Participants’ Dynamic Orientation to Folder Navigation when Using 
a VOCA with a Touch Screen in Talk-in-Interaction

References

• Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (1984). Structures of social action: 
Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Auer, P. (2005). Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text, 25, 7–36.
   Google Scholar
• Blischak, D., Lombardino, L., & Dyson, A. (2003). Use of speech-generating devices: In support of natural speech. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 19, 29–35.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bloch, S. (2011). Anticipatory other-completion of augmentative and alternative communication talk: A conversation analysis study. Disability and Rehabilitation, 33, 261–269.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloch, S. (in press). Multiple troubles and repair in voice output communication aid-mediated interaction. In N. Norén, C. Samuelsson & C. Plejert (Eds.), Aided communication in everyday interaction. Guildford: J & R Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brekke, K., & von Tetzchner, S. (2003). Co-construction in graphic language development. In S. von Tetzchner, & N. Grove (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication: developmental issues.(pp. 176–210). London: Whurr Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke, M., & Wilkinson, R. (2007). Interaction between children with cerebral palsy and their peers 1: Organizing and understanding VOCA use. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23, 336–348.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke, M., & Wilkinson, R. (2008). Interaction between children with cerebral palsy and their peers 2: Understanding initiated VOCA-mediated turns. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24, 3–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke, M., & Wilkinson, R. (2010). Communication aid use in children's conversation: Time, timing and speaker transfer. In H. Gardner & M. Forrester (Eds.), Analysing interactions in childhood: Insights from conversation analysis. (pp. 249–268). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, S., & Markovà, I. (1995). Complementarity in the construction of a problematic utterance in conversation. In I. Markovà, C. Graumann, & K. Foppa (Eds.), Mutualities in dialogue. 
(pp. 238–263). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Drager, K., Anderson, J., Debarros, J., Hayes, E., Liebman, J., & 
Panek, E. (2007). Speech synthesis in background noise: Effects of message formulation and visual information on the intelligibility of American English DECTalkTM. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23, 177–186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drager, K., & Light, J. (2006). Designing dynamic display AAC systems for young children with complex communication needs. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 
15, 2–7.
   Google Scholar
• Eklinder, J., & Svensson, E. (2009). Reparationer i AKK-samtal med Tellusdator [Repair in AAC conversation with a Tellus computer]. (Master's thesis, Department of Neuroscience, Uppsala University). Retrieved from WWW:http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn = urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-112832
   Google Scholar
• Ford, C., Fox, B., & Thompson, S. (1996). Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In E. Ochs, E. Schegloff, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar. (pp. 134–184). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (1986). Between and within: Alternative treatments of continuers and assessments. Human Studies, 9, 205–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–1522.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2002). Time in action. Current Anthropology, 43, 
19–35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C., & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 283–307.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Higginbotham, J. D. & Engleke, C. (2013). A primer for doing talk-in-interaction research in augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 29, 3–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jagaroo, V., & Wilkinson, K. (2008). Further considerations of visual cognitive neuroscience in aided AAC: The potential role of motion perception systems in maximizing design display. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24, 29–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koul, R. (2003). Synthetic speech perception in individuals with and without disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 19, 49–58.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Koul, R., & Harding, R. (1998). Identification and production of graphic symbols by individuals with aphasia – efficacy of a software application. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 14, 11–24.
   Google Scholar
• Lerner, G. (1996). On the ‘semi-permeable’ character of grammatical units in conversation: Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In E. Ochs, E. Schegloff, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar. (pp. 238–276). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Light, J., & Drager, K. (2007). AAC technologies for young children with complex communication needs: State of the science and future research directions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23, 204–216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind and world dialogically. Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• McNaughton, D., Rackensperger, T., Benedek-Wood, E., 
Krezman, C., Williams, M. B., & Light, J. (2008). A child needs to be given a chance to succeed: Parents of individuals who use AAC describe the benefits and challenges of learning AAC technologies. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24, 43–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morell, A. (2005). Hur använder barn med autism pekdatorer som alternativ kommunikation? [How do children with autism use portable touch-screen computers to augment communication?] (No. 3/2005). Lund: Forsknings- och utvecklingsenheten, Habilitering och Hjälpmedel, Region Skåne.
   Google Scholar
• Norén, N. (2008). En samtalsanalytisk studie av bruket av bildbaserade och grafiska kommunikationshjälpmedel (AAC) i vardagliga aktiviteter. Swedish Research Council, Dnr 435-2008-681.
   Google Scholar
• Quach, W., & Beukelman, D. (2010). Facilitating children's learning of dynamic-display AAC devices: The effect of two instructional methods on the performance of 6- and 7-year-olds with typical development using a dual-screen prototype. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 26, 1–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raghavendra, P., & Oaten, R. (2007). Effects of speech and print feedback on spelling performance of a child with cerebral palsy using a speech-generating device. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 2, 299–308.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. (1979). The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In T. Givôn (Ed.), Syntax and semantics. Vol 12: Discourse and syntax. (pp. 261–286). New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. Schegloff, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar. (pp. 52–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. (2007). Sequence organisation in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R. (2003). Roles of speech output in augmentative and alternative communication: Narrative Review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 19, 5–27.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schlosser, R., & Blischak, D. (2004). Effects of speech and print feedback on spelling by children with autism. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 47, 848–862.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sigafoos, J., Didden, R., & O’Reilly, M. (2003). Effects of speech output on maintenance of requesting and frequency of vocalizations in three children with developmental disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 19, 37–47.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sigurd Pilesjö, M., & Rasmussen, G. (2011). Exploring interaction between a non-speaking boy using aided augmentative and alternative communication and his every-day communication partners: Features of turn organization and turn design. Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders, 2, 183–213.
   Google Scholar
• Sigurd Pilesjö, M. (in press). On the use of bodily action and vocalizations as resources and methods when claiming and completing turns in aided AAC. In N. Norén, C. Samuelsson, & C. Plejert (Eds.), Aided communication in everyday interaction. Guildford: J & R Press.
   Google Scholar
• ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis. London: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Thunberg, G., Ahlsén, E., & Dahlgren Sandberg, A. (2007). Children with autistic spectrum disorders and speech-generating devices: Communication in different activities at home. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 21, 457–479.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Tetzchner, S., & Basil, C. (2011). Terminology and notation in written representations of conversations with augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 27, 141–149.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Tetzchner, S., & Grove, N. (2003). The development of alternative language forms. In S. von Tetzchner & N. Grove (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication developmental issues. (pp. 1–27). London: Whurr Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• von Tetzchner, S., & Jensen, M. H. (1996). Introduction. In S. von Tetzchner & M. H. Jensen (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication: European perspectives. (pp. 1–18). London: Whurr Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Wallace, S., Hux, K., & Beukelman, D. (2010). Navigation of a dynamic screen AAC interface by survivors of severe traumatic brain 
injury. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 26, 242–254.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, C., Carlin, M., & Jagaroo, V. (2006). Pre-schoolers’ speed of locating a target symbol under different color conditions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 22, 123–133.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar