Designing electronic graphic symbol-based AAC systems: a scoping review. Part 1: system description

References

• Lynch Y, McCleary M, Smith M. Instructional strategies used in direct AAC interventions with children to support graphic symbol learning: a systematic review. Child Lang Teach Ther. 2018;34(1):23–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russo MJ, Prodan V, Meda NN, et al. High-technology augmentative communication for adults with post-stroke aphasia: a systematic review. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2017;14(5):355–370.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crowe B, Machalicek W, Wei Q, et al. Augmentative and alternative communication for children with intellectual and developmental disability: a mega-review of the literature. J Dev Phys Disabil. 2022;34(1):1–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andzik NR, Chung YC. Augmentative and alternative communication for adults with complex communication needs: a review of single-case research. Commun Disord Q. 2022;43(3):182–194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beukelman DR, Light JC. Augmentative and alternative communication: supporting children and adults with complex communication needs, 5th ed. London: Brookes; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Tenny C. A linguist looks at AAC: language representation systems for augmentative and alternative communication, compared with writing systems and natural language. Writ Syst Res. 2016;8(1):84–119.
   Google Scholar
• Fuller DR, Pampoulou E. Opinion: revisiting the means to select and transmit of the AAC model. JET. 2022;16(1):321–339.
   Google Scholar
• Tönsing K, Bartram, J Morwane, R, et. al. Designing electronic graphic symbol-based AAC systems: a scoping review. Part 2: application of human-centred design. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2022 [cited 2022];
   Google Scholar
• Zangari C, Lloyd L, Vicker B. Augmentative and alternative communication: an historic perspective. Augment Altern Commun. 1994;10(1):27–59.
   Google Scholar
• Shane H, Laubscher E, Schlosser RW, et al. Enhancing communication for individuals with autism: a guide to the visual immersion system. London: Brookes; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Smith M. Speech, language and aided communication: connections and questions in a developmental context. Disabil Rehabil. 2006;28(3):151–157.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kent-Walsh J, Murza KA, Malani MD, et al. Effects of communication partner instruction on the communication of individuals using AAC: a meta-analysis. Augment Alternat Commun. 2015;31(4):271–284.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sennott SC, Light JC, McNaughton D. AAC modeling intervention research review. Res Pract Pers with Sev Disabil. 2016;41(2):101–115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moorcroft A, Scarinci N, Meyer C. Speech pathologist perspectives on the acceptance versus rejection or abandonment of AAC systems for children with complex communication needs. Augment Altern Commun. 2019;35(3):193–204.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson JM, Inglebret E, Jones C, et al. Perspectives of speech language pathologists regarding success versus abandonment of AAC. Augment Alternat Commun. 2006;22(2):85–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin JK, Martin LG, Stumbo NJ, et al. The impact of consumer involvement on satisfaction with and use of assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2011;6(3):225–242.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moorcroft A, Scarinci N, Meyer C. A systematic review of the barriers and facilitators to the provision and use of low-tech and unaided AAC systems for people with complex communication needs and their families. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019;14(7):710–731.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moorcroft A, Scarinci N, Meyer C. “I’ve had a love-hate, I mean mostly hate relationship with these PODD books”: parent perceptions of how they and their child contributed to AAC rejection and abandonment. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021;16(1):72–82.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pampoulou E. Graphic symbols terminology: a call for a consensus. JET. 2017;11(3):92–100.
   Google Scholar
• Tosi F. Design for ergonomics. NV-1 online. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020. (Springer Series in Design and Innovation vol. 2).
   Google Scholar
• Allen J. Designing desirability in an augmentative and alternative communication device. Univ Access Inf Soc. 2005;4(2):135–145.
   Google Scholar
• Bean A, Cargill LP, Lyle S. Framework for selecting vocabulary for preliterate children who use augmentative and alternative communication. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2019;28(3):1000–1009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trembath D, Balandin S, Dark L. Why any old words won’t do: the importance of vocabulary selection. Acquir Knowl Speech, Lang Hear. 2006;8(3):117–119.
   Google Scholar
• Balandin S, Iacono T. A few well-chosen words. Augment Alternat Commun. 1998;14(3):147–161.
   Google Scholar
• Fenson L, Thal D, Reznick JS, et al. MacArthur bates communicative development inventories. London: Brookes; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Soto G, Cooper B. An early Spanish vocabulary for children who use AAC: developmental and linguistic considerations. AAC. Augment Alternat Commun. 2021;37(1):64–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlosser RW, Shane HC, Allen AA, et al. Just-in-time supports in augmentative and alternative communication. J Dev Phys Disabil. 2016;28(1):177–193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drager KDR, Light J, Currall J, et al. AAC technologies with visual scene displays and “just in time” programming and symbolic communication turns expressed by students with severe disability. J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2019;44(3):321–336.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besio S, Chinato MG. A semiotic analysis of the possibilities and limits of Blissymbols. In: Von Tetzchner S, Jensen MH, editors. European perspectives on augmentative and alternative communication. London: Whurr; 1996. p. 182–194.
   Google Scholar
• Fuller DR, Lloyd LL, Stratton MM. Aided AAC symbols. In: Lloyd LL, Fuller DR, Arvidson HH, editors. Augmentative and alternative communication: a handbook of principles and practices. Needham Heights (MA): Allyn & Bacon; 1997. p. 48–79.
   Google Scholar
• Draffan EA, Wald M, Halabi N, et al. Generating acceptable Arabic core vocabularies and symbols for AAC users. In: 6th workshop on speech and language processing for assistive technologies, Dresden, Germany, 2015-08-31, 2015. p. 91–96. https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/384316/
   Google Scholar
• Karal Y, Karal H, Silbir L, et al. Standardization of a graphic symbol system as an alternative communication tool for Turkish. Educ Technol Soc. 2016;19(1):53–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dada S, Huguet A, Bornman J. The iconicity of picture communication symbols for children with English additional language and mild intellectual disability. Augment Alternat Commun. 2013;29(4):360–373.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeKlerk HM, Dada S, Alant E. Children’s identification of graphic symbols representing four basic emotions: comparison of Afrikaans-speaking and Sepedi-speaking children. J Commun Disord. 2014;52:1–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nigam R. Sociocultural development and validation of lexicon for AsianIndian individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2006;1(4):245–256.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Huer MB. Examining perceptions of graphic symbols across cultures: preliminary study of the impact of culture/ethnicity. Augment Alternat Commun. 2000;16(3):180–185.
   Google Scholar
• Pampoulou E, Fuller DR. Introduction of a new AAC symbol classification system: the multidimensional quaternary symbol continuum (MQSC). JET. 2021;15(4):252–267.
   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 Alternat Commun. 2015;31(3):234–245.
   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 Alternat Commun. 2012;28(3):137–147.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thistle JJ, Wilkinson KM. Building evidence-based practice in AAC display design for young children: current practices and future directions. Augment Alternat Commun. 2015;31(2):124–136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkinson KM, Jagaroo V. Contributions of principles of visual cognitive science to AAC system display design. AAC Augment Alternat Commun. 2004;20(3):123–136.
   Google Scholar
• Fallon KA, Light J, Achenbach A. The semantic organization patterns of young children: implications for augmentative and alternative communication. AAC Augment Alternat Commun. 2003;19(2):74–85.
   Google Scholar
• Light J, Drager K, McCarthy J, et al. Performance of typically developing four- and five-year-old children with AAC systems using different language organization techniques. Augment Alternat Commun. 2004;20(2):63–88.
   Google Scholar
• Dukhovny E, Gahl S. Manual motor-plan similarity affects lexical recall on a speech-generating device: implications for AAC users. J Commun Disord. 2014;48(1):52–60.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bedwani MAN, Bruck S, Costley D. Augmentative and alternative communication for children with autism spectrum disorder: an evidence-based evaluation of the language acquisition through motor planning (LAMP) programme. Cogent Educ. 2015;2(1):1045807.
   Google Scholar
• Thistle JJ, Holmes SA, Horn MM, et al. Consistent symbol location affects motor learning in preschoolers without disabilities: implications for designing augmentative and alternative communication displays. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2018;27(3):1010–1017.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pullin G, Hennig S. 17 Ways to say yes: toward nuanced tone of voice in AAC and speech technology. AAC. Augment Alternat Commun. 2015;31(2):170–180.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlünz GI, Gumede T, Wilken I, et al. Applications in accessibility of text-to-speech synthesis for South African languages: initial system integration and user engagement. In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Nekoto W, Marivate V, Matsila T, et al. Participatory research for low-resourced machine translation: a case study in African languages. In: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Stroudsburg (PA): Association for Computational Linguistics; 2020. p. 2144–60. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.02353
   Google Scholar
• McNaughton D, Light J. The iPad and mobile technology revolution: benefits and challenges for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication. Augment Alternat Commun. 2013;29(2):107–116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ogletree BT, McMurry S, Schmidt M, et al. The changing world of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC): examining three realities faced by today’s AAC provider. Perspect ASHA SIGs. 2018;3(12):113–122.
   Google Scholar
• Dada S, Murphy Y, Tönsing K. Augmentative and alternative communication practices: a descriptive study of the perceptions of South African speech-language therapists. Augment Alternat Commun. 2017;33(4):189–200.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boster JB, McCarthy JW. Designing augmentative and alternative communication applications: the results of focus groups with speech-language pathologists and parents of children with autism spectrum disorder. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(4):353–365.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frick B, Boster JB, Thompson S. Animation in AAC: previous research, a sample of current availability in the United States, and future research potential. Assist Technol. 2022 [cited 15 Nov 2022];1–10. doi:10.1080/10400435.2022.2043954
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Couvreur L, Goossens R. Design for (every)one: co-creation as a bridge between universal design and rehabilitation engineering. CoDesign. 2011;7(2):107–121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amery R, Thirumanickam A, Barker R, et al. Developing augmentative and alternative communication systems in languages other than English: a scoping review. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2022 [cited 15 Nov 2022]; 1–20. doi:10.1044/2022_ASHA-21-00396
   Google Scholar
• Light J, McNaughton D, Beukelman D, et al. Challenges and opportunities in augmentative and alternative communication: research and technology development to enhance communication and participation for individuals with complex communication needs. Augment Alternat Commun. 2019;35(1):1–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sucharew H, Macaluso M. Methods for research evidence synthesis: the scoping review approach. J Hosp Med. 2019;14(7):416–418.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol Theory Pract. 2005;8(1):19–32.
   Google Scholar
• Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KR. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(69):1–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–473.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kellermeyer L, Harnke B, Knight S, et al. The impact of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) as a search strategy tool on literature search quality: a systematic review. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106(4):203–206.
   Google Scholar
• World Bank Group. World Bank country and lending groups: country classification [Internet]. 2022. https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups
   Google Scholar
• Hill K. Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) research and development: the challenge of evidence-based practice. Int J Comput Process Orient Lang. 2006;19(4):1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Bhattacharya S, Basu A. Design of an iconic communication aid for individuals in India with speech and motion impairments. Assist Technol. 2009;21(4):173–187.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Arifi B, Al-Rubaian A, Al-Ofisan G, et al. Towards an Arabic language augmentative and alternative communication application for autism. In Marcus A, editor. Design, user experience, and usability health, learning, playing, cultural, and cross-cultural user experience. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2013. p. 333–341.
   Google Scholar
• Cheung KLKH, Lam THW, Cheung KLKH. A mobile augmentative and alternative communication (MAAC) application for disabilities. In: Heal 2014 – 7th Int Conf Heal Informatics, Proceedings; Part 7th Int Jt Conf Biomed Eng Syst Technol BIOSTEC 2014. 2014. p. 188–95.
   Google Scholar
• Karita T, Faculty of Education, Ehime University. Development of a communication aid app with iOS devices to support children/persons with speech disabilities. J Adv Comput Intell Intell Inform. 2017;21(2):371–377.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodríguez-Sedano F, Conde-González MA, Fernández-Llamas C, et al. The use of a new visual language as a supporting resource for people with intellectual disabilities. In: Zaphiris P, Ioannou A, editors. Learning and collaboration technologies technology in education. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 202–214 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science; vol. 10296).
   Google Scholar
• Hirotomi T. An AAC system designed for improving behaviors and attitudes in communication between children with CCN and their peers. In: Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics). New York, NY: Springer International Publishing; 2018. p. 530. 41.
   Google Scholar
• Mahmud AA, Limpens Y, Martens J-B. Expressing through digital photographs: an assistive tool for persons with aphasia. Univ Access Inf Soc. 2013;12(3):309–326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van de Sandt-Koenderman M, Wiegers J, Hardy P. A computerised communication aid for people with aphasia. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27(9):529–533.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daemen E, Dadlani P, Du J, et al. Designing a free style, indirect, and interactive storytelling application for people with aphasia. In: Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics). 2007. p. 221–234.
   Google Scholar
• de Oliveira K, Junior J, Silva J, et al. A. VoxLaps: a free symbol-based AAC application for Brazilian Portuguese. In: Antona M, Stephanidis C, editors. Universal access in human-computer interaction. Toronto, Canada: Springer; 2016. p. 129–140.
   Google Scholar
• Hervás R, Bautista S, Méndez G, et al. Predictive composition of pictogram messages for users with autism. J Ambient Intell Hum Comput. 2020;11(11):5649–5664.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin E, Cupeiro C, Pizarro L, et al. “Today I tell” a comics and story creation app for people with autism spectrum condition. Int J Hum–Comput Interact. 2019;35(8):679–691.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams K, Moffatt K, McCall D, et al. Designing conversation cues on a head-worn display to support persons with aphasia. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2015. p. 231–40.
   Google Scholar
• da Silva DP, Amate FC, Basile FRM, et al. AACVOX: mobile application for augmentative alternative communication to help people with speech disorder and motor impairment. Res Biomed Eng. 2018;34(2):166–175.
   Google Scholar
• Bruno J. Gateway for Snap: user manual [Internet]. Communication Technology Resources; 2020. http://www.gatewaytolanguageandlearning.com/resources/ewExternalFiles/GatewayTeen_AdultFunctionalManual.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Porter G, Cafiero JM. Pragmatic organization dynamic display (PODD) communication books: a promising practice for individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Perspect Augment Alternat Commun. 2009;18(4):121–129.
   Google Scholar
• Judge S, Randall N, Goldbart J, et al. The language and communication attributes of graphic symbol communication aids – a systematic review and narrative synthesis. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019;3107:1–11.
   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 Alternat Commun. 2019;35(1):26–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waller A. Telling tales: unlocking the potential of AAC technologies. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2019;54(2):159–169.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valencia S, Pavel A, Santa Maria J, et al. Conversational agency in augmentative and alternative communication. In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2020. p. 1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Di Mascio T, Tarantino L, Cirelli L, et al. Designing a personalizable ASD-oriented AAC tool: an action research experience. Adv Intell Syst Comput. 2019;804:200–209.
   Google Scholar
• Jafri R, Almasoud AM, Alshammari RMT, et al. A low-cost gaze-based Arabic augmentative and alternative communication system for people with severe speech and motor impairments. In: Stephanidis C, Antona M, editors. Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics). New York (NY): Springer International Publishing; 2020. p. 279–290.
   Google Scholar
• Thistle JJ, Wilkinson K. Effects of background color and symbol arrangement cues on construction of multi-symbol messages by young children without disabilities: implications for aided AAC design. Augment Alternat Commun. 2017;33(3):160–169.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray J, Lynch Y, Meredith S, et al. Professionals’ decision-making in recommending communication aids in the UK: competing considerations. Augment Alternat Commun. 2019;35(3):167–179.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gregor S, Hevner AR, The Australian National University. Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MISQ. 2013;37(2):337–355.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wieringa R. Design science methodology: principles and practice. In: Proceedings – International Conference on Software Engineering. 2010. p. 493–4.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. World Report on Disability [Internet]2011. https://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/report.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Smith RO, Scherer MJ, Cooper R, et al. Assistive technology products: a position paper from the first global research, innovation, and education on assistive technology (GREAT) summit. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(5):473–485.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornman J, Bryen DN, Moolman E, et al. Use of consumer wireless devices by South Africans with severe communication disability. Afr J Disabil. 2016;5(1):1–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tönsing KM, van Niekerk K, Schlünz GI, et al. AAC services for multilingual populations: South African service provider perspectives. J Commun Disord. 2018;73:62–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grosjean F. Bilingualism: a short introduction. In: Grosjean F, Li P, editors. The psycholinguistics of bilingualism. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013. p. 5–25.
   Google Scholar
• Loncke F. Augmentative and alternative communication: models and applications. 2nd ed. San Diego (CA): Plural Publishing; 2022.
   Google Scholar
• An S, Feng X, Dai Y, et al. Development and evaluation of a speech-generating AAC mobile app for minimally verbal children with autism spectrum disorder in Mainland China. Mol Autism. 2017;8(1):1–12.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Babic J, Slivar I, Car Z, et al. Prototype-driven software development process for augmentative and alternative communication applications. In: 2015 13th International Conference on Telecommunications (ConTEL). New York, NY: IEEE; 2015. p. 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Boyd-Graber J, Nikolova S, Moffatt K, et al. Participatory design with proxies: developing a desktop-PDA system to support people with aphasia. Conf Hum Factors Comput Syst – Proc, 2006, vol. 1. p. 151–160.
   Google Scholar
• de Faria Borges LCL, Filgueiras LVL, Maciel C, et al. The life cycle of a customized communication device for a child with cerebral palsy: contributions toward the PD4CAT method. J Brazilian Comput Soc. 2014;20(1):10.
   Google Scholar
• Hayes GR, Hirano S, Marcu G, et al. Interactive visual supports for children with autism. Pers Ubiquit Comput. 2010;14(7):663–680.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hine N, Arnott JL, Smith D. Design issues encountered in the development of a mobile multimedia augmentative communication service. Univ Access Inf Soc. 2003;2(3):255–264.
   Google Scholar
• Lubas M, Mitchell J, De Leo G. User-centered design and augmentative and alternative communication apps for children with autism spectrum disorders. SAGE Open. 2014;4(2):215824401453750.
   Google Scholar
• Mendes M, Correia S. Combining research, theory and end user experiments for suitable AAC apps. Assist Technol Res Ser. 2013;33:340–346.
   Google Scholar
• Saturno CE, Ramirez ARG, Conte MJ, et al. An augmentative and alternative communication tool for children and adolescents with cerebral palsy. Behav Inf Technol. 2015;34(6):632–645.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stančić Z, Škrinjar JJF, Car Ž, et al. Systems of support for persons with complex communication needs. In: 2013 36th International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO). 2013. p. 700–4.
   Google Scholar