Advertisement

Speech and Language

  • Abi RoperEmail author
  • Stephanie Wilson
  • Timothy Neate
  • Jane Marshall
Chapter
Part of the Human–Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS)

Abstract

This chapter introduces speech and language from a clinical speech and language therapy perspective. It describes key challenges that can impact speech and language with a focus on the needs of individuals with aphasia, an acquired language disorder. The specific impact that aphasia may have upon Web accessibility is discussed with reference to existing work which illuminates what we currently do and do not know about speech, language and Web accessibility. The authors provide guidance for accommodating the needs of users with aphasia within the design of Web interactions and propose future directions for development and research.

References

  1. Bird H, Howard D, Franklin S (2003) Verbs and nouns: the importance of being imageable. J Neurolinguistics 16(2–3):113–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brandenburg C, Worrall L, Rodriguez AD, Copland D (2013) Mobile computing technology and aphasia: an integrated review of accessibility and potential uses. Aphasiology 27(4):444–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Caute A, Cruice M, Friede A, Galliers J, Dickinson T, Green R, Woolf C (2016) Rekindling the love of books–a pilot project exploring whether e-readers help people to read again after a stroke. Aphasiology 30(2–3):290–319Google Scholar
  4. Caute A, Woolf C (2016) Using Voice Recognition Software to improve communicative writing and social participation in an individual with severe acquired dysgraphia: an experimental single case therapy study. Aphasiology 30(2–3):245–268.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2015.1041095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Department for Work and Pensions (2013) Family resources survey. United Kingdom 2011/2012. Online at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/family-resources-survey-201112
  6. Fridriksson J, Baker JM, Whiteside J, Eoute D, Moser D, Vesselinov R, Rorden C (2009) Treating visual speech perception to improve speech production in nonfluent aphasia. Stroke 40(3):853–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Galliers J, Wilson S, Marshall J, Talbot R, Devane N, Booth T, Woolf C, Greenwood H (2017) Experiencing EVA park, a multi-user virtual world for people with aphasia. ACM Trans Access Comput (TACCESS) 10(4):15Google Scholar
  8. Galliers J, Wilson S, Muscroft S, Marshall J, Roper A, Cocks N, Pring T (2011) Accessibility of 3D game environments for people with aphasia: an exploratory study. In: Proceedings of the 13th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility. ACM, pp 139–146Google Scholar
  9. Greig C-A, Harper R, Hirst T, Howe T, Davidson B (2008) Barriers and facilitators to mobile phone use for people with aphasia. Top Stroke Rehabil 15(4):307–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grellmann B, Neate T, Roper A, Wilson S, Marshall J (2018) Investigating mobile accessibility guidance for people with aphasia. ASSETS ’18, Galway, Ireland, 22–24 October 2018Google Scholar
  11. Herbert R (2012) Accessible information guidelines: making information accessible for people with aphasia. Stroke AssociationGoogle Scholar
  12. Law J, Gaag A, Hardcastle WJ, Beckett DJ, MacGregor A, Plunkett C (2007) Communication support needs: a review of the literature. Scottish ExecutiveGoogle Scholar
  13. Linebarger M, McCall D, Virata T, Berndt RS (2007) Widening the temporal window: processing support in the treatment of aphasic language production. Brain Lang 100(1):53–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ma X, Nikolova S, Cook PR (2009) W2ANE: when words are not enough: online multimedia language assistant for people with aphasia. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM international conference on multimedia. ACM, pp 749–752Google Scholar
  15. Marshall J, Caute A, Chadd K, Cruice M, Monnelly K, Wilson S, Woolf C (2018) Technology‐enhanced writing therapy for people with aphasia: results of a quasi‐randomized waitlist controlled study. Int J Lang Commun DisordGoogle Scholar
  16. Menger F, Morris J, Salis C (2016) Aphasia in an internet age: wider perspectives on digital inclusion. Aphasiology 30(2–3):112–132Google Scholar
  17. Moffatt K, McGrenere J, Purves B, Klawe M (2004) The participatory design of a sound and image enhanced daily planner for people with aphasia. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 407–414Google Scholar
  18. Roper A, Davey I, Wilson S, Neate T, Marshall J, Grellmann B (2018) Usability testing – an aphasia perspective. ASSETS ’18, Galway, Ireland, 22–24 October 2018Google Scholar
  19. Roper A, Marshall J, Wilson S (2016) Benefits and limitations of computer gesture therapy for the rehabilitation of severe aphasia. Front Hum Neurosci 10:595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rose T, Worrall L, Hickson L, Hoffmann T (2010) Do people with aphasia want written stroke and aphasia information? A verbal survey exploring preferences for when and how to provide stroke and aphasia information. Top Stroke Rehabil 17(2):79–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Thompson CK, Lange KL, Schneider SL, Shapiro LP (1997) Agrammatic and non-brain-damaged subjects’ verb and verb argument structure production. Aphasiology 11(4–5): 473–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wilson S, Roper A, Marshall J, Galliers J, Devane N, Booth T, Woolf C (2015) Codesign for people with aphasia through tangible design languages. CoDesign 11(1):21–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 (2018) W3C World Wide Web consortium recommendation 05 June 2018 (https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/REC-WCAG21-20180605/, Latest version at https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/)
  24. Woolf C, Caute A, Haigh Z, Galliers J, Wilson S, Kessie A, Hirani S, Hegarty B, Marshall J (2016) A comparison of remote therapy, face to face therapy and an attention control intervention for people with aphasia: a quasi-randomised controlled feasibility study. Clin Rehabil 30(4):359–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abi Roper
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stephanie Wilson
    • 2
  • Timothy Neate
    • 2
  • Jane Marshall
    • 3
  1. 1.Centre for Human Computer Interaction Design & Division of Language and Communication ScienceCity, University of LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Centre for Human Computer Interaction DesignCity, University of LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.Division of Language and Communication ScienceCity, University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations