Eye Gaze-based Object Rotation for Head-mounted Displays

As the field of telepractice grows, perceived barriers to service delivery must be anticipated and addressed in order to provide appropriate service delivery to individuals who will benefit from this model. When applying telepractice to the field of AAC, additional barriers are encountered when clients with complex communication needs are unable to speak, often present with severe quadriplegia and are unable to position themselves or access the computer independently, and/or may have cognitive impairments and limited computer experience. Some access methods, such as eye gaze, can also present technological challenges in the telepractice environment. These barriers can be overcome, and telepractice is not only practical and effective, but often a preferred means of service delivery for persons with complex communication needs.

Download Full-text

Supporting the Use of Rudimentary Vocalizations

Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication ◽

10.1044/aac23.3.132 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 23 (3) ◽

pp. 132-139 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Lauren Zubow ◽

Richard Hurtig

Keyword(s):

Rett Syndrome ◽

Visual Cues ◽

Acoustic Analysis ◽

Eye Gaze ◽

Research Question ◽

Primary Research ◽

Multiple Modalities ◽

Face To Face ◽

Perceptual Judgments ◽

The Face

Children with Rett Syndrome (RS) are reported to use multiple modalities to communicate although their intentionality is often questioned (Bartolotta, Zipp, Simpkins, & Glazewski, 2011; Hetzroni & Rubin, 2006; Sigafoos et al., 2000; Sigafoos, Woodyatt, Tuckeer, Roberts-Pennell, & Pittendreigh, 2000). This paper will present results of a study analyzing the unconventional vocalizations of a child with RS. The primary research question addresses the ability of familiar and unfamiliar listeners to interpret unconventional vocalizations as “yes” or “no” responses. This paper will also address the acoustic analysis and perceptual judgments of these vocalizations. Pre-recorded isolated vocalizations of “yes” and “no” were presented to 5 listeners (mother, father, 1 unfamiliar, and 2 familiar clinicians) and the listeners were asked to rate the vocalizations as either “yes” or “no.” The ratings were compared to the original identification made by the child's mother during the face-to-face interaction from which the samples were drawn. Findings of this study suggest, in this case, the child's vocalizations were intentional and could be interpreted by familiar and unfamiliar listeners as either “yes” or “no” without contextual or visual cues. The results suggest that communication partners should be trained to attend to eye-gaze and vocalizations to ensure the child's intended choice is accurately understood.

Download Full-text