Inclusive Digital Technologies for People with Communication Disabilities



Suffering from communication disabilities limits a person’s ability to participate in communicative and social interactions, public democratic debates and learning activities. The possibility of trying out ideas and opinions is weakened and it might have an impact on the ability to tell one’s life story and to process inner thoughts. Consequently, it may affect the sufferer’s self-understanding and lead to psychological problems. If it is not possible to find alternatives and compensation strategies for telling your story, presenting who you are, and participating in meaningful dialogues, it is likely that your intellectual level will gradually decrease. Advances in information and communication technologies (ICT), such as smartphones, tablets, and Internet connectivity, have contributed to the integration of many aspects of communication and learning strategies. Thus, new methods to enhance inclusion and empowering people with communication difficulties are offered. However, more knowledge about how learners with special challenges benefit from ICT in their communication and learning and what kind of technology that qualify rehabilitation is needed. Based on research with people suffering from aphasia after a brain injury this chapter will demonstrate how digital technologies can support sufferer’s in acquiring some new ways to re-engage people in communicative relations and learning activities.


Communication disabilities Inclusion ICT Identity-formation learning Empowerment Participation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bhogal, S. K., Teasell, R. W., Foley, N. C., & Speechley, M. R. (2003). Rehabilitation of aphasia: more is better. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation 10(2), 66–76.Google Scholar
  2. Carr, P., & Pond, G. (2007). The unofficial tourists’ guide to Second Life. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin.Google Scholar
  3. Cherney, L. R., & van Vuuren, S. (2012). Telerehabilitation, virtual therapists, and acquired neurologic speech and language disorders. Seminars in speech and language 33(3), 243-258.Google Scholar
  4. Code, C., & Petheram, B. (2011). Delivering for aphasia. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 13(1), 3-10.Google Scholar
  5. Dalsgaard, C., & Sorensen, E. K. (2008). A typology for Web 2.0. In Proceedings of ECEL 2008: The 7th European Conference on e-Learning (pp. 272-279). n.p.: ECEL.Google Scholar
  6. Dede, C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science 323(5910), 66.Google Scholar
  7. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Konnerup, U., & Petersen, K. (2004). Face-to-Face-Training of Participants with Aphasia through Distance Learning. Aalborg: InDiMedia, Department of Communication, Aalborg University.Google Scholar
  8. Europa Commission (2015). European Disability Strategy (2010-2020). URL: Last accessed: 10 June 2017.
  9. Goldberg, E. (2005). The Wisdom paradox. How your Mind cab grow stronger as your Brain grows older. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  10. Hjernesagen. (2016). Om hjerneskader. URL: Last accessed: 27 May 2017.
  11. Klastrup, L. (2016). Sociale netværksmedier. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
  12. Konnerup, U. (2015). Renegotiation of Self after a Brain Injury Using Immersive Virtual Environments: A Contribution to Technology-mediated Speech Therapy (Ph.D.). Aalborg: Aalborg University. doi:  10.13140/RG.2.1.4807.1124.
  13. Konnerup, U., & Schmidt, D. (2006). Det virtuelle miljø – en mulighed for nye læreprocesser i rehabiliteringen af afasiramte. URL: Last accessed: 10 June 2017.
  14. Ministeriet for Born, Undervisning og Ligestilling. Folkeskoleloven, 1746 § 13 (2016). URL: Last accessed: 23 May 2017.
  15. Parr, S. (2007). Living with severe aphasia: Tracking social exclusion. Aphasiology 21(1), 98-123.Google Scholar
  16. Passey, D. (2013). Inclusive Technology Enhanced Learning. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  17. Petheram, B. (2004). Editorial Computers and aphasia: A means of delivery and a delivery of means. Aphasiology 18(3), 187-191.Google Scholar
  18. Phillips, L., Ries, B., Kaeding, M., & Interrante, V. (2010). Avatar self-embodiment enhances distance perception accuracy in non-photorealistic immersive virtual environments. In Virtual Reality Conference (VR), 2010 IEEE. doi:  10.1109/VR.2010.5444802.
  19. Pound, C. (2000). Beyond aphasia: therapies for living with communication disabilities. Bicester: Winslow.Google Scholar
  20. Rehm, M., & Konnerup, U. (2012). Immersive Virtual Worlds for (E-) Learning: Towards an Interdisciplinary. In S. Augostino (Ed.) Immersive Environments, Augmented Realities, and Virtual Worlds: Assessing Future Trends in Education: Assessing Future Trends in Education (pp. 238–256). Hershy: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  21. Ross, S. M., Morrison, G. R., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Educational technology research past and present: Balan,cing rigor and relevance to impact school learning. Contemporary Educational Technology 1(1), 17-35.Google Scholar
  22. Sanchez-Vives, M. V., & Slater, M. (2005). From presence to consciousness through virtual reality. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 6(4), 332-339.Google Scholar
  23. Schroeder, R. (2010). Being There Together: Social Interaction in Shared Virtual Environments: Social Interaction in Shared Virtual Environments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Shadden, B. B., & Agan, J. P. (2004). Renegotiation of identity: The social context of aphasia support groups. Topics in Language Disorders 24(3), 174-186.Google Scholar
  25. Shadden, B. B., Hagstrom, F., & Koski, P. R. (2008). Neurogenic Communication Disorders. San Diego: Plural Pub.Google Scholar
  26. Simmons-Mackie, N. N., & Elman, R. J. (2011). Negotiation of identity in group therapy for aphasia: the Aphasia Café. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 46(3), 312-323.Google Scholar
  27. Slater, M., Usoh, M., & Steed, A. (1994). Depth of presence in virtual environments. Presence 3(2), 130-144.Google Scholar
  28. Slater, M., & Wilbur, S. (1997). A Framework for Immersive Virtual Environments(FIVE) – Speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 6(6), 603-616.Google Scholar
  29. Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning a second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research 81(1), 4-28.Google Scholar
  30. Undervisningsministeriet. (2010, December). Faglihed og frihed – Regeringsudspil til en bedre folkeskole. URL: Last accessed: 23 May 2017.
  31. United Nations (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. URL: Last accessed: 27 May 2017.
  32. Vygotsky, L. S. (1934). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Worrall, L., Sherratt, S., Rogers, P., Howe, T., Hersh, D., Ferguson, A., & Davidson, B. (2011). What people with aphasia want: Their goals according to the ICF. Aphasiology 25(3), 309-322.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communication & PsychologyAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations