The potential for developing a tactile communication system based on Blissymbolics

References

• Siegel L. The argument for a constitutional right to communication and language. Sign Language Studies 2006;6:255–272
   Google Scholar
• Crockett JB, Yell ML. Without data all we have are assumptions: Revisiting the meaning of a free appropriate public education. Journal of Law Education 2004;37:381–392
   Google Scholar
• Rowley AJ. Rowley revisited: A personal narrative. Journal of Law Education 2004;37:311–328
   Google Scholar
• Chung Y-C, Carter EW, Siseo LG. A systematic review of interventions to increase peer interactions for students with complex communication challenges. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 2012;37:271–287
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dodd JL, Gorey M. AAC intervention as an immersion model. Communication Disorders Quarterly 2014;35:103–107
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King AM, Fahsl AJ. Supporting social competence in children who use augmentative and alternative communication. Teaching Exceptional Children 2012;1:42–49
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser RW, McGhie-Richmond D, Blackstein-Adler S, Mirenda P., Antonius K, Janzen P. Training a school team to integrate technology meaningfully into the curriculum: Effects on student participation. Journal of Special Education Technology 2000;15:31–44
   Google Scholar
• Wilkins J, Ratajczak A. Developing students’ literacy skills using high-tech speech-generating augmentative and alternative communication devices. Intervention in School and Clinic 2009;44:167–172
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beukelman D, Mirenda PM. Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs. 4th ed. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks Publishing; 2013
   Google Scholar
• Lloyd LL, Fuller DR, Arvidson HH. Augmentative and alternative communication: A handbook of principles and practices. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; 1997
   Google Scholar
• Gallace A, Spence C. The cognitive and neural correlates of tactile memory. Psychological Bulletin 2009;3:380–406
   Google Scholar
• Rowland CR, Schweigert P. Tangible symbols: Symbolic communication for individuals with multisensory impairments. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 1989;5:226–234
   Google Scholar
• Rowland C, Schweigert P. Tangible symbols, tangible outcomes. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 2000;16:61–75
   Google Scholar
• Thurlow WR. Some comparisons of characteristics of alphabetic codes for the deaf-blind. Human Factors 1986;28:175–186
   Google Scholar
• Isaacson M, Lloyd LL. The potential for Blissymbolics to serve as the foundation for the development of a tactile communication system. Paper presented at The Clinical Augmentative and Alternative Communication (CAAC) Research Conference; 2012 Sept. 28–30; St. Louis University; St. Louis, MO
   Google Scholar
• Isaacson M, Weng P, Lloyd LL. Development of “tactile-graphic” symbols – A preliminary analysis. Paper presented at: The Clinical AAC Research Conference; 2010 Oct. 8–10; Iowa City, IA
   Google Scholar
• Ali A, Hassiotis A, Strydom A, King M. Self stigma in people with intellectual disabilities and courtesy stigma in family carers: A systematic review. Research in Developmental Disabilities 2012;33:2122–2140
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fougeyrollas P. The influence of the social environment on the social participation of people with disabilities. In: Christiansen C, Baum C, editors. Occupational therapy: Enabling function and well being, 2nd ed. Thoroughfare, NJ: Slack; 1997. pp 378–391
   Google Scholar
• Parette P, Scherer M. Assistive technology use and stigma. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities 2004;39:217–226
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trief E, Bruce SM, Cascella PW, Ivy S. The development of a universal tangible symbol system. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness 2009;103:425–430
   Google Scholar
• Blissymbolics Communication International [Internet]. Kruthusgatan 17, 41104 Goteborg, Sweden; 2014. Available from: http://www.blissymbolics.org/ [last accessed 02 Sept 2014]
   Google Scholar
• Bliss C. Semantography. Sydney, Australia: Semantography Publications; 1949
   Google Scholar
• Bliss C. Semantography, 2nd ed. Sydney, Australia: Semantography Publications; 1965
   Google Scholar
• Heller MA. Tactile picture perception in sighted and blind people. Behavioral Brain Research 2002;135:65–68
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennedy JM, Bai J. Haptic pictures: Fit judgments predict identification, recognition memory, and confidence. Perception 2002;31:1013–1026
   Google Scholar
• D'Angiulli A. Raised-line pictures, blindness, and tactile “belief”: An observational case study. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness 2007;101:172–177
   Google Scholar
• D'Angiulli A, Kennedy JM, Heller MA. Blind children recognizing tactile pictures respond like sighted children given guidance in exploration. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 1998;39:187–190
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Krufka SE, Barner KE. A user study on tactile graphic generation methods. Behaviour & Information Technology 2006;25:297–311
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krufka SE, Barner KE, Aysal TC. Visual to tactile conversion of vector graphics. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 2007;15:310–321
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magee LE, Kennedy JM. Exploring pictures tactually. Nature 1980;283:287–288
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardner, GT. Evidence for independent parallel channels in tachistoscopic perception. Cognitive Psychology 1973;4:130–155
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Logan GD. Parallel and serial processing. In: Pashler H, editor. Stevens' handbook of experimental psychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Son; 2002. pp 271–300
   Google Scholar
• Magnussen S, Greenlee MW, Thomas JP. Parallel processing in visual short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1996;22: 202–212
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Scharff A, John Palmer J. Cathleen M, Moore CM. Extending the simultaneous-sequential paradigm to measure perceptual capacity for features and words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2011;37:813–833
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sternberg S. Memory scanning: Mental processes revealed by reaction time experiments. American Scientist 1969;57:421–457
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pring L. A comparison of word recognition processes of blind and sighted children. Child Development 1984;55:1865–1877
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veispak A, Boets B, Ghesquiere P. Parallel versus sequential processing in print and braille reading. Research in Developmental Disabilities 2012;33:2153–2163
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edman PK. Tactile graphics. New York: American Foundation for the Blind; 1992
   Google Scholar
• Tactile diagram manual: Tactile Education for Visually Impaired Students (TAEVIS) [Internet]. West Lafayette (IN): Purdue University; 2002. Available from: http://www.purdue.edu/odos/drc/Tactile_Diagram_Manual_PRINT.pdf [last accessed July 2013]
   Google Scholar
• Lloyd LL, Isaacson M, Alant E. Graphic symbol research: Perspectives and issues. Paper presented at: The Clinical AAC Research Conference; 2009 Oct. 1–3; Pittsburg, PA
   Google Scholar
• Fuller DR, Lloyd LL. A study of physical and semantic characteristics of a graphic symbol system as predictors of perceived complexity. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 1987;3:26–35
   Google Scholar
• Isaacson MD, Lloyd LL. A comparison of complexity between PCS and Blissymbols. Unpublished data. W. Lafayette, IN: Purdue University; 2009
   Google Scholar
• McNaughton S. Communicating with Blissymbolics. Toronto: Blissymbolics Communication Institute; 1985
   Google Scholar
• Wood C, Storr J, Reich PA. Blissymbol reference guide. Toronto: Blissymbolics Communication International; 1992
   Google Scholar
• Schuchardt KM, Gebhardt M, Mäehler C. Working memory functions in children with different degrees of intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 2010;54:346–353
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuchardt K, Maehler C, Hasselhorn M. Functional deficits in phonological working memory in children with intellectual disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities 2011;32:1934–1940
   Google Scholar
• Lloyd LL, Karlan GR, Nail-Chiwetalu B. Translucency values for 910 Blissymbols. Unpublished data. W. Lafayette, IN: Purdue University; 1994
   Google Scholar
• Isaacson MD, Lloyd LL. A computerized procedure for teaching the relationship between graphic symbols and their referents. Assistive Technology 2013;25:127–136
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koul RK, Lloyd LL. Comparison of graphic symbol learning in individuals with aphasia and right hemisphere brain damage. Brain and Language 1998;62:398–421
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sawyer-Woods L. Symbolic function in a severe non-verbal aphasic. Aphasiology 1987;1:287–290
   Google Scholar
• Ho KM, Weiss SJ, Garrett, KL, Lloyd LL. The effect of remnant and pictographic books on the communicative interaction of individuals with global aphasia. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 2005;21:218–232
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lund SK, Troha JM. Teaching young people who are blind and have autism to make requests using a variation on the picture exchange communication system with tactile symbols: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Autism and Other Developmental Disorders 2008;38:719–730
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker AT, Banda DR, Roseanna C, Davidson RC, Liu-Gitz L. Adapting the picture exchange communication system for a student with visual impairment and autism: A case study. AER Journal: Research and Practice in Visual Impairment and Blindness 2010;3:2–11
   Google Scholar
• Song A. Acquisition and use of Blissymbols by severely mentally retarded adolescents. Mental Retardation 1979;17:253–255
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Elder PS, Bergman JS. Visual symbol communication instruction with nonverbal multiply-handicapped individuals. Mental Retardation 1978;16:107–112
   Google Scholar
• Garrett S. A case study in tactile Blissymbols. Communicating Together 1986;4:16
   Google Scholar
• Edman P. Relief bliss: A low tech technique. Communicating Together 1991;9:21–22
   Google Scholar
• Fingelkurts AA, Fingelkurts AA, Marchetti G. Brain, mind and language functional architectures. The Open Neuroimaging Journal 2010;4:26–29
   Google Scholar
• Higginbotham DJ, Bedrosian JL. Subject selection in AAC research: Decision points. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 1995;11:11–13
   Google Scholar
• Blissonline [Internet]. Box 1100, 871 29 Härnösand; 2012. Available from: http://www.blissonline.se [last accessed 22 July 2013]
   Google Scholar
• Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988
   Google Scholar
• Schabenberger O. Introducing the GLIMMIX procedure for generalized linear mixed models [Internet]. Cary (NC): SAS Institute; 2005. Available from: http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/sugi30/196-30.pdf [last accessed 22 July 2013]
   Google Scholar
• Fuller DR. Initial study into the effects of translucency and complexity on the learning of Blissymbols by children and adults with normal cognitive abilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 1997;13:30–39
   Google Scholar
• Luftig RL, Bernsani HA Jr. An investigation of two variables influencing Blissymbol learnability with non-handicapped adults. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 1985;1:32–37
   Google Scholar
• Isaacson MD. A tactile communication system based on Blissymbolics: An efficacy study [Dissertation]. West Lafayette (IN): Purdue University; 2012. 226 p. Available from: ProQuest/UMI Dissertation Database [ID # 15327]. [last accessed 23 April 2013]
   Google Scholar
• Alais D, Newell FN, Mamassian P. Multisensory processing in review: From physiology to behaviour. Seeing and Perceiving 2010;23:3–38
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stein BE, Wallace MT, Stanford TR. Development of multisensory integration: Transforming sensory input into motor output. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews 1999;5:72–85
   Google Scholar
• Fridriksson J, Baker JM, Whiteside J, Eoute Jr D, Moser D, Vesselinov R, Rorden C. Treating visual speech perception to improve speech production in nonfluent aphasia. Stroke 2009;40:853–858
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kast M, Meyer M, Vogelic C, Gross M, Jancke L. Computer-based multisensory learning in children with developmental dyslexia. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience 2007;25:355–369
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevenson RA, Segers M, Ferber S, Barense MD, Wallace MT. The impact of multisensory integration deficits on speech perception in children with autism spectrum disorders. Frontiers in Psychology 2014;5:1–5
   Google Scholar