Predictive Anchoring: A Novel Interaction to Support Contextualized Suggestions for Grid Displays
Authors: 
Cynthia Zastudil, Christine Holyfield, June A. Smith, Hannah Nguyen, 
Stephen MacNeilAuthors Info & Claims
Article No.: 94, Pages 1 - 6
Abstract
Grid displays are the most common form of augmentative and alternative communication device recommended by speech-language pathologists for children. Grid displays present a large variety of vocabulary which can be beneficial for a users’ language development. However, the extensive navigation and cognitive overhead required of users of grid displays can negatively impact users’ ability to actively participate in social interactions, which is an important factor of their language development. We present a novel interaction technique for grid displays, Predictive Anchoring, based on user interaction theory and language development theory. Our design is informed by existing literature in AAC research, presented in the form of a set of design goals and a preliminary design sketch. Future work in user studies and interaction design are also discussed.
References
[1]
Kate Anderson, Susan Balandin, and Sally Clendon. 2011. “He cares about me and I care about him.” Children’s experiences of friendship with peers who use AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 27, 2 (2011), 77–90.
[2]
Allyson P. Arserio, Elizabeth E. Biggs, and Emily Holz. 2023. Experiences of Parents Supporting Their Young Children Who Use Speech-Generating Devices. Journal of Early Intervention 0, 0 (2023), 10538151231199898. https://doi.org/10.1177/10538151231199898 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/10538151231199898
[3]
Beata Batorowicz, Fiona Campbell, Stephen von Tetzchner, Gillian King, and Cheryl Missiuna. 2014. Social Participation of School-aged Children Who Use Communication Aids: The Views of Children and Parents. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 30, 3 (2014), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2014.940464 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2014.940464PMID: 25115791.
[4]
David Beukelman and Janice Light. 2020. Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs. Brookes Publishing Co., Baltimore, MD, USA.
[5]
Diane Branson and Maryann Demchak. 2009. The Use of Augmentative and Alternative Communication Methods with Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities: A Research Review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 25, 4 (Dec. 2009), 274–286. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434610903384529 Publisher: Taylor & Francis _eprint: https://doi.org/10.3109/07434610903384529.
[6]
Joanne M Cafiero and Barbara Stern Delsack. 2007. AAC and autism: compelling issues, promising practices and future directions. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication 16, 2 (2007), 23–26.
[7]
Jessica Caron Christine Holyfield and Janice Light. 2019. Programing AAC just-in-time for beginning communicators: the process. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 35, 4 (2019), 309–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2019.1686538 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2019.1686538PMID: 31790292.
[8]
Humphrey Curtis, Timothy Neate, and Carlota Vazquez Gonzalez. 2022. State of the Art in AAC: A Systematic Review and Taxonomy. In Proceedings of the 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Athens, Greece) (ASSETS ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 22, 22 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3517428.3544810
[9]
Kathryn D. R. Drager, Janice Light, Jessica Currall, Nimisha Muttiah, Vanessa Smith, Danielle Kreis, Alyssa Nilam-Hall, Daniel Parratt, Kaitlin Schuessler, Kaitlin Shermetta, and Jill Wiscount. 2019. AAC technologies with visual scene displays and “just in time” programming and symbolic communication turns expressed by students with severe disability. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability 44, 3 (July 2019), 321–336. https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2017.1326585 Publisher: Taylor & Francis _eprint: https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2017.1326585.
[10]
Patrick Dwyer, Jacalyn G Ryan, Zachary J Williams, and Dena L Gassner. 2022. First do no harm: Suggestions regarding respectful autism language. Pediatrics 149, Supplement 4 (2022).
[11]
Mauricio Fontana De Vargas, Jiamin Dai, and Karyn Moffatt. 2022. AAC with Automated Vocabulary from Photographs: Insights from School and Speech-Language Therapy Settings. In Proceedings of the 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. ACM, Athens Greece, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3517428.3544805
[12]
Mauricio Fontana De Vargas, Christina Yu, Howard C. Shane, and Karyn Moffatt. 2024. Co-Designing QuickPic: Automated Topic-Specific Communication Boards from Photographs for AAC-Based Language Instruction. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 910, 16 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642080
[13]
Jennifer B Ganz, Theresa L Earles-Vollrath, Amy K Heath, Richard I Parker, Mandy J Rispoli, and Jaime B Duran. 2012. A meta-analysis of single case research studies on aided augmentative and alternative communication systems with individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of autism and developmental disorders 42 (2012), 60–74.
[14]
Luís Filipe Garcia, Luís Caldas de Oliveira, and David Martins de Matos. 2016. Evaluating pictogram prediction in a location-aware augmentative and alternative communication system. Assistive Technology 28, 2 (2016), 83–92.
[15]
Luís Filipe Garcia, Luís Caldas De Oliveira, and David Martins De Matos. 2015. Measuring the performance of a location-aware text prediction system. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (TACCESS) 7, 1 (2015), 1–29.
[16]
Cindy Gevarter, Mariah Groll, and Erin Stone. 2020. Dynamic assessment of augmentative and alternative communication application grid formats and communicative targets for children with autism spectrum disorder. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 36, 4 (2020), 226–237.
[17]
William E Hick. 1952. On the rate of gain of information. Quarterly Journal of experimental psychology 4, 1 (1952), 11–26.
[18]
D Jeffery Higginbotham, Howard Shane, Susanne Russell, and Kevin Caves. 2007. Access to AAC: Present, past, and future. Augmentative and alternative communication 23, 3 (2007), 243–257.
[19]
Erika Hoff. 2006. How social contexts support and shape language development. Developmental review 26, 1 (2006), 55–88.
[20]
Christine Holyfield, Jessica Gosnell Caron, Kathryn Drager, and Janice Light. 2019. Effect of mobile technology featuring visual scene displays and just-in-time programming on communication turns by preadolescent and adolescent beginning communicators. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 21, 2 (March 2019), 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549507.2018.1441440 Publisher: Taylor & Francis _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/17549507.2018.1441440.
[21]
Christine Holyfield, Stephen MacNeil, Nicolette Caldwell, Tara O’Neill Zimmerman, Elizabeth Lorah, Eduard Dragut, and Slobodan Vucetic. 2024. Leveraging Communication Partner Speech to Automate Augmented Input for Children on the Autism Spectrum Who Are Minimally Verbal: Prototype Development and Preliminary Efficacy Investigation.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 33, 3 (2024).
[22]
Susan S Johnston, Joe Reichle, and Joanna Evans. 2004. Supporting augmentative and alternative communication use by beginning communicators with severe disabilities. (2004).
[23]
Ann P Kaiser and Megan Y Roberts. 2011. Advances in early communication and language intervention. Journal of early intervention 33, 4 (2011), 298–309.
[24]
Shaun K. Kane, Barbara Linam-Church, Kyle Althoff, and Denise McCall. 2012. What we talk about: designing a context-aware communication tool for people with aphasia. In Proceedings of the 14th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Boulder, Colorado, USA) (ASSETS ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1145/2384916.2384926
[25]
J. Law, J. Boyle, F. Harris, A. Harkness, and C. Nye. 2000. Prevalence and natural history of primary speech and language delay: findings from a systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 35, 2 (2000), 165–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/136828200247133
[26]
Janice Light. 1997. “Let’s go star fishing”: Reflections on the contexts of language learning for children who use aided AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 13, 3 (1997), 158–171.
[27]
Janice Light and Kathryn Drager. 2007. AAC technologies for young children with complex communication needs: State of the science and future research directions. Augmentative and alternative communication 23, 3 (2007), 204–216.
[28]
Janice Light, K Drager, and J Currall. 2012. Effects of AAC systems with “just in time” programming for children with complex communication needs. In Poster presented at the biennial conference of the International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Pittsburgh, PA.
[29]
Janice Light, Kathryn Drager, John McCarthy, Suzanne Mellott, Diane Millar, Craig Parrish, Arielle Parsons, Stacy Rhoads, Maricka Ward, and Michelle Welliver. 2004. Performance of Typically Developing Four- and Five-Year-Old Children with AAC Systems using Different Language Organization Techniques. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 20, 2 (June 2004), 63–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610410001655553 Publisher: Taylor & Francis _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610410001655553.
[30]
Janice Light and David McNaughton. 2012. Supporting the Communication, Language, and Literacy Development of Children with Complex Communication Needs: State of the Science and Future Research Priorities. Assistive Technology 24, 1 (2012), 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2011.648717 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2011.648717
[31]
Janice Light, David McNaughton, and Jessica Caron. 2019. New and emerging AAC technology supports for children with complex communication needs and their communication partners: State of the science and future research directions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 35, 1 (2019), 26–41.
[32]
JC Light, AR Parsons, and K Drager. 2002. “There’s more to life than cookies”. Developing interactions for social closeness with beginning communicators who use AAC. In Exemplary pratices for beginning communicators: Implications for AAC. Paul H. Brookes Baltimore, 187–218.
[33]
Janice Light, Krista M. Wilkinson, Amber Thiessen, David R. Beukelman, and Susan Koch Fager. 2019. Designing effective AAC displays for individuals with developmental or acquired disabilities: State of the science and future research directions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 35, 1 (2019), 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2018.1558283 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2018.1558283PMID: 30648896.
[34]
Wanyu Liu, Julien Gori, Olivier Rioul, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, and Yves Guiard. 2020. How Relevant is Hick’s Law for HCI?. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376878
[35]
Jane McCormack, Sharynne McLeod, Lindy McAllister, and Linda J Harrison. 2010. My speech problem, your listening problem, and my frustration: The experience of living with childhood speech impairment. (2010).
[36]
David McNaughton, Tracy Rackensperger, Elizabeth Benedek-Wood, Carole Krezman, Michael B Williams, and Janice Light. 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, 1 (2008), 43–55.
[37]
Ninareh Mehrabi, Fred Morstatter, Nripsuta Saxena, Kristina Lerman, and Aram Galstyan. 2021. A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning. ACM Comput. Surv. 54, 6, Article 115 (jul 2021), 35 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3457607
[38]
Pat Mirenda. 1997. Supporting individuals with challenging behavior through functional communication training and AAC: Research review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 13, 4 (1997), 207–225.
[39]
Aimee Mooney, Steven Bedrick, Glory Noethe, Scott Spaulding, and Melanie Fried-Oken. 2018. Mobile technology to support lexical retrieval during activity retell in primary progressive aphasia. Aphasiology 32, 6 (Mar 2018), 666–692. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2018.1447640
[40]
Mmachi God’sglory Obiorah, Anne Marie Marie Piper, and Michael Horn. 2021. Designing AACs for People with Aphasia Dining in Restaurants. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 496, 14 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445280
[41]
Jørn Østvik, Susan Balandin, and Borgunn Ytterhus. 2018. Interactional facilitators and barriers to social relationships between students who use AAC and fellow students. Society, Health & Vulnerability 9, 1 (2018), 1438692.
[42]
Amanda O’Brien, Ralf W Schlosser, Howard C Shane, Jennifer Abramson, Anna A Allen, Suzanne Flynn, Christina Yu, and Katherine Dimery. 2016. Brief report: just-in-time visual supports to children with autism via the Apple Watch:® A pilot feasibility study. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 46 (2016), 3818–3823.
[43]
Rupal Patel and Rajiv Radhakrishnan. 2007. Enhancing Access to Situational Vocabulary by Leveraging Geographic Context.Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits 4, 1 (2007), 99–114.
[44]
Rhea Paul. 1997. Facilitating transitions in language development for children using AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 13, 3 (1997), 141–148.
[45]
Jayr Alencar Pereira, David Macêdo, Cleber Zanchettin, Adriano Lorena Inácio de Oliveira, and Robson do Nascimento Fidalgo. 2022. PictoBERT: Transformers for next pictogram prediction. Expert Systems with Applications 202 (2022), 117231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.117231
[46]
Tracy Rackensperger, Carole Krezman, David Mcnaughton, Michael B Williams, and Karen D’silva. 2005. “When I first got it, I wanted to throw it off a cliff”: The challenges and benefits of learning AAC technologies as described by adults who use AAC. Augmentative and alternative communication 21, 3 (2005), 165–186.
[47]
MaryAnn Romski, Rose A Sevcik, Lauren B Adamson, Melissa Cheslock, Ashlyn Smith, R Michael Barker, and Roger Bakeman. 2010. Randomized comparison of augmented and nonaugmented language interventions for toddlers with developmental delays and their parents. (2010).
[48]
Igor Schadle. 2004. Sibyl: AAC system using NLP techniques. In Computers Helping People with Special Needs: 9th International Conference, ICCHP 2004, Paris, France, July 7-9, 2004. Proceedings 9. Springer, 1009–1015.
[49]
Ralf W. Schlosser, Howard C. Shane, Anna A. Allen, Jennifer Abramson, Emily Laubscher, and Katherine Dimery. 2016. Just-in-Time Supports in Augmentative and Alternative Communication. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities 28, 1 (Feb. 2016), 177–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-015-9452-2
[50]
Howard C Shane. 2006. Using visual scene displays to improve communication and communication instruction in persons with autism spectrum disorders. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication 15, 1 (2006), 8–13.
[51]
Ather Sharif, Aedan Liam McCall, and Kianna Roces Bolante. 2022. Should I say “disabled people” or “people with disabilities”? Language preferences of disabled people between identity-and person-first language. In Proceedings of the 24th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility. 1–18.
[52]
L.D. Shriberg, Tomblin J.D., and McSweeney J.L.1999. Prevalence of speech delay in 6-year-old children and comorbidity with language impairment - . https:// .ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10599627/
[53]
Julia L Smith, John W McCarthy, and Joann P Benigno. 2009. The effect of high-tech AAC system position on the joint attention of infants without disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative communication 25, 3 (2009), 165–175.
[54]
Sheela Stuart and Christopher Ritthaler. 2008. Case studies of intermediate steps/between AAC evaluations and implementation. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication 17, 4 (2008), 150–155.
[55]
Amanda Taboas, Karla Doepke, and Corinne Zimmerman. 2023. Preferences for identity-first versus person-first language in a US sample of autism stakeholders. Autism 27, 2 (2023), 565–570.
[56]
Jennifer J Thistle and Krista M Wilkinson. 2015. Building evidence-based practice in AAC display design for young children: Current practices and future directions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 31, 2 (2015), 124–136.
[57]
Stephanie Valencia, Richard Cave, Krystal Kallarackal, Katie Seaver, Michael Terry, and Shaun K Kane. 2023. “The less I type, the better”: How AI Language Models can Enhance or Impede Communication for AAC Users. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14.
[58]
Stephanie Valencia, Jessica Huynh, Emma Y Jiang, Yufei Wu, Teresa Wan, Zixuan Zheng, Henny Admoni, Jeffrey P Bigham, and Amy Pavel. 2024. COMPA: Using Conversation Context to Achieve Common Ground in AAC. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 915, 18 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642762
[59]
Lev S Vygotsky. 2012. Thought and language. MIT press.
[60]
Virginia L Walker and Martha E Snell. 2013. Effects of augmentative and alternative communication on challenging behavior: A meta-analysis. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 29, 2 (2013), 117–131.
[61]
Amy M Wetherby, Debra H Cain, Dianne G Yonclas, and Virginia G Walker. 1988. Analysis of intentional communication of normal children from the prelinguistic to the multiword stage. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 31, 2 (1988), 240–252.
[62]
Krista M Wilkinson, Rick Gilmore, and Yiming Qian. 2022. Judicious arrangement of symbols on a simulated augmentative and alternative communication display optimizes visual attention by individuals with Down syndrome. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 65, 2 (2022), 710–726.
[63]
Krista M Wilkinson and Vinoth Jagaroo. 2004. Contributions of Principles of Visual Cognitive Science to AAC System Display Design. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 20, 3 (2004), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610410001699717 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610410001699717
[64]
Juliann J. Woods and Amy M. Wetherby. 2003. Early Identification of and Intervention for Infants and Toddlers Who Are at Risk for Autism Spectrum Disorder. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 34, 3 (July 2003), 180–193. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2003/015) Publisher: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
Index Terms
- Predictive Anchoring: A Novel Interaction to Support Contextualized Suggestions for Grid Displays
Recommendations
Exploring the use of Generative AI to Support Automated Just-in-Time Programming for Visual Scene Displays
ASSETS '24: Proceedings of the 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and AccessibilityMillions of people worldwide rely on alternative and augmentative communication devices to communicate. Visual scene displays (VSDs) can enhance communication for these individuals by embedding communication options within contextualized images. However, ...
Touchless gestural interaction with small displays: a case study
CHItaly '13: Proceedings of the Biannual Conference of the Italian Chapter of SIGCHITouchless gestural interaction enables users to interact with digital devices using body movements and gestures, and without the burden of a physical contact with technology (e.g., data gloves, body markers, or remote controllers). Most gesture-based ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
October 2024
1475 pages
ISBN:9798400706776
DOI:10.1145/3663548
Copyright © 2024 Owner/Author.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 27 October 2024
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Poster
- Research
- Refereed limited
Funding Sources
Conference
ASSETS '24
Sponsor:
ASSETS '24: The 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility
October 27 - 30, 2024
NL, St. John's, Canada
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 436 of 1,556 submissions, 28%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 43Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)43
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)14
Reflects downloads up to 04 Jan 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format