Preference between Indian Picture Symbols for Communication (IPSC) and Picture Communication Symbols (PCS) in neurotypical adults and adults with aphasia

IF 1 Q3 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY Speech Language and Hearing Pub Date : 2021-05-04 DOI:10.1080/2050571X.2021.1923303
V. Philip, S. Goswami
{"title":"Preference between Indian Picture Symbols for Communication (IPSC) and Picture Communication Symbols (PCS) in neurotypical adults and adults with aphasia","authors":"V. Philip, S. Goswami","doi":"10.1080/2050571X.2021.1923303","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT An SLP-preferred symbol set may not always be accepted by the AAC user which makes it essential to investigate how preferences for symbols vary in different population. The primary purpose of the current study was to investigate the preferences between two AAC symbol sets of different cultural origins among neurotypical adults who were natives of Kerala, India. The study also aimed to explore the trend in preferences among adults with aphasia. A total of 240 neurotypical adults and ten adults with aphasia participated in the study. The neurotypical adults encompassed 120 lay-persons from four age groups (i.e., 18–35, 36–50, 51–65, and 66–80), and 120 professionals from three professional categories (i.e., medical and allied health professionals, speech-language pathologists, and special educators). A preference task using IPSC and PCS for the same set of 30 target referents inclusive of nouns, verbs, adjectives, and prepositions was utilized. Both groups of neurotypical adults showed a significant preference for IPSC over PCS for most of the stimuli included in the study. A similar trend was found in adults with aphasia. IPSC was preferred for target referents representing verbs, adjectives, and prepositions, and PCS was preferred for nouns. Analysis of preferences within participant groups revealed that age and profession did not influence symbol preferences in neurotypical adults. The study emphasizes the need to explore preferences among different AAC stakeholders. It also points out that the symbols considered universally iconic may be perceived differently in different cultures and can influence their preferences.","PeriodicalId":43000,"journal":{"name":"Speech Language and Hearing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Speech Language and Hearing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2050571X.2021.1923303","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT An SLP-preferred symbol set may not always be accepted by the AAC user which makes it essential to investigate how preferences for symbols vary in different population. The primary purpose of the current study was to investigate the preferences between two AAC symbol sets of different cultural origins among neurotypical adults who were natives of Kerala, India. The study also aimed to explore the trend in preferences among adults with aphasia. A total of 240 neurotypical adults and ten adults with aphasia participated in the study. The neurotypical adults encompassed 120 lay-persons from four age groups (i.e., 18–35, 36–50, 51–65, and 66–80), and 120 professionals from three professional categories (i.e., medical and allied health professionals, speech-language pathologists, and special educators). A preference task using IPSC and PCS for the same set of 30 target referents inclusive of nouns, verbs, adjectives, and prepositions was utilized. Both groups of neurotypical adults showed a significant preference for IPSC over PCS for most of the stimuli included in the study. A similar trend was found in adults with aphasia. IPSC was preferred for target referents representing verbs, adjectives, and prepositions, and PCS was preferred for nouns. Analysis of preferences within participant groups revealed that age and profession did not influence symbol preferences in neurotypical adults. The study emphasizes the need to explore preferences among different AAC stakeholders. It also points out that the symbols considered universally iconic may be perceived differently in different cultures and can influence their preferences.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
神经正常成人和失语症成人对印度图像交流符号(IPSC)和图像交流符号(PCS)的偏好
一个slp偏好的符号集可能并不总是被AAC用户所接受,这使得研究不同人群对符号的偏好是如何变化的至关重要。本研究的主要目的是调查来自印度喀拉拉邦的神经正常成年人对两组不同文化起源的AAC符号的偏好。该研究还旨在探索成人失语症患者的偏好趋势。共有240名神经正常的成年人和10名患有失语症的成年人参加了这项研究。神经正常的成年人包括来自4个年龄组(18-35岁、36-50岁、51-65岁和66-80岁)的120名非专业人士,以及来自3个专业类别的120名专业人士(即医疗和联合卫生专业人员、语言病理学家和特殊教育工作者)。使用IPSC和PCS对同一组30个目标指称物(包括名词、动词、形容词和介词)进行偏好任务。两组神经正常的成年人对研究中包含的大多数刺激都表现出对IPSC的显著偏好。在成人失语症患者中也发现了类似的趋势。表示动词、形容词和介词的目标指称首选IPSC,表示名词的目标指称首选PCS。对参与者群体偏好的分析表明,年龄和职业对神经正常的成年人的符号偏好没有影响。该研究强调需要探索不同AAC利益相关者的偏好。该研究还指出,在不同的文化中,被普遍认为是标志性的符号可能会有不同的理解,并可能影响他们的偏好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Speech Language and Hearing
Speech Language and Hearing AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
6.70%
发文量
11
期刊最新文献
Responsiveness to Māori in dysphagia research: beyond ‘kai’ (nutrition), ‘inu’ (hydration), and ‘te reo’ (Māori translation) A systematic review and meta-analysis of dichotic deficits in individuals with learning disability Examination of depth of written reflective practice for speech-language therapy students; the impact of time and clinical competency Perceptions and predictors of health-related quality of life among aging adults who stutter: a first glimpse Speech-language pathologists’ perspectives on bilingual service delivery in India: a preliminary survey
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1