The Iconicity of Picture Communication Symbols for Children with English Additional Language and Mild Intellectual Disability

Dada, Shakila; Huguet, Alice Audrey; Bornman, Juan

doi:10.3109/07434618.2013.849753

Cited by 33 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Much of the early research on symbols explored how the perceptual match between graphic symbols and referents might influence children's learning of symbol meanings (Mizuko, 1987;Yovetich & Young, 1988), leading to a productive research focus on the impact of iconicity on learnability and retention of symbols (Alant, Zheng, Harty, & Lloyd, 2013;Dada, Huguet, & Bornman, 2013) and, more recently, on the impact of animation (Fujisawa, Inoue, Yamana, & Hayashi, 2011;Schlosser et al, 2012). There is now considerable evidence that symbols that are highly iconic are more easily learned and remembered, but Stephenson (2009) cautions that iconicity is, to a certain extent, in the eye of the beholder, influenced by prior experience with picture recognition and use.…”

Section: Running Head: Language Development and Aided Communication 14mentioning

confidence: 99%

Language Development of Individuals Who Require Aided Communication: Reflections on State of the Science and Future Research Directions

Smith

2015

Augmentative and Alternative Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Language acquisition theories differ in the importance they assign to production as a learning mechanism. This review summarizes some of the theoretical issues linked to this debate and considers their implications for children with severe speech and physical impairments. The unique aspects of the language-learning contexts of these children are explored. Drawing largely on papers published within the journal Augmentative and Alternative Communication, this review summarizes features of language development that have been described over the past 3 decades and considers how these findings might illuminate our understanding of language development across both spoken and aided modalities. Implications for assessment, intervention and for further research are suggested.

show abstract

Section: Running Head: Language Development and Aided Communication 14mentioning

confidence: 99%

Language Development of Individuals Who Require Aided Communication: Reflections on State of the Science and Future Research Directions

Smith

2015

Augmentative and Alternative Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the intelligibility of synthetic speech varies and is influenced by a number of factors (Koul 2003), recent synthetic voices have improved intelligibility (Garg andSinghal 2014, Henton 2013). Graphic symbol-based systems without voice output rely on the ability of pre-or non-literate partners to interpret the meaning of the symbols, yet this meaning is not necessarily always easy to guess (Dada, Huguet and Bornman 2013). Voice output can be an important tool for gaining a partner"s attention, especially for children who have little control over their own vocalizations (Soto and SeligmanWine 2003).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supporting the Production of Graphic Symbol Combinations by Children with Limited Speech: A Comparison of Two AAC systems

Tonsing

2015

J Dev Phys Disabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy with which the use of a speech generating device (Apple iPad TM with GoTalk Now TM application) versus a communication board promoted the production of two-symbols combinations (agent-action and attribute-entity combinations) by children limited speech within a shared story reading context. Four children between the ages of 6;8 (years;months) and 11;4 with severe motor speech disorders and a variety of developmental 1 disabilities participated in the study. An adapted alternating treatment design was used. All four participants showed increased production of two-symbol combinations in both intervention conditions. The Wilcoxon ranked pairs test did not show differences between the conditions for any participant. The results suggest that symbol combination skills can effectively be taught using either AAC system. A preference assessment indicated that all participants preferred to use the speech generating device during shared story reading. all studies focussed on basic requesting skills requiring the use of only one symbol per response in all or at least one of the intervention conditions; and (b) most studies did not support consistent differences between electronic and non-electronic systems. One explanation for the lack of clear differences between the conditions may be that the acquisition of the requesting skills targeted in these interventions is strongly motivated by the reinforcer. Participants might be so motivated to obtain the reinforcer, that the method to obtain it loses particular relevance. The acquisition of communication functions that are not as tangibly motivated but that proceed for social and interactive reasons might be more prone to influence by the system used, as internal rather than external motivation may play a larger role (Light, Parsons and Drager 2002). Of the 31 participants that took part in the studies comparing SGDs to non-electronic AAC systems reviewed by Gevarter et al (2013), 17 had a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), autism or pervasive developmental disorder (PDD). Young children with these diagnoses typically are more likely to communicate in order to regulate the behavior of others (i.e., requesting or protesting), rather than for the purpose of social interaction (Wetherby, Watt, Morgan and Shumway 2007), which may explain the focus on requesting in these studies.The use of electronic versus non-electronic systems may differentially influence the production of multi-symbol combinations (Binger, Kent-Walsh, Berens, Del Campo and Rivera, 2008). An SGD provides auditory feedback to the person using it on his/her own productions, which may facilitate language learning (Romski and Sevcik 1988;1996;Romski, Sevcik and Adamson 1997). The digital or synthetic speech generated by the SGD may reinforce the learning of symbol sequences. This may be a benefit that is particularly relevant to children who have an understanding of spoken language, whereas the receptive (spoken) language skills of the 3 participants...

show abstract

“…Most researchers in AAC studies have employed graphic symbols as vocabulary items to improve the communication skills of children with disabilities; these children have been taught how to express their needs and interact with others through graphic symbols [5][6][7][8][9]. Graphic symbols are considered as the techniques for enhancing efficiency to communicate and primary vocabulary for children with disabilities [10,11]. Emms and Gardner [6] argued that, for AAC users, graphic symbols are the most credible alternative vocabulary, and the development of a graphic symbol vocabulary is absolutely critical and fundamental for pediatric AAC users with disabilities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Applications of graphic symbols are extensive in both research and teaching practice. Numerous researchers have used graphic symbols to improve the communication skills of students with disabilities or mitigate their challenging behavior [1,10]. Numerous studies have reported that picture book reading found effective for laying the foundation for children's future literacy capabilities [9,[12][13][14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, the use and learning of graphic symbols are imperative for young children with and without disabilities. Most studies have argued that graphic symbols can assist children with disabilities in functional competence (e.g., communication, writing, and learning) or improve their communication and literacy skills [6][7][8][9][10][11]. However, graphic symbols are merely a part of a symbol system, and the so-called symbols refer to objects that stand for or represent referents.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of Symbol Component on the Identifying of Graphic Symbols from EEG for Young Children with and without Developmental Delays

Huang

Lin

2019

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) to improve the communication skills of children with disabilities is generally supported by both domestic and foreign scholars. Graphic symbols that represent individual words or phrases are often used in conjunction with AAC; however, research on the reading and identifying of AAC graphic symbols is scant. Therefore, this study used electroencephalogram (EEG) to investigate the success rates of identifying AAC graphic symbols and brainwave changes of young children with and without developmental delays. The results revealed that the number of symbol components affected participants’ success rates of identifying AAC graphic symbols. The EEG Attention Index between the children with and without developmental delays varied during the test. By contrast, the EEG Relaxation Index exhibited no difference between the children with and without developmental delays. When the participants viewed the single-component animations, the children without developmental delays had a significantly higher Relaxation Index than those with developmental delays did. According to cognitive load theory, the children with developmental delays and low cognitive capacities may feel stressed.

show abstract

The Iconicity of Picture Communication Symbols for Children with English Additional Language and Mild Intellectual Disability

Cited by 33 publications

References 43 publications

Language Development of Individuals Who Require Aided Communication: Reflections on State of the Science and Future Research Directions

Language Development of Individuals Who Require Aided Communication: Reflections on State of the Science and Future Research Directions

Supporting the Production of Graphic Symbol Combinations by Children with Limited Speech: A Comparison of Two AAC systems

Effects of Symbol Component on the Identifying of Graphic Symbols from EEG for Young Children with and without Developmental Delays

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About