Voice Recognition Technology and Persons with Severe Mental Retardation and Severe Physical Impairment: Learning, Response Differentiation, and Affect

Abstract

This study investigated the learning and response differentiation of a variety of voice commands that served to control environmental devices by a person who is severely mentally retarded and severely physically impaired. The contingencies between vocalization and device activation were created by a computer system with voice recognition and environmental control capabilities. Using a multiple-baseline-across-behaviors experimental design, the study shows that the subject (a) learned the cause-and-effect relationship between her voice and the resultant environmental action, (b) differentiated various vocalizations for different environmental actions, and (c) experienced positive affect when she was in control. This application represents the first time in the subject's life that she exerted independent control over her environment.

Speech Recognition as a Practice Tool for Dysarthria

“…Early studies of discrete utterance SR technology demonstrated higher levels of recognition accuracy than this project, but for smaller vocabulary sets. [8][9][10][11][12] A paired down version of the SSR may be needed so that the recognition accuracy is in alignment with the improvements that were noted in acoustic performance in this study.…”

“…Early studies using discrete utterance, speaker-dependent systems yielded mixed results because of differing severity levels and differences in amount of speech production variability speakers exhibited. [8][9][10][11][12] These studies examined recognition accuracy with limited vocabulary sets (e.g., alphanumeric codes, sentences, or short, standardized reading passages).…”

The Relationship between Assistive Technology State Standards for Teachers, Assistive Technology Implementation, and Student Performance in the Context of Evidence-based Practice

“…A wide range of AT devices exist that can support students' educationallyrelated functions, specifically for physical access, cognitive and learning access, communication access, and sensory access (Brown & Cavalier, 1992;Crandall, Gerrey, & Braybyn, 1994;Englert, Manalo, & Zhao, 2004;Lee & Vail, 2005;MacArthur & Cavalier, 2004;Ripat & Strock, 2004;Williams, 2002). Some examples of AT devices commonly used by students with disabilities to participate in school settings include power wheel chairs, voice input and output software and hardware, reading and writing enhancement software, augmentative communication devices that "speak" for the non-speaking student, and visual enlargement or assistive listening devices for students with visual or hearing impairments (Brown & Cavalier, 1992;Crandall, Gerrey, & Braybyn, 1994;Englert, Manalo, & Zhao, 2004;Lee & Vail, 2005;Macarthur & Cavalier, 2004;Ripat & Strock, 2004;Williams, 2002).…”

“…Successful student use of AT depends upon the presence of many factors involved with AT implementation (Hutinger, Johanson, & Stoneburner, 1996;Riemer-Reiss & Wacker, 2000;Todis, 1996). Access alone is not sufficient to ensure success in AT use (Boone & Higgins, 2007;Brown & Cavalier, 1992;Mirenda, Turoldo, & McAvoy, 2006;Stoner, Esterbrooks, & Laughton, 2005;Tumlin & Heller, 2004).…”

The Relationship Between Assistive Technology State Standards for Teachers, Assistive Technology Implementation, and Student Performance in the Context of Evidence-Based Practice

“…A wide range of AT devices exist that can support students' educationallyrelated functions, specifically for physical access, cognitive and learning access, communication access, and sensory access (Brown & Cavalier, 1992;Crandall, Gerrey, & Braybyn, 1994;Englert, Manalo, & Zhao, 2004;Lange, McPhillips, Mulhern, & Wylie, 2006;Lee & Vail, 2005;MacArthur & Cavalier, 2004;Ripat & Strock, 2004;Williams, 2002). Some examples of AT devices commonly used by students with disabilities to participate in school settings include power wheel chairs, voice input and output software and hardware, reading and writing enhancement software, augmentative communication devices that "speak" for the non-speaking student, and visual enlargement or assistive listening devices for students with visual or hearing impairments (Brown & Cavalier, 1992;Crandall, Gerrey, & Braybyn, 1994;Englert, Manalo, & Zhao, 2004;Lange, McPhillips, Mulhern, & Wylie, 2006;Lee & Vail, 2005;Macarthur & Cavalier, 2004;Ripat & Strock, 2004;Williams, 2002).…”