Review of Diane Hennacy Powell’s Interview with Scott Barry Kaufman: FC, Telepathy, and Subvocalization (Part 3)
This blog post is the third and final in a series featuring an interview Scott Barry Kaufman of “The Psychology Podcast” did with Telepathy Tapes promoter Diane Hennacy Powell. (Links to previous blog posts below). Last time, I discussed anecdotal statements made in the interview that Powell and Kaufman seemed to think were evidence for the existence of telepathy. In today’s blog post, I’ll focus on some of the statements made in the interview regarding Facilitated Communication (FC), but specifically, I want to address Powell’s idea that nonspeaking individuals can hear and make linguistic sense out of subvocalizations made by their facilitators.
Image by Scott Rodgerson
Regular followers of this blog post will know that Ky Dickens, host of the Telepathy Tapes podcast, and Powell, a self-described “neuropsychiatrist” who believes ESP is a savant skill, downplay or ignore the fact that all the individuals featured in the podcast are being subjected to some form of FC. None of the tests conducted for the podcast included reliably controlled authorship testing to rule in or rule out facilitator interference with the letter selection process—even when the physical, verbal or visual cueing by facilitators was obvious. For example, in one of the so-called telepathy tests, the facilitator holds onto the participant’s face.
In another, the facilitator uses hand signals and body movements to cue her son.
In the Kaufman interview, Powell specifically mentions Rapid Prompting Method (RPM), a supposed no-touch form of FC where the facilitator holds a letter board in the air while an individual extends a finger toward it. Technically, there are no reliably controlled tests that prove proponent claims of communication independence in RPM or other “no-touch” forms of FC such as Spelling to Communicate (S2C) and Spellers Method. (See Systematic Reviews). However, organizations such as the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) and others note in their opposition statements similarities to “touch-based” FC (which has been thoroughly discredited) and urge their members not to use RPM or its variants until proponents produce reliably controlled evidence of its efficacy. These organizations cite lack of scientific evidence, prompt dependence, facilitator cueing and control, potential harms (such as false allegations of abuse), and lack of opportunity costs as individuals are prevented access from evidence-based forms of Augmentative and Alternative Communication.
It should be noted that one reason why there is no reliably controlled evidence regarding S2C/RPM/Spellers Method or any of the other variants is that facilitators refuse to participate in the testing. The protocols for reliably controlled testing exist, so it is possible to separate out the facilitators’ behaviors from those of their clients’ during letter selection. But, current-day facilitators claim that it’s unethical for them to participate in the testing. (See Katharine’s blog post Spelling to Communicate Goes on Trial: Part IV). It makes no sense to me whatsoever that facilitators wouldn’t want to be 100% sure they aren’t (covertly or overtly) substituting their own thoughts for those of their clients or loved ones. That, in and of itself, should be a red flag. Perhaps facilitators know more about their control over letter selection than they are letting on.
While discussing facilitator cueing in the Kaufman interview, Powell completely dismisses the idea that the facilitators physically or visually cue their clients during letter selection. However, she did think that facilitators might cue their clients vocally. She is right about that. Here is an example of vocal cueing by the facilitator in an RPM session:
However, Powell’s idea about vocal cues wasn’t the one I just showed you. Hers was a novel idea and I give her credit for creativity. She claims that nonspeaking individuals with autism have developed hearing that is so hypersensitive that they can hear the (internal) workings of their facilitators’ speech muscles (e.g., subvocalization) during letter selection. Here’s Powell’s exact quote from the Kaufman interview:
And, but the other confounding factor, and I think this is a more likely thing than that, is that if you look at studies on sub, you know, sub-vocalizations, you know, what you learn is that when we read silently to ourselves, that there actually is a little bit of vibration of the vocal cords that's not, it's not audible. But there is a little bit of that. And so my question is, since so many of these kids have like an amazing hearing, you know, a lot of them have perfect pitch, some of them seem to have really sensitive hearing, so they can hear somebody at more of a distance.
But, Powell’s explanation didn’t ring true to me. When I think of subvocalization, I think of people talking “under their breath” or speaking so quietly no one else can hear (e.g., below the point of vocalization). I can see how it might be possible (probable, even) that people’s vocal folds engage while reading as they “say” the words silently to themselves, but, when I heard Powell’s explanation in the Kaufman interview, I couldn’t understand how another person could actually hear silent muscle movements or translate the silent muscle movements into letter sounds or words. Movements of the vocal folds in and of themselves don’t necessarily translate to meaningful speech. Rather, speech sounds are made by moving air through the vocal folds (e.g., by tightening the muscles) while shaping the articulators (e.g., lips, tongue, teeth, alveolar ridge, hard palate, and soft palate) to produce sounds that are distinguishable from a cough, grunt, or normal breath. In addition, studies of infants later diagnosed as autistic show that these individuals are less sensitive to speech sounds, not more, so it seems absurd to me that nonspeaking individuals with autism could hear the (silent and FC-generated?) subvocalization of their facilitators. (See recommended reading below). For me, this raises more questions:
Is there any reliable evidence (e.g., not an anecdote or testimonial) that facilitators subvocalize while their clients are (purportedly) selecting letters on a board? I’ve never seen reference to this in any FC literature (pro or con) and couldn’t find anything referring to the phenomenon in academic database searches, and
Why would facilitators need to subvocalize the words of their clients? Aren’t the clients’ FC-generated messages supposed to be independent and free from facilitator cueing and control? If the clients are picking up on their facilitators’ subvocalization (however far-fetched the claim may be), then that’s not independent communication. That’s regurgitating the thoughts of the facilitators and taking ventriloquism to a whole new level. If Powell’s claim is true, then the problem of facilitator influence in FC/S2C/RPM is exacerbated, not ruled out.
Frustratingly, there were no references to any of Powell’s claims in Kaufman’s show notes, so I contacted the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) to see if they knew of any evidence-based research that could back up Powell’s claim. Here is the reply I got back from an ASHA spokesperson. I think the email speaks for itself.
“Thank you for contacting ASHA for support in finding research related to auditory hyper-sensitivity. I reached out to my colleagues in the National Center for Evidence-Based Practice to help with this inquiry.
In a cursory search, my colleague was unable to find research indicating that non-speaking individuals have telepathic abilities or auditory hyper-sensitivity that allows them to “hear” the thoughts of others. They found anecdotes about non-speaking autistic people, but these examples were neither verified nor part of any research study.
They found a few studies related to observing subvocalization using EMG or MRI to measure brain activity and electromyography to sense any muscle movements. However, these studies do not suggest that a person can sense these potential signs of subvocalization in another person. And even if a person could, there’s no evidence suggesting that EMG, MRI, electromyography, or another person can discern linguistic meaning from these measures. Here are those articles:
Aarons L. (1971). Subvocalization: aural and EMG feedback in reading. Perceptual and motor skills, 33(1), 271–306. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1971.33.1.271
Helou, L. B., Welch, B., Wang, W., Rosen, C. A., & Verdolini Abbott, K. (2023). Intrinsic Laryngeal Muscle Activity During Subvocalization. Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation, 37(3), 426–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2021.01.021
Zhang, W., Li, C., Chen, L., Xing, X., Li, X., Yang, Z., Zhang, H., & Chen, R. (2017). Increased activation of the hippocampus during a Chinese character subvocalization task in adults with cleft lip and palate palatoplasty and speech therapy. Neuroreport, 28(12), 739–744. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0000000000000832
As far as ASHA resources, the Tinnitus and Hyperacusis Portal has some data showing that individuals with autism or other diagnoses have a higher prevalence of hyperacusis, but as we know, hyperacusis is a sensitivity to any external sounds, not exclusively speech (and definitely not thoughts). In the Maps (a glossary of evidence-based information on the ASHA Website), the only information we have on subvocalization is related to using it as a strategy for early literacy (reading to yourself in your head). ASHA has our position statements against both FC and RPM. There are article summaries in the Maps demonstrating the lack of evidence and highlighting the potential harms of FC and RPM.”
In summary, I could continue to highlight the claims made by Powell in the Kaufman interview (yes, there are more), but to be honest, I think three blog posts is more than enough to show that, however sincere or authoritative Powell may appear to some, in the Kaufman interview, she failed to produce any reliably controlled evidence to prove FC-generated messages (telepathic or otherwise) are independently produced by nonspeaking individuals with autism.
I find it particularly disappointing when academics like Powell or others in (perceived) positions of authority fail to address the major problem with FC: facilitator control over letter selection. Powell talks about the number of parents and educators who’ve turned to her for answers and, instead of steering those people in the direction of reliably controlled methods and techniques to address the complex communication needs of their clients and loved ones, she sends them on a wild goose chase with the promise of a magical solution to real world problems. I find the whole thing distasteful.
For more critical reviews of the Telepathy Tapes, please check out the Podcast section of our website.
References and Recommended Reading
Articles on sensitivity to vocal stimuli in autism
Adamson, L. B., Bakeman, R., Suma, K., & Robins, D. L. (2021). Autism Adversely Affects Auditory Joint Engagement During Parent-toddler Interactions. Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research, 14(2), 301–314. https://doi.org/10.1002/
Blasi, A., Lloyd-Fox, S., Sethna, V., Brammer, M. J., Mercure, E., Murray, L., Williams, S. C., Simmons, A., Murphy, D. G., & Johnson, M. H. (2015). Atypical processing of voice sounds in infants at risk for autism spectrum disorder. Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior, 71, 122–133. Klin A. (1991). Young autistic children's listening preferences in regard to speech: a possible characterization of the symptom of social withdrawal. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 21(1), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02206995
Kuhl, P. K., Coffey-Corina, S., Padden, D., & Dawson, G. (2005). Links between social and linguistic processing of speech in preschool children with autism: behavioral and electrophysiological measures. Developmental science, 8(1), F1–F12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14677687.2004.00384.x
Lepistö, T., Kujala, T., Vanhala, R., Alku, P., Huotilainen, M., & Näätänen, R. (2005). The discrimination of and orienting to speech and non-speech sounds in children with autism. Brain research, 1066(1-2), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2005.10.052
Magrelli, S., Jermann, P., Noris, B., Ansermet, F., Hentsch, F., Nadel, J., & Billard, A. (2013). Social orienting of children with autism to facial expressions and speech: a study with a wearable eye-tracker in naturalistic settings. Frontiers in psychology, 4, 840. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00840 doi.org
Blog posts in this series
Review of Diane Hennacy Powell’s Interview with Scott Barry Kaufman: Open Skepticism (Part 1)
Review of Diane Hennacy Powell Interview with Scott Barry Kaufman: Is there evidence for their claims (Part 2)
Links to Katharine’s seven-part series: Spelling to Communicate Goes on Trial
Spelling to Communicate Goes on Trial: Part 1
Spelling to Communicate Goes on Trial Part 2
Spelling to Communicate Goes on Trial Part 3
Spelling to Communicate Goes on Trial Part 4
Spelling to Communicate Goes on Trial Part 5