general and the contribution of speech output in particular are unclear. A subsequent study did employ a control condition without speech output (Schlosser, Belfiore, Nigam, Blischak, & Hetzroni, 1995). Using a labeling response, two of three young adults with severe to profound mental retardation learned lexigrams more efficiently with speech output than without it.…”

Effects of Peer-Mediated Instruction to Teach Use of Speech-Generating Devices to Students with Autism in Social Game Routines

“…SGDs provide an efficient means for obtaining a communicative partner's attention, which indirectly creates opportunities for the AAC user's needs to be heard and met (Romski & Sevcik, 1996). In addition, research suggests that the auditory output associated with SGDs is associated with more rapid graphic symbol learning in adults with developmental disabilities (Schlosser, Belfiore, Nigam, Blischak, & Hetzroni, 1995) and spelling acquisition in children with ASD (Schlosser & Blischak, 2001). Finally, in addition to providing information in the form of two modalities (both visual and auditory), SDGs provide a familiar, precise, and clear form of output to communicative partners who are able to speak (Romski, Sevcik, & Adamson, 1999;Schlosser, Sigafoos, & Koul, 2009).…”

The state of research and practice in augmentative and alternative communication for children with developmental/intellectual disabilities

“…This concern is often raised with younger children, and is one reason why some parents or service providers resist AAC implementation at very young ages. There is mounting evidence, described earlier, that aided modes of communication, especially those with voice output, in fact enhance existing speech skills among children with developmental/intellectual disabilities [Schlosser et al, 1995;Romski and Sevcik, 1996;Schlosser, 2003a;Millar et al, 2006]. As noted earlier, this is true of unaided AAC modes as well [see e.g., Goldstein, 2002].…”

“…The voice output afforded by technology is a key component of the AAC experience, particularly for children with MR/DD [Goossens', 1989;Schlosser et al, 1995;Romski and Sevcik, 1996;Schlosser, 2003a]. The feedback from and communicative power enabled by voice output appears to offer advantages not only for outcomes for learners themselves but also in terms of communication partners' perceptions of and responses to AAC [Schlosser, 2003a].…”