Transcript Synthetic Speech: Does it increase social interaction?

Synthetic Speech:
Does it increase social
interaction?
Melissa Bairos, Emily Emanuel,
Aviva Krauthammer, Jen Perkins,
Holly Reis, and Beth Zaglin
Description of AAC User
 Elizabeth: 7;6 year old
girl



Spastic Cerebral Palsy
Mild-Moderate
Cognitive Delay
Impaired vision
Description of Elizabeth
 Attends a self-contained
first grade classroom
 Has a one-on-one aid at
all times
 Uses wheelchair for
mobility

Not motorized due to
vision impairment
 Dependent for all
activities of daily living
Description of Elizabeth

No functional verbal output




Uses BIGmack switches
to say “hello/goodbye”
Turns head to side for
“No”
Knocks for “Yes”
Range of motion with
arms: good


Able to make fist and
point
Unable to isolate finger to
point

Able to hold pointer
in fist and
purposefully point
Description of Elizabeth
 Parents, IEP team want
Elizabeth to use a
speech generating
device (SGD)


Social interaction
Express wants and
needs
 Recommendation: 7-
Level Communication
Builder
Well-built question
Will the use of a speech generating device increase
social interaction for a child with AAC needs?
Search Strategies







Data Base ResearchEBSCOTerms usedSynthetic speech and requestYield4 references, one of
which included information pertaining to topic (Affect of Speech output on maintenance of
requesting and frequency of vocalization in 3 children with developmental disabilities ~ Sigafoos et
al)
Hand SearchReview of Affect of Speech output on maintenance of requesting and frequency of
vocalization in 3 children with developmental disabilities ~ Sigafoos et alAcquisition and functional
use of voice output communication of persons with profound multiple disabilities ~ Behavior
Modification Journal Vol 20, pgs. 451-468, 1996
Data Base ResearchPsycInfoTerms usedAugmenatative and Alternative Communication and
palsy and socialYieldOne article included information related to the topics (Functional
Communication training with assistive devices: Effects on challenging behaviors and affect)
Data Base ResearchCINAHLTerms usedOutput and communication and peerYield20
references, 2 included sections pertaining to topics1- Influence of communicative competence in
AAC technique on children’s towards a peer who uses AAC.2- Attitudes of school aged kids
toward peers who use AAC
Data Base ResearchPsycInfoTerms usedPalsy and children and language and requestingYield1
reference, (Developing functional requesting: Acquisition, durability, and generalization of effects.)
Data Base ResearchPsycInfoTerms usedRequesting and cerebral palsyYield1 reference,
(Extending the application of constant time delay: Teaching a requesting skill to students with
severe multiple disabilities)
Data Base ResearchPsycInfoTerms usedRequest and language and cerebral palsyYield1
references, (Functional Communication training using assistive devices: Effects on challenging
behavior and affect)
Evidence Sources
 Attitudes of children towards an unfamiliar peer using
an AAC device with and without a voice output
(Lilienfeld and Allant, 2002)

An overview
 The study found that children’s attitudes towards
peers who use AAC devices are more positive when
the AAC device has voice output

The more positive the attitude of the peers the more
likely that social interaction will increase
Validity
 Internal: high
Difference in attitudes toward AAC user can be attributed to
speech output device vs. non-speech output device
 Instrumentation used has been proven to have good
construct validity (Lilienfeld and Allant, 2002)
 External: medium
 Study can be replicated.
 Not in the US, used peers and AAC user of average
intelligence, and videotape as opposed to real interaction
 Social: low
 Results were not discussed with relevant stakeholders and
consumer
 No social comparison

Evidence Sources
 The effects of information and Augmentative
Communication Technique on attitudes toward nonspeaking individuals (Gorenflo and Gorenflo1991)

An overview
 Less favorable attitudes towards user of low tech
(alphabet board) than user of a high tech (voice
output) device

This study also demonstrated that the more positive
the attitude of the peers the more likely that social
interaction will increase
Validity
 Internal: high
 The difference in attitudes toward the AAC user can be
attributed to the different AAC devices used (alphabet
board vs. VOCA)
 The instrumentation used has been proven to be
internally consistent and valid (Gorenflo & Gorenflo)
 External: medium
 Study can be replicated
 AAC user was adult male of average intelligence and
within a controlled setting
 Social: low
 Results were not discussed with relevant stakeholders
and consumer
 No social comparison
Communication of Findings
 Overall conclusion:
even though we cannot
directly answer our
question based on the
available research, we
can draw indirect
conclusions that an
SGD would promote
social interaction.
Attitudes were more positive when an SGD was used compared to a non-SGD.
There is no evidence stating that non-SGD increases social interaction.
Question for You
 Have you worked in a setting with a child who used
an AAC speech generating device?

How did the peers respond to the AAC user?