Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Dynamic Augmentative and Alternative Communication Displays for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities: a Review

  • Communication Disorders (J Sigafoos, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Developmental Disorders Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

To summarize findings on the effects of augmentative and alternative (AAC) treatment packages that use dynamic grid displays and/or visual scene displays to facilitate communication in individuals with developmental disabilities.

Recent Findings

The systematic intervention packages that employ either dynamic grid displays or visual scene displays are effective for improving language, social, and literacy skills in individuals with developmental disabilities such as Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, and multiple disabilities.

Summary

Dynamic displays are an essential component of speech-generating device (SGD)-based AAC intervention for individuals with developmental disabilities. It is critical to select display types based on individuals’ current and future communication need and goals. A best fit approach using a feature matching strategy is suggested.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Allen AA, Schlosser RW, Brock KL, Shane HC. The effectiveness of aided augmented input techniques for persons with developmental disabilities: a systematic review. Augment Altern Commun. 2017;33(3):149–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2017.1338752.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Alzrayer N, Banda DR, Koul RK. Use of iPad/iPods with individuals with autism and other developmental disabilities: a meta-analysis of communication interventions. Rev J Autism Dev Disord. 2014;1(3):179–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-014-0018-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Arumugam A, Raja K, Venugopalan M, Chandrasekaran B, Kovanur Sampath K, Muthusamy H, Shanmugam N. Down syndrome- a narrative review with a focus on anatomical features. Clin Anat. 2016;29(5):568–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.22672.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. • Babb S, McNaughton D, Light J, Caron J, Wydner K, Jung S. Using AAC video visual scene displays to increase participation and communication within a volunteer activity for adolescents with complex communication needs. Augment Altern Commun. 2020;36(1):31–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2020.1737966. Findings from this study suggest that AAC video VSDs support the acquisition of communication acts, such as greetings, requesting assistance, and sharing information for two adolescents with DS.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Barker R, Akaba S, Brady NC, Thiemann-Bourque K. Support for AAC use in preschool, and growth in language skills, for young children with developmental disabilities. Augment Altern Commun. 2013;29(4):334–46. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2013.848933.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Belva BC, Matson JL, Sipes M, Bamburg JW. An examination of specific communication deficits in adults with profound intellectual disabilities. Res Dev Disabil. 2012;33:525–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2011.10.019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Beukelman D, Light P. Augmentative and alternative communication: supporting children and adults with complex communication needs. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Beukelman D, Mirenda P. Building opportunities and nonsymbolic communication. In: Beukelman D, Mirenda P, editors. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes; 1998. p. 265–94.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bhana N, McNaughton D, Raulston T, Ousley C. Supporting communication and participation in shared storybook reading using visual scene displays. Teach Except Child. 2020;52(6):382–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920918609.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Biggs E, Carter E, Gustafson J. Efficacy of peer support arrangements to increase peer interaction and AAC use. Am J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2017;122(1):25–48. https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-122.1.25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Brady N, Thiemann-Bourque K, Fleming K, Matthews K. Predicting language outcomes for children learning augmentative and alternative communication: child and environmental factors. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2013;56(5):1595–612. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2013/12-0102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Branson D, Demchak M. The use of augmentative and alternative communication methods with infants and toddlers with disabilities: a research review. Augment Altern Commun. 2009;25(4):274–86. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434610903384529.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Brock K, Koul R, Corwin M, Schlosser R. A comparison of visual scene and grid displays for people with chronic aphasia: a pilot study to improve communication using AAC. Aphasiology. 2017;31(11):1282–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2016.1274874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Caron J, Light J, McNaughton D. Effects of an AAC app with transition to literacy features on single-word reading of individuals with complex communication needs. Res Pract Persons Severe Disabil. 2020;45(2):115–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796920911152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Data and statistics for cerebral palsy. Retrieved January 15, 2022, from cdc.gov/ncbddd/cp/data.html.

  16. Chang C, Wang H. Applying secondary-tier group-based video modeling to teach children with developmental disabilities to communicate using iPad. Educ Train Autism Dev Disabil. 2018;53(2):209–21. Retrieved January 12, 2022, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/26495270.

    Google Scholar 

  17. • Chavers TN, Morris M, Schlosser RW, Koul R. Effects of a systematic augmentative and alternative communication intervention using a speech-generating device on multistep requesting and generic small talk for children with severe autism spectrum disorder. Am J Speech Lan Pathol. 2021;30(6):2476–91. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_AJSLP-20-00353. Findings from this study suggest that AAC intervention using a dynamic display SGD and least-to-most prompting, constant time delay, error correction, and reinforcement is effective in increasing multistep requesting and generic small talk behaviors in children with severe ASD.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chapman RS, Hesketh LJ. Behavioral phenotype of individuals with Down syndrome. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev. 2000;6(2):84–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2779(2000)6:2<84::AID-MRDD2>3.0.CO;2-P.

  19. Dada S, Flores C, Bastable K, Schlosser RW. The effects of augmentative and alternative communication interventions on the receptive language skills of children with developmental disabilities: a scoping review. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2020:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549507.2020.1797165.

  20. Dattilo J, Estrella G, Estrella LJ, Light J, McNaughton D, Seabury M. “I have chosen to live life abundantly”: perceptions of leisure by adults who use augmentative and alternative communication. Augment Altern Commun. 2008;24(1):16–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610701390558.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. de Almeida Barbosa RT, Bulle de Oliveira AS, de Lima F, Antao JY, Crocetta TB, Guarnieri R, Campos Antunes TP, Arab C, Massetti T, Pinheiro Bezerra IM, de Mello Monteiro CB, de Abreu LC. Augmentative and alternative communication in children with Down’s syndrome: a systematic review. BMC Pediatr. 2018;18(1):160. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-018-1144-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dietz A, McKelvey M, Beukelman DR. Visual scene displays (VSD): new AAC interfaces for persons with aphasia. Perspect Augment Altern Commun. 2006;15(1):13–7. https://doi.org/10.1044/aac15.1.13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Drager K, Light JC, Carlson R, D’Silva K, Larsson B, Pitkin L, Stopper G. Learning of dynamic display AAC technologies by typically developing 3-year-olds: effect of different layouts and menu approaches. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2004;47(5):1133–48. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2004/084.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. •• Drager K, Light J, Currall J, Muttiah N, Smith V, Kreis D, Nilam-Hall A, Parratt D, Schuessler K, Shermetta K, Wiscount J. AAC technologies with visual scene displays and “just in time” programming and symbolic communication turns expressed by students with severe disability. J Intellect Develop Disabil. 2019;44(3):321–36. https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2017.1326585. Findings from this study indicate that utilization of AAC with VSDs and JIT technology is effective in increasing symbolic communication for individuals with multiple disabilities.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Drager K, Light JC, Speltz JC, Fallon KA, Jeffries LZ. The performance of typically developing 2½-year-olds on dynamic display AAC technologies with different system layouts and language organizations. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2003;46(2):298–312. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2003/024.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Erickson K, Quick N. The profiles of students with significant cognitive disabilities and known hearing loss. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2017;22:35–48. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enw052.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Finestack L, Abbeduto L. Expressive language profiles of verbally expressive adolescents and young adults with Down syndrome or fragile X syndrome. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2010;53(5):1334–48. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0125).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ganz JB, Morin KL, Foster MJ, Vannest KJ, Genç Tosun D, Gregori EV, Gerow SL. High-technology augmentative and alternative communication for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities and complex communication needs: a meta-analysis. Augment Altern Commun. 2017;33(4):224–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2017.1373855.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Gevarter C, O’Reilly MF, Rojeski L, Sammarco N, Lang R, Lancioni GE, Sigafoos J. Comparing communication systems for individuals with developmental disabilities: a review of single-case research studies. Res Dev Disabil. 2013;34(12):4415–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2013.09.017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gulati S, Sondhi V. Cerebral palsy: an overview. Indian J Pediatr. 2018;85:1006–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12098-017-2475-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hanson EK, Yorkston KM, Beukelman DR. Speech supplementation techniques for dysarthria: a systematic review. J Med Speech Lang Pathol. 2004;12(2):ix–xxix.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Herbert M, Brock M, Barczak M, Anderson E. Efficacy of peer-network interventions for high school students with severe disabilities and complex communication needs. Res Pract Persons Severe Disabil. 2020;45(2):98–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796920904179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Holyfield C, Brooks S, Schluterman A. Comparative effects of high-tech visual scene displays and low-tech isolated picture symbols on engagement from students with multiple disabilities. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2019a;50(4):1–702. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_LSHSS-19-0007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Holyfield C, Caron J, Light J, McNaughton D. Effect of video embedded with hotspots with dynamic text on single-word recognition by children with multiple disabilities. J Dev Phys Disabil. 2019b;31(6):727–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-019-09673-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Holyfield C, Drager K, Light J, Caron JG. Typical toddlers’ participation in “just-in-time” programming of vocabulary for visual scene display augmentative and alternative communication apps on mobile technology: a descriptive study. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2017;26(3):737–49. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_AJSLP-15-0197.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Jeevithashree DV, Saluja KS, Biswas P. A case study of developing gaze controlled interface for users with severe speech and motor impairment. Technol Disabil. 2019;31(1-2):63–76. https://doi.org/10.3233/TAD-180206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Karlsson P, Allsop A, Dee-Price BJ, Wallen M. Eye-gaze control technology for children, adolescents and adults with cerebral palsy with significant physical disability: findings from a systematic review. Dev Neurorehabil. 2018;21(8):497–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/17518423.2017.1362057.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kent R, Vorperian HK. Speech impairment in Down syndrome: a review. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2013;56(1):178–210. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2012/12-0148.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Koul RK, editor. Overview of AAC intervention approaches for persons with aphasia. In: Augmentative and alternative communication for adults with aphasia. UK: Brill. 2011. p. 46–63.

  40. Koul R, Chavers T. Augmentative and alternative communication. In: Marquardt T, Gillam R, editors. Communication sciences and disorders: from science to clinical practice. Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2020. p. 211–28.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Lancioni G, Singh NN, O’Reilly MF, Sigafoos J, Oliva D. Assistive technology for people with severe/profound intellectual and multiple disabilities. In: Assistive Technologies for People with Diverse Abilities. New York: Springer; 2014. p. 277–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-8029-8_10.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  42. Lee Y, Jeong S, Kim L. AAC intervention using a VOCA for deaf children with multiple disabilities who received cochlear implantation. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;77(12):2008–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2013.09.023.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Light J, Drager K. AAC technologies for young children with complex communication needs: state of the science and future research directions. Augment Altern Commun. 2007;23(3):204–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610701553635.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Light J, McNaughton D. Supporting the communication, language, and literacy development of children with complex communication needs: state of the science and future research priorities. Assist Technol. 2012;24(1):34–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2011.648717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Light J, McNaughton D, Caron J. New and emerging AAC technology supports for children with complex communication needs and their communication partners: state of the science and future research directions. Augment Altern Commun. 2019a;35(1):26–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2018.1557251.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Light J, Wilkinson KM, Thiessen A, Beukelman DR, Fager SK. Designing effective AAC displays for individuals with developmental or acquired disabilities: state of the science and future research directions. Augment Altern Commun. 2019b;35(1):42–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2018.1558283.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Lorah ER. Comparing teacher and student use and preference of two methods of augmentative and alternative communication: picture exchange and a speech-generating device. J Dev Phys Disabil. 2016;28(5):751–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-016-9507-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Lorah ER, Holyfield C, Miller J, Griffen B, Lindbloom C. A systematic review of research comparing mobile technology speech-generating devices to other AAC modes with individuals with autism spectrum disorder. J Dev Phys Disabil. 2021:1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-021-09803-y.

  49. Mandak K, Light J, McNaughton D. Video visual scene displays with dynamic text: effect on single-word reading by an adolescent with cerebral palsy. Perspect ASHA Spec Interest Groups. 2020;5(5):1272–81. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_persp-20-00068.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. McConachie H, Pennington L. In-service training for schools on augmentative and alternative communication. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 1997;32(S3):277–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/13682829709177101.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Parker S, Mai CT, Canfield MA, Rickard R, Wang Y, Meyer RE, Anderson P, Mason CA, Collins JS, Kirby RS, Correa A. Updated national birth prevalence estimates for selected birth defects in the United States, 2004-2006. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2010;88(12):1008–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdra.20735.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Pennington L, Goldbart J, Marshall J. Speech and language therapy to improve the communication skills of children with cerebral palsy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003466.

  53. Pennington L, Jolleff N, McConachie H, Wisbeach A, Price K. My turn to speak: a team approach to augmentative and alternative communication. London: Institute of Child Health; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Quinn E, Kaiser A, Ledford J. Teaching preschoolers with Down syndrome using augmentative and alternative communication modeling during small group dialogic reading. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2020;29(1):80–100. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_AJSLP-19-0017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Reichle J, Drager KD. Examining issues of aided communication display and navigational strategies for young children with developmental disabilities. J Dev Phys Disabil. 2010;22(3):289–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-010-9191-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Reichle J, York J, Sigafoos J. Implementing augmentative and alternative communication: strategies for learners with severe disabilities. Baltimore: Brookes; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Schlosser RW, Koul R. Speech output technologies in interventions for individuals with autism spectrum disorders: a scoping review. Augment Altern Commun. 2015;31(4):285–309. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2015.1063689.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Schlosser R, Shane HC, Allen AA, Abramson J, Laubscher E, Dimery K. Just-in-time supports in augmentative and alternative communication. J Dev Phys Disabil. 2015;28(1):177–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-015-9452-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Severini KE, Ledford JR, Barton EE, Osborne KC. Implementing stay-play-talk with children who use AAC. Top Early Child Spec Educ. 2019;38(4):220–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121418776091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Sigafoos J, Roche L, Tait K. Challenges in providing AAC intervention to people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities. In: Ogletree B, editor. Augmentative and alternative 76. Communication: challenges and solutions. Plural Publishing Inc; 2021. p. 229–52.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Simacek J, Pennington B, Reichle J, Parker-McGowan Q. Aided AAC for people with severe to profound and multiple disabilities: a systematic review of interventions and treatment intensity. Adv Neurodev Disord. 2018;2(1):100–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41252-017-0050-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Soto G, Clarke MT. Conversation-based intervention for adolescents using augmentative and alternative communication. Augment Altern Commun. 2018;34(3):180–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2018.1490926.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Soto G, Solomon-Rice P, Caputo M. Enhancing the personal narrative skills of elementary school-aged students who use AAC: the effectiveness of personal narrative intervention. J Commun Disord. 2009;42(1):43–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2008.08.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Stasolla F, Caffò AO, Picucci L, Bosco A. Assistive technology for promoting choice behaviors in three children with cerebral palsy and severe communication impairments. Res Dev Disabil. 2013;34(9):2694–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2013.05.029.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Taherian S, Selitskiy D, Pau J, Davies TC, Owens RG. Training to use a commercial brain-computer interface as access technology: a case study. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;11(4):345–50. https://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2014.967313.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Thistle J, Wilkinson KM. Working memory demands of aided augmentative and alternative communication for individuals with developmental disabilities. Augment Altern Commun. 2013;29(3):235–45. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2013.815800.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Tönsing KM. Supporting the production of graphic symbol combinations by children with limited speech: a comparison of two AAC systems. J Dev Phys Disabil. 2016;28(1):5–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-015-9425-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World population prospects: the 2017 revision, key findings and advance tables. Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP/248. 2017. Retrieved January 20, 2022, from https://population.un.org/wpp/publications/Files/WPP2017_KeyFindings.pdf.

  69. van der Meer L, Kagohara D, Achmadi D, O’Reilly MF, Lancioni GE, Sutherland D, Sigafoos J. Speech-generating devices versus manual signing for children with developmental disabilities. Res Dev Disabil. 2012;33(5):1658–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2012.04.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. van Splunder J, Stilma JS, Bernsen RMD, Evenhuis HM. Prevalence of visual impairment in adults with intellectual disabilities in the Netherlands: Crosssectional study. Eye. 2006;20:1004–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.eye.6702059.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Wallace SE, Hux K. Effect of two layouts on high technology AAC navigation and content location by people with aphasia. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2014;9(2):173–82. https://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2013.799237.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Wilkinson KM, Light J. Preliminary investigation of visual attention to human figures in photographs: potential considerations for the design of aided AAC visual scene displays. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011;54(6):1644–57. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0098.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Wilkinson KM, Light J. Preliminary study of gaze toward humans in photographs by individuals with autism, Down syndrome, or other intellectual disabilities: implications for design of visual scene displays. Augment Altern Commun. 2014;30(2):130–46. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2014.904434.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Wu Y, Chen M, Lo Y, Chiang C. Effects of peer-mediated instruction with AAC on science learning and communitive responses of students with significant cognitive disabilities in Taiwan. Res Pract Persons Severe Disabil. 2020;45(3):178–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796919900955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA

    Tiffany Chavers & Cissy Cheng

  2. Centre for Augmentative and Alternative Communication, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa

    Rajinder Koul

Authors
  1. Tiffany Chavers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cissy Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rajinder Koul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rajinder Koul.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Communication Disorders

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chavers, T., Cheng, C. & Koul, R. Dynamic Augmentative and Alternative Communication Displays for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities: a Review. Curr Dev Disord Rep 9, 37–44 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474-022-00246-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474-022-00246-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation