Search

Many people with aphasia have inadequate language skills for functional communication thereby necessitating well-designed augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) interfaces. Using both a grid and a VSD interface with single word hotspots by neurologically healthy adults, across ages and with different technology experiences, this study examines the utility of these interfaces prior to investigating their use with people with aphasia in future studies. Participants include 18 young adults, 24 older adults with technology experience, and 20 older adults with limited technology experience. The older adult groups were matched for mean age and for sex. Participants described pictures with each interface, and performance was measured based on four dependent variables: (a) the total number of correct information units (CIUs), (b) the percentage of CIUs, (c) CIUs per minute, and (d) preferred interface. There was a significant difference between older adults and the young adult group for the total number of CIUs (p < 0.001) and CIUs per minute (p < 0.001). Despite the changes in technology experience between the two older groups, there was no significant difference in performance. Additionally, there was no significant difference in performance across the two interfaces in any of the groups. Findings suggest age does impact performance on AAC. However, the difference in technology experience in older adult groups did not affect performance. Furthermore, both interfaces used in the current study were equally beneficial when describing pictures by healthy adults. Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems involve various interface designs. Consequently, the comparative utility of these interfaces must be examined across populations and communicative functions. Advancement in technology has given rise to numerous high-tech AAC interface designs. However, older adults with acquired language difficulties whose technology experience is limited may become reluctant to use high-tech AAC. Hence, the influence of technology experience on high-tech AAC performance should be investigated. Prior to examining interfaces with individuals with acquired language difficulties, the current study examined the use of a) grid display and b) visual scene display (VSD) with single word hotspots, by healthy adults of different ages and technology experiences. The study revealed that older adults with limited technology experience were equally competent in using high-tech AAC interfaces, as those with technology experience. Hence, an individual's technology experience should not be considered a deterrent to using high-tech AAC interfaces. Additionally, the study found no differences in performance between the two interfaces, making it essential to consider user's personal preference when adopting AAC interface designs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The objective of this study was to explore receptiveness of people with poststroke aphasia to receiving transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), including preferences for the treatment setting and schedule of tDCS delivery. Method: An online survey was distributed via e-mail, flyers, social media, and online newsletters to reach people with aphasia. Fisher's exact test examined the relationship of self-reported tDCS receptiveness to demographic, clinical, and other factors. Results: Fifty-seven surveys were returned, and 50 complete surveys were analyzed. Twenty-eight percent of respondents had previously heard of tDCS. Sixty-six percent reported they would receive tDCS if it could help their aphasia, and only 6% reported that they definitely would not. There were statistically significant relationships between being receptive to tDCS and (a) not currently working, (b) being receptive to speech-language therapy, and (c) greater acceptance of potential temporary risks associated with tDCS. Most individuals (73%) who would consider tDCS were equivalently open to receiving it in the clinic or at home, yet the majority (64%) were open to more frequent sessions at home than in the clinic. Most respondents indicated that they would consider having tDCS "forever if it helped" (clinic: 51%; home: 68%). Conclusions: This is the first study to query individuals with aphasia about their receptiveness to tDCS outside the context of an intervention study. Responses suggest that a large majority of people with poststroke aphasia might be open to receiving tDCS if it can ameliorate their aphasia. Limitations include the small sample size, which does not adequately represent the broader population of people with aphasia, and that the survey did not provide the level of tDCS education crucial to inform shared decision making and person-centered care. However, future work may benefit from considering the practical implications of research designs (e.g., high intensity treatment outside the home) that may not, in application, be widely acceptable to primary stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]