Over the past couple of years, S2C proponent Vikram Jaswal, Professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia and the father of an S2C user, and Diwakar Krishnamurthy, Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Calgary and the father of an RPM user have co-authored several papers on the development of virtual tools that enable S2C users to virtually select virtual letters rather than pointing to letters on letterboards. Like Jaswal’s other recent papers, each of these begins with purported justifications for S2C as a valid communication method, and each reports instances of allegedly independent communication by S2C users. Like Jaswal’s other papers, therefore, these papers are worth reviewing in detail. In today’s post, I’ll discuss the first part of one of them: Alabood et al. (2024).
Published by the CHI (Human Factors in Computing Systems) Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems with Jaswal as its fourth listed author and Krishnamurthy as its fifth, this paper discusses the development and preliminary study of a virtual letterboard, or what the authors call a “hologram” or “HoloBoard.” Instead of having a facilitator, or what the authors call a “Communication and Regulation Partner” or “CRP,” hover next to them and hold up the letterboard in their faces, S2C users don a virtual reality headset that projects a virtual letterboard, or “HoloBoard,” in front of them and follows them around wherever they turn their heads. Purportedly, this is an improvement on physical S2C and gives users more autonomy and privacy.
A still image of a YouTube discussion of the Holoboard study (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNBqzuejJ8U)
Deploying the circular reasoning so typical of S2C supporters, the article begins with variations on the usual pro-RPM/S2C claims and cites RPM/S2C-generated testimonials as its sources. In particular, it cites testimonials attributed to Dan Bergmann, Elizabeth Bonker, Naoki Higashida, and Ido Kedar, and references, as well, Edlyn Peña’s compendium of FC/RPM/S2C-generated testimonials.
In this first post, I’ll discuss these preliminary claims. These are worth fleshing out in detail, partly because some of what’s said here is new, and partly because there’s been some new research that adds to the evidence against these claims. In a follow-up post, I’ll turn to the actual study.
Claim 1: “Lack of speech is sometimes conflated with lack of ability to think.”
The source for this is an entire book, namely the memoir attributed to RPM user Ido Kedar (Ido in Autismland). And while it’s nice to see this perennial claim softened with “sometimes,” it’s hard to believe, in our Deaf-culture-aware, Stephen Hawking-informed society, that more than a handful of highly uninformed people are guilty of conflating speech with thought. Nor have I seen any references to people actually doing so.
However, what Jaswal et al. may actually have in mind here is that, in autism in particular, people like me have stated that lack of spoken language tends to indicate deficits in a very specific cognitive skill: comprehension of language. And for this, there is actual evidence, most recently in an article by Chen et al. (2024). Examining a symptom database of 1,579 minimally speaking autistic children aged 5-18 years, and using the terms “receptive language” for “comprehension of language” and “expressive language” for speaking ability, Chen et al. found that:
The 1,579 children “demonstrated significantly lower receptive language compared to the norms on standardized language assessment and parent report measures.”
“[T]heir receptive language gap widened with age.”
“[O]nly about 25%... demonstrated significantly better receptive language relative to their minimal expressive levels.”
“[M]otor skills were the most significant predictor of greater receptive-expressive discrepancy”—i.e., the 25% with language comprehension skills that were significantly better than their minimal speaking skills had better motor skills than the rest of the non-speakers.
All this is highly problematic for S2C proponents. That’s because their two chief arguments for the legitimacy of S2C are (1), that minimal speakers have intact language comprehension and (2), that minimal speakers have such severe deficits in motor skills that they’re unable to point to letters without someone holding up a letterboard in front of their faces and prompting them.
Claim 2: “the cognitive abilities of nonspeakers are routinely underestimated” such that they are “often segregated into special classrooms where teaching of basic life skills are [sic] prioritized over academic instruction.”
This, too, is a crucial claim for S2C proponents: S2C-generated output indicates that non-speakers, assuming they’re the authors of that output, have above-average academic skills. But the authors’ source for this claim, Courchesne et al. (2015) doesn’t support it. Courchesne et al. don’t address academics; what they found was that minimally speaking autistic children performed better on cognitive measures that don’t require language skills as compared with cognitive measures that do require language skills. An example of the latter is the WISC-IV, a standard IQ test that involves a fair amount of language in both prompts and tasks. The three non-linguistically-demanding cognitive measures that Courchesne et al. looked at were the Raven’s Colored Progressive Matrices board form (RCPM), which measures visual pattern recognition, the Children’s Embedded Figures Test (CEFT), which measures the ability to find hidden shapes in a complex image, and a visual search task, which measures the ability to scan a visual scene to find a specific target object or feature. Academic achievement, of course, requires much more than these three visual capabilities.
Furthermore, even though the three visual tests make minimal language demands, the results for non-speaking autistics were significantly worse than for typicals: the 26 (out of 30) minimally-speaking autistic participants who completed the RCPM, for example, had an average raw score of 18.61 out of 36; their non-autistic counterparts, in contrast, had an average raw score of 28.5. Worse still, how well a minimal speaker did was positively correlated with their language skills—most likely because, even in autism, nonverbal cognitive skills correlate with language ability (see Chen et al, 2024), which in turn, in autism, is correlated with speaking ability (more on that below). As the authors report, “autistic children's RCPM performance differed according to their reported spoken language level” with “autistic children using two-word phrases perform[ing] better… than those using no words at all.”
Returning to the authors’ claims about the inappropriate segregation of non-speakers into classrooms “where teaching of basic life skills are [sic] prioritized over academic instruction,” strong performance on visual tests isn’t enough for academic success. Academic instruction, even in math, is highly verbal; most academic tasks are highly verbal. To access academic instruction and perform academic tasks, you need to have the same skills that are required for, and measured by, the WISC-IV and other verbally-mediated, verbally demanding tests.
Claim 3: “[M]ost nonspeakers are never provided an effective language-based alternative to speech.”
Here the authors simply claim, without any citations, that standard AAC (Augmentative and Alternative Communication) devises are deficient. In particular, they state that “the vocabulary available to a user is chosen by someone else” and claim “there is no way for an autistic person to express a concept that has not already been programmed into their AAC device.” Jaswal has made this claim repeatedly, persistently unaware that most AAC devices have keyboard options that allow typing. Used in typing mode, an AAC device is just like a letterboard: the only difference is that no one is holding it up in front of the user and prompting and cueing their letter selections.
The authors also state that “Few individuals advance beyond the requesting stage”—assuming that this must be the fault of the device rather than a consequence of the well-known socio-communicative challenges that have defined autism since it was first identified eight decades ago by Leo Kanner. Non-autistic users of AAC tools—deaf children with sign language, individuals with mobility impairments—regularly advance beyond the requesting stages to a whole range of communicative acts.
Claim 4: Non-speakers need “months or years” of training by CRPs in how to ”isolate and point at specific letters on the letterboard.”
This is why, the authors explain, CRPs have to start with “partial” letterboards with larger letters (allowing CRPs to decide which third of the alphabet each next letter comes from—yet another way to control messages in the earliest stages when their clients aren’t as susceptible to cues).
But there’s no evidence that autistic kids lack the motor skills to point. In fact, pointing doesn’t appear on any of the standard motor skills evaluations, which indicates that it simply isn’t a specific motor issue for anyone—any more than other simple gestures like waving your hand. The evidence, rather, is that, to the extent that autistic kids don’t point (many do; just less often than typical children do), it’s because they don’t understand the communicative function of pointing. That it’s the social aspects of pointing rather than the motor aspects of pointing that challenge autistic kids is also supported by the fact that the least frequent sort of pointing in autism is pointing for more purely social purposes (pointing things out to people in order to share attention), as opposed to pointing for instrumental purposes (pointing to express a request). Diminished pointing in autism, that is, is consistent with the socio-communicative challenges that have defined autism since it was first identified eight decades ago by Leo Kanner; no additional challenges need to be posited to explain it (cf. Occam’s Razor).
When it comes to pointing to letters, however, the most likely challenge is literacy: pointing to the “correct” letters to generate messages entails understanding the meanings, and knowing the spellings, of the words you want to type. Given what we know about comprehension in minimal speakers (see above), it’s unlikely that S2C spellers have the ability to independently and consistently point to “correct” letters in the often highly linguistically sophisticated messages that they’re supposedly generating.
And what minimal speakers undergo during all those “months or years” of training by their CRPs in how to ”isolate and point at specific letters on the letterboard” is most likely not the acquisition of the motor skills required for pointing (which they’ve almost certainly already acquired on their own) but, rather, a behaviorist conditioning to select letters based on the prompts and (unwitting) cues of their CRPs.
Claim 5: The alleged motor difficulty of pointing to letters makes cognitive demands that are so great that “the cognitive demands of the questions they are asked” have to start out as minimal
As a result, the authors claim:
[E]arly lessons focus on spelling and closed-ended comprehension questions (e.g., "The first steam engines were used to pump what out of mines?"), and later stages incorporate open-ended questions (e.g., "Why are trains so much more common in some countries than others?”)
In fact, there’s no evidence that pointing to letters makes cognitive demands so great that it’s hard to answer open-ended questions (see above). Rather, the more relevant difference between questions like "The first steam engines were used to pump what out of mines?” and questions like “Why are trains so much more common in some countries than others?” is the number of letters one needs to point at to answer them. For the first question, 5 letters suffice (w-a-t-e-r); for the second question, many more are needed, even for a super-short, succinct response like “smaller densely populated countries are more suitable for trains,” which contains 56 letters. Getting an S2C “novice” to point to 5 letters in a row is a lot easier than getting them to point to 56 letters in a row. Even obtaining the compliance needed for lengthy periods of letter pointing—which, according to Jaswal’s earlier eyetracking paper (Jaswal, 2020), is at about one second per letter even after years of practice—presumably takes time.
Claim 6: The alleged need by minimally-speaking individuals for attentional, emotional, and sensory support while they point to letters
The authors describe the roles of the CRP as “monitor[ing] the nonspeaker’s attention to ensure they are focused on the task at hand” and “prompting the [nonspeaker] to redirect their attention to the letterboard.” Elaborating, they state:
CRPs believe that the micro-movements they make while holding a physical letterboard might aid in maintaining the speller’s attention. For example, when they notice a nonspeaker’s focus waning, the CRP might rapidly remove the letterboard from the field of view and then reintroduce it, thereby refreshing the nonspeaker’s attention.
But wandering attention and wandering away from the letterboard are more consistent with boredom: with being made to point at letters without understanding what those letters spell—which, in turn, is consistent with what we know about profound autism and with what Chen et al. (2024) report about comprehension (see above).
The authors also claim that CRPS “provide regulatory support and encouragement as appropriate,” claiming that
Since many nonspeakers have sensory needs that can compel them into near-constant motion” [Their source for this is the FC-generated memoir “The Reason I Jump”] “the CRP may reposition the letterboard as needed so that it always remains in the subject’s field of view.”
As a side note, this last point suggests that repositioning the letterboard occurs only when it’s out of the subjects field of view; in fact, a trained CRP testified in court that he repositions the board only when his client types three letters that “don’t make sense,” and many videos of RPM/S2C show repositioning occurring under many other circumstances, often for no obvious reason other than that the client was about to hit the wrong letter.
Indeed, all of these purported roles—prompting attention, encouraging, repositioning the letterboard—are opportunities for (unwitting) verbal cueing that directs letter selection.
Claim 7: Some RPM/S2C users have achieved independence
The author’s source for this is once again an entire book: once again, Ido Kedar’s entire memoir—as if a memoir that’s been attributed to someone who’s been subjected to RPM/S2C is proof of independent typing, and as if the testimony within such a memoir is a reliable source on RPM’s validity. In the few public videos of Kedar, there’s no evidence of independent, spontaneous, prompt-free typing.
Claim 8: What’s holding the many other RPM/S2C users back from independent typing is the need for regular practice with “trained professional[s],” who are costly and scarce.
In particular, learning to type independently, the authors claim, requires “regular opportunities for practicing the required skills (e.g., coordinating gaze and pointing to letters),” which in turn requires supervision and feedback by those costly and scarce “trained professional[s].”
Of course, the alleged need for years of practice and guidance from scarce, expensive professionals in order to point independently to letters depends on the claim that pointing is motorically challenging in autism, which, in turn, is totally unsubstantiated (see above).
Unsubstantiated though this claim is, it’s one of the bases for the study of the communication tool reported in this article, to which we now turn.
The purpose of the study, “to train nonspeakers in holographic spelling,” implicitly assumes that the entire issue for nonspeakers who point to letters to communicate is one of sensori-motor environment. Somehow, whether nonspeakers who can “isolate single letters and spell full words” on a physical letterboard can do the same thing with a virtual letterboard is an open question. Indeed, as far as the researchers are concerned, it’s “an ambitious goal” for letterboard users, particularly given:
The lack of “haptic feedback” (touching sensation) associated with touching the physical letterboard
the need to wear a head-mounted device
the need to interact with holograms
the presence of unfamiliar researchers
the unfamiliar environment of the research study
…as if all these environmental changes are enough to interfere with the ability to point to letters to spell words.
The authors, furthermore, cite studies reporting that autistic people have difficulties generalizing skills learned in one context to another. But none of the studies they cite—or others on this topic—note difficulties with generalizing something as straightforward as isolating single letters and spelling words from one environmental context to another. It’s one thing to have trouble generalizing the meaning of a word like “doctor” from one medical setting to another, or generalizing conversation skills learned in a speech therapy session to real-world conversational settings: both of these generalization difficulties are common in autism. It’s quite another thing to have trouble generalizing spelling from one context to another. Indeed, anecdotes of hyperlexic autistic kids report no difficulties at all in this department: hyperlexic autistic kids have been observed spelling words in all sorts of contexts, and without any explicit instruction: from refrigerator letters to sidewalk chalk, to letters they form out of playdough.
Indeed, what generalization difficulties there are in the context of going from standard S2C to holographic S2C are probably quite different. One difficulty is the altered context of CRP cueing: different environments mean different CRP cues. With holographic S2C, the most obvious difference, as we’ll see, is that the letter array is typically no longer held up by the CRP.
The other generalization difficulty has to do with letter position. For those who are conditioned to spell letter sequences without understanding what they’re spelling, one of the most salient things is letter position. In cases where letters’ positions are held constant relative to other letters, as they are on S2C letterboards, one of the most likely learned elements of spelling are the sequences of movements around the letter array. To spell the word CAT on an S2C letterboard, for example, one might learn to first go to the top row and towards left the end of the board for “c,” then all the way to the left for “a”, and then down to the second to last row and far right for “t.” In addition to learning the positions for common words, one might also learn the positions for common letter sequences like “t-h” (far right of the second to last row followed by left-center of the second row).
Given this, it’s telling that the researchers meticulously replicated in virtual space the physical letterboards the kids are used to, letting them (or their CRPs) choose from “a variety of virtual letterboards that resemble popular physical models used by the community,” allowing “a nonspeaker to choose the one they are most familiar with.” That is, while the researchers play up concerns about “haptic feedback” and wearing a headset (which surely is quite annoying), they fail to mention, and yet still carefully control, one key factor that is likely to generalize only if the letter selection is driven by actual comprehension: that is, the positions of the letters on the letterboard. If you’re intentionally spelling the word CAT to talk about actual cats, your finger will go to the correct letters, no matter where they appear in an array, even if it takes some searching. But if CAT, for you, is simply a series of points to letters in certain positions, you’re much more likely to be thrown by a change in letter positions.
In my next post, I’ll pick up here and take a closer look at the actual study.
I’ll close here by noting that Jaswal et al. discuss this paper in an article for IEEE Spectrum, a magazine published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, where they repeat many of the same faulty and problematic claims about non-speaking autism.
REFERENCES
Alabood, L., Dow, T., Feeley, K. B., Jaswal, V.K., Krishnamurthy, D. From Letterboards to Holograms: Advancing Assistive Technology for Nonspeaking Autistic Individuals with the HoloBoard. CHI '24: Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Article No.: 71, Pages 1 - 18 https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642626
Chen, Y., Siles, B., & Tager-Flusberg, H. (2024). Receptive language and receptive-expressive discrepancy in minimally verbal autistic children and adolescents. Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research, 17(2), 381–394. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.3079
Courchesne, V., Meilleur, A. A., Poulin-Lord, M. P., Dawson, M., & Soulières, I. (2015). Autistic children at risk of being underestimated: school-based pilot study of a strength-informed assessment. Molecular autism, 6, 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13229-015-0006-3
Jaswal, V. K., Wayne, A., & Golino, H. (2020). Eye-tracking reveals agency in assisted autistic communication. Scientific reports, 10(1), 7882. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-64553-9
