A Comparison of Picture Exchange and Speech-Generating Devices: Acquisition, Preference, and Effects on Social Interaction

Abstract

Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) includes picture exchange (PE) and speech-generating devices (SGD), but these two systems have rarely been compared. We therefore conducted three studies comparing PE and SGD for an adolescent boy with a developmental disability. Study 1 compared acquisition of a PE-and SGD-based requesting response and monitored the effects on social interaction. For Study 2, both communication modes were made simultaneously available and the child could choose to use either PE or the SGD. For Study 3, only PE intervention continued, with the distance between the child and trainer systematically increased to prompt social interaction. The results showed equally rapid acquisition of the PE-and SGD-based requesting response, but only the distancing manipulation had any positive effect on social interaction. We conclude that PE and SGD are equally viable modes of communication, but acquisition of an initial PE-or SGD-based requesting response may not be sufficient to promote social interaction.

Supporting the Production of Graphic Symbol Combinations by Children with Limited Speech: A Comparison of Two AAC systems

“…found in most studies comparing the effect of SGD versus non-electronic AAC system-based interventions on requesting skills. Although one study (Beck, Stoner, Bock and Parton 2008) found a consistent advantage of a non-electronic system (picture exchange) over an SGD in promoting requesting skills, six other studies found no differences or had mixed results, with some participants performing better with an SGD while others performed better with nonelectronic AAC systems (Bock, Stoner, Beck, Hanley and Prochnow 2005;Boesch et al 2013;Cannella-Malone, DeBar and Sigafoos 2009;Sigafoos, Green, Payne and Son 2009;Sigafoos et al 2005;Son, Sigafoos, O'Reilly and Lancioni 2006). Similar to other studies, the intervention procedure was very structured, and responses were elicited and corrected until participants produced correct combinations.…”

Interventions Using High-Technology Communication Devices: A State of the Art Review

“…One [48] examined use of a SGD versus a Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS). Requesting increased using both systems, with preference based only on whichever was nearer.…”

Technology-Aided Programs for Persons with Severe/Profound and Multiple Disabilities: A Selective Review

“…Speech-generating devices may vary widely in terms of the number of messages (requests) that they allow, in terms of the activation response they require the participant to perform, and in terms of the formulation of the message (i.e., from simple one-word messages to phrases) (Schepis & Reid, 2003;Sigafoos, Didden, & O'Reilly, 2003;Beck, Stoner, Bock, & Parton, 2008;Sigafoos, et al, 2009;Banda, Copple, Koul, Sancibrian, & Bogschutz, 2010;Van der Meer, Sigafoos, O'Reilly, & Lancioni, 2011). For persons with reasonable fi ne motor coordination, for example, the activation response may involve pointing to, pressing, or touching specifi c areas or panels of a device (Rispoli, Franco, Van der Meer, Lang, & Camargo, 2010).…”

“…Speech-generating devices are instruments that can produce diff erent types of verbal outputs in relation to small and simple non-verbal responses of the participants (Sigafoos, Green, Payne, Son, O'Reilly, & Lancioni, 2009). In practice, they allow verbal communication by persons who are only able to emit largely unintelligible speech, have lost speech and communication abilities, or have never developed suffi cient speech and language or communication abilities (Rispoli, Franco, Van der Meer, Lang, & Camargo, 2010).…”