Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 12891764

Augmentative and alternative communication.

Debora Downey·Richard Hurtig
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

With the help of a knowledgeable interdisciplinary team, individuals can find the best AAC system to meet their needs and enrich their quality of life. A new-found ability to communicate often significantly improves a person's overall prognosis and may prevent serious problems in the areas of behavior, learning, reading, and social development. However, because an AAC system is just one component of multimodal communication, it should not inhibit the use of speech by individuals who have some usable or functional speech. It is important to understand that AAC is a process and that an AAC system will evolve over time to meet the changing preferences, dislikes, and abilities of the user as that individual strives to accomplish communication goals.

Explore related subjects

Articulation DisordersCommunicationCommunication Devices for People with DisabilitiesCommunication DisordersHumansTherapy, Computer-AssistedJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Debora Downey, Richard Hurtig. 2003. Augmentative and alternative communication.. https://doi.org/10.3928/0090-4481-20030701-09

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2003

Developmental dyslexia: specific phonological deficit or general sensorimotor dysfunction?

Dyslexia research now faces an intriguing paradox. It is becoming increasingly clear that a significant proportion of dyslexics present sensory and/or motor deficits; however, as this 'sensorimotor syndrome' is studied in greater detail, it is also becoming increasingly clear that sensory and motor deficits will ultimately play only a limited role in a causal explanation of specific reading disability.

Articulation Disorders↗
PubMed2003

The importance of sound identification training in phonological intervention.

Little is known about the relevance of sound identification training in phonological intervention. Some treatment approaches incorporate sound identification training; others do not. The purpose of the present study was to compare articulatory improvement following treatment with and without sound identification training. Nine preschool children with severe phonological disorders were randomly assigned to 2 groups for the treatment of stimulable sound errors: (a) mixed training with concurrent production and sound identification training and (b) production-only training. Articulatory improvement was evaluated as a function of treatment type and pretraining sound identification scores. No overall difference was found between the 2 treatment types except for sounds that had been poorly identified. Articulatory errors with low identification scores made greater progress after receiving mixed training with both production and sound identification training. For error sounds receiving production training, significant relationships were found between both pre- and posttraining identification scores and articulatory improvement, suggesting (a) that perception of error sounds prior to treatment may affect degree of improvement and (b) that production training may improve perception of error sounds. Different views exist with regard to the targeting of stimulable error sounds for treatment. Results of the present study suggest that sound identification in addition to stimulability may be an important consideration in target selection as well as treatment mode.

Articulation Disorders↗