Strategies for highlighting items within visual scene displays to support augmentative and alternative communication access for those with physical impairments

References

• McCarthy J, Boster J. A comparison of the performance of 2.5 to 3.5-year-old children without disabilities using animated and cursor-based scanning in a contextual scene. Assist Technol. 2018;30(4):183–190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pitt K, McCarthy J. What’s in a photograph? The perspectives of composition experts on factors impacting visual screen display complexity for augmentative and alternative communication, and strategies for improving visual communication. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2021;30(5):2080–2097.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beukelman DR, Light JC. Augmentative and alternative communication: supporting children and adults with complex communication needs. 5th ed. Baltimore (MD): Paul H. Brookes Publishing; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Boster JB, McCarthy JW. When you can’t touch a touch screen. Semin Speech Lang. 2017;38(4):286–296.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCarthy JW, Boster JB. Growing up with technology: does the device go in the Middle? Top Lang Disord. 2019;39(4):E1–E16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkinson KM, Jagaroo V. Contributions of principles of visual cognitive science to AAC system display design. Augment Altern Commun. 2004;20(3):123–136.
   Google Scholar
• Light J, Wilkinson KM, Thiessen A, et al. Designing effective AAC displays for individuals with developmental or acquired disabilities: state of the science and future research directions. Augment Altern Commun. 2019;35(1):42–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thiessen A, Thistle J, Brown J. Clinical and research perspectives on visual scene displays. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2021;30(3):1134–1156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holyfield C, Caron J, Light J. Programing AAC just-in-time for beginning communicators: the process. Augment Altern Commun. 2019;35(4):309–318.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caron J, Light J, Davidoff BE, et al. Comparison of the effects of mobile technology AAC apps on programming visual scene displays. Augment Altern Commun. 2017;33(4):239–248.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Light J, McNaughton D, Caron J. New and emerging AAC technology supports for children with complex communication needs and their communication partners: state of the science and future research directions. Augment Altern Commun. 2019;35(1):26–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beukelman DR, Hux K, Dietz A, et al. Using visual scene displays as communication support options for people with chronic, severe aphasia: a summary of AAC research and future research directions. Augment Altern Commun. 2015;31(3):234–245.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ratcliff A. Comparison of relative demands implicated in direct selection and scanning: considerations from normal children. Augment Altern Commun. 1994;10(2):67–64.
   Google Scholar
• Petersen K, Reichle J, Johnston SS. Examining preschoolers’ performance in linear and row-column scanning techniques. Augment Altern Commun. 2000;16(1):27–36.
   Google Scholar
• Light J, Lindsay P. Cognitive science and augmentative and alternative communication. Augment Altern Commun. 1991; 7(3):186–203.
   Google Scholar
• McCarthy J, Light J, Drager K, et al. Re-designing scanning to reduce learning demands: the performance of typically developing 2-year-olds. Augment Altern Commun. 2006;22(4):269–283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkinson KM, Light J. Preliminary investigation of visual attention to human figures in photographs: potential considerations for the design of aided AAC visual scene displays. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011;54(6):1644–1657.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkinson KM, Light J, Drager K. Considerations for the composition of visual scene displays: potential contributions of information from visual and cognitive sciences. Augment Altern Commun. 2012;28(3):137–147.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkinson KM, Light J. Preliminary study of gaze toward humans in photographs by individuals with autism, down syndrome, or other intellectual disabilities: implications for design of visual scene displays. Augment Altern Commun. 2014;30(2):130–146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fager SK, Fried-Oken M, Jakobs T, et al. New and emerging access technologies for adults with complex communication needs and severe motor impairments: state of the science. Augment Altern Commun. 2019;35(1):13–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pitt KM, Brumberg JS, Pitt AR. Considering augmentative and alternative communication research for brain-computer interface practice. Assist Technol Outcomes Benefits. 2019;13(1):1–20. Summer
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pitt KM, Brumberg JS. Guidelines for feature matching assessment of Brain-Computer Interfaces for Augmentative and Alternative Communication. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2018;27(3):950–964.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hajjar DJ, McCarthy JW, Benigno JP, et al. “You get more than you give”: experiences of community partners in facilitating active recreation with individuals who have complex communication needs. Augment Altern Commun. 2016;32(2):131–142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T, et al. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual Quant. 2018;52(4):1893–1907.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NVivo [Internet]. Melbourne (Australia): QSR International; 2021; [cited 2021 May 7]. Available from: https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo/products.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs GR. Analyzing qualitative data. New York (NY): Sage Publications; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell J. Qualitative inquiry and research design. 3rd ed. London: Sage Publications; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• O’Neill T, Wilkinson K. Preliminary investigation of the perspectives of parents of children with cerebral palsy on the supports, challenges, and realities of integrating augmentative and alternative communication into everyday life. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2020;29(1):238–254.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Syed M, Nelson S. Guidelines for establishing reliability when coding narrative data. Emerg Adulthood. 2015;3(6):375–387.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med. 2012;22(3):276–282.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brantlinger E, Jimenez R, Klingner J, et al. Qualitative studies in special education. Except Child. 2005;71(2):195–207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turatto M, Galfano G. Color, form, and luminance capture attention in visual search. Vision Res. 2000;40(13):1639–1643.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson JM, Hayes TR. Meaning guides attention in real-world scene images: evidence from eye movements and meaning maps. J Vis. 2018;18(6):10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doherty T. Review: [untitled]. Cinéaste. 1994;20(3):49–51.
   Google Scholar
• Dickinson G. The pleasantville effect: nostalgia and the visual framing of (White) suburbia. West J Commun. 2006;70(3):212–233.
   Google Scholar
• Wolfe JM, Horowitz TS. Five factors that guide attention in visual search. Nat Hum Behav. 2017;1(3):1–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wichmann F, Sharpe L, Gegenfurtner K. The contributions of color to recognition memory for natural scenes. J Exp PsycholLearn MemCogn. 2002;28(3):509–520.
   Google Scholar
• Jagaroo V, Wilkinson K. Further considerations of visual cognitive neuroscience in aided AAC: the potential role of motion perception systems in maximizing design display. Augment Altern Commun. 2008;24(1):29–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tobii Dynavox Snap Scene: user’s manual. [Stockholm (Sweden)]: Tobii AB; 2016; [cited 2021 Aug 31]. Available from: http://tdvox.web-downloads.s3.amazonaws.com/SnapScene/documents/TobiiDynavox_SnapScene_UserManual_v1.2_en-US.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Sennott S, Akagi L, Lee M, et al. AAC and artificial intelligence (AI). Top Lang Disord. 2019;39(4):389–403.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tumult Hype 4.1 [Internet]. San Francisco (CA): Tumult; 2020; [cited 2021 May 8]. Available from: https://tumult.com/hype/.
   Google Scholar
• Clark P. Photoshop: Now the world’s most advanced AI application for creatives [Internet]. Adobe Blog; 2020; [cited 2021 May 8]. Available from: https://https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2020/10/05/photoshop-now-the-worlds-most-advanced-ai-application-for-creatives.html#gs.8j5ty1.
   Google Scholar
• Babb S, McNaughton D, Light J, et al. Using AAC video visual scene displays to increase participation and communication within a volunteer activity for adolescents with complex communication needs. Augment Altern Commun. 2020;36(1):31–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brumberg JS, Pitt KM, Mantie-Kozlowski A, et al. Brain-computer interfaces for augmentative and alternative communication: a tutorial. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2018;27(1):1–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donchin E, Spencer K, Wijesinghe R. The mental prosthesis: assessing the speed of a P300-based brain-computer interface. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng. 2000;8(2):174–179.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pitt KM, Brumberg JS, Burnison JD, et al. Behind the scenes of noninvasive brain-computer interfaces: a review of electroencephalography signals, how they are recorded, and why they matter. Perspect ASHA Spec Interest Groups. 2019;4(6):1622–1636.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Li Y, Bahn S, Nam C, et al. Effects of luminosity contrast and stimulus duration on user performance and preference in a P300-based brain–computer interface. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2014;30(2):151–163.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibert G, Attina V, Mattout J, et al.. Size enhancement coupled with intensification of symbols improves P300 speller accuracy. In: Müller-Putz GR, Brunnenr C, Leeb R, Pfurtscheller G, Neuper C, editors. Proceedings of the 4th International BCI Workshop and Training Course. Graz (Austria): Verlag der Technischen Universität Graz; 2008. p. 250–255.
   Google Scholar
• Jin J, Allison B, Wang X, et al. A combined brain–computer interface based on P300 potentials and motion-onset visual evoked potentials. J Neurosci Methods. 2012;205(2):265–276.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Takano K, Komatsu T, Hata N, et al. Visual stimuli for the P300 brain – computer interface: a comparison of white/gray and green/blue flicker matrices. Clin Neurophysiol. 2009;120(8):1562–1566.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ikegami S, Takano K, Wada M, et al. Effect of the green/blue flicker matrix for P300-based brain–computer interface: an EEG–fMRI study. Front Neurol. 2012;3:113.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ryan D, Townsend G, Gates N, et al. Evaluating brain-computer interface performance using color in the P300 checkerboard speller. Clin Neurophysiol. 2017;128(10):2050–2057.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prentke Romich Company. NuEyeTM Tracking System: user’s guide. Wooster (OH): Prentke Romich Company; 2012; Available from: https://cpb-ca-c1.wpmucdn.com/learningnetwork.setbc.org/dist/5/501/files/2017/05/16440v1.4-NuEye-Usr-Guide-1y8vtvm.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Chen S, O’Leary M. Eye Gaze 101: What speech-language pathologists should know about selecting eye gaze augmentative and alternative communication systems. Perspect ASHA Sigs. 2018;3(12):24–32.
   Google Scholar
• Light J, Page R, Curran J, et al. Children’s ideas for the design of AAC assistive technologies for young children with complex communication needs. Augment Altern Commun. 2007;23(4):274–287.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Light J, McNaughton D. Designing AAC research and intervention to improve outcomes for individuals with complex communication needs. Augment Altern Commun. 2015;31(2):85–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thistle J, Wilkinson K. Working memory demands of aided augmentative and alternative communication for individuals with developmental disabilities. Augment Altern Commun. 2013;29(3):235–245.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCarthy J, DiGiovanni J, Ries D, et al. Exploration of head related transfer function and environmental sounds as a means to improve auditory scanning for children requiring augmentative and alternative communication. Assist Technol. 2020;32(6):325–334.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Batorowicz B, McDougall S, Shepherd TA. AAC and community partnerships: the participation path to community inclusion. Augment Altern Commun. 2006;22(3):178–195.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boster JB, McCarthy JW, Brown K, et al. Creating a path for systematic investigation of children with cortical visual impairment who use augmentative and alternative communication. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2021;30(4):1880–1893.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roman-Lantzy C. Cortical visual impairment: an approach to assessment and intervention. 2nd ed. New York (NY): AFB Press; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Käthner I, Ruf CA, Pasqualotto E, et al. A portable auditory P300 brain-computer interface with directional cues. Clin Neurophysiol. 2013;124(2):327–338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiGiovanni JJ, Riffle TL, McCarthy JW. Auditory stroop using spatial stimuli. Clin Arch Commun Disord. 2017;2(2):178–184.
   Google Scholar