Ever since the invention of the Auto Monitoring Communication Board (by Trace Center), researchers, clinicians and consumers have been trying to update AAC technologies. Over the years these enhancements have made these devices more reliable, compact and easier to operate. One of the latest efforts is by a team of researchers, headed by Dr. Jeff Higginbotham at the University of Buffalo. The project, “Communication Performance Assessment: Monitoring & Simulating AAC Device Use,” is sponsored by the Rehabilitation Research and Engineering Center on Communications Enhancement and explores new ways of modeling the performance of new communications devices. The information may help clinicians, manufacturers and individuals who rely on the technology speed up the process of conversing using an AAC device.
Dr. Higginbotham’s current findings shed new light on barriers to effective communication. The study found that so-called rate enhancement techniques such as word prediction systems and other short-cut schemes do not lead to greater speed or clearer communication. Word Prediction and Word Banks intend to speed up typing by reducing the number of keystrokes involved by automatically presenting the most anticipated choices for selection. According to the study, this aid does not consider the whole picture of communication. As Dr. Higginbotham asserted, “There is a conflict between the cognitive demands associated with the communication task and those related to operating the device.”
Operating the AAC device takes too much attention and detracts from gestures needed for effective communications. For example, when one uses word prediction, one has to keep an eye on the words that come up in the prediction box. This may distract from making eye contact as well as influence the individual’s choice of words. The speaker might settle for less effective words to avoid breaking eye contact until the precise words appear. Moreover, the constant demand to have eyes on the screen may take away some of the eye contact and body language so vital in interpersonal communications. How can a guy wink at a girl when he has to stare at the computer screen, to use one extreme example? How does one wipe the drool from his chin with hands on the keyboard? How does a sender know if the message is being heard without seeing body language from his partner to say tender words like, “ l love you?”
The researchers are focusing on multi-model strategies such as head movements, gestures and vocalizations, and other motor activity. These actions form a complete picture of the communications process and shed light for listeners.
The research team’s findings suggest that in the development of future devices, designers need to keep in mind the total picture of communications interaction, in conjunction with constructing words and sentences. For example, it’s sometimes difficult to get people to pay attention while composing a long message. Adding a short prompt, like the sound of breathing, may help listeners pay closer attention throughout the whole message.
Researchers hope their work will lead to new recommendations for the design of future AAC devices. "Our goals are to develop AAC devices that are more easily customized and thus better able to meet the daily communication needs and preferences of individuals . . ." says Dr. Higginbotham.
