Características formales y transparencia de los símbolos pictográficos de ARASAAC

  1. Cabello Luque, Francisco
Aldizkaria:
Revista de Investigación en Logopedia

ISSN: 2174-5218

Argitalpen urtea: 2015

Alea: 5

Zenbakia: 1

Orrialdeak: 60-70

Mota: Artikulua

DOI: 10.5209/RLOG.58620 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Beste argitalpen batzuk: Revista de Investigación en Logopedia

Garapen Iraunkorreko Helburuak

Laburpena

Se examina la iconicidad y transparencia de los símbolos pictográficos de ARASAAC, y se compara con la de otros conjuntos de signos ya establecidos (SPC y Bliss). Participaron 34 estudiantes universitarios, expuestos a una tarea en la que se presentaban 114 símbolos correspondientes a cuatro categorías gramaticales (nombres, verbos, adjetivos y símbolos lingüísticos) y se valoraba su relación con el significado mediante una escala de 7 puntos. Los resultados muestran que los pictogramas ARASAAC tiene un adecuado grado de transparencia e iconicidad, incluso mayor que la de los pictogramas SPC, aunque hay variaciones significativas en función de la categoría gramatical

Erreferentzia bibliografikoak

  • Angermeier, K., Schlossoer, R., Luiselli, J., Harrington, C., y Carter, B. (2008). Effects of iconicity on requesting with the picture exchange communication system in children with autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2, 430–446.
  • Beukelman, D., y Mirenda, P. (2013). Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs. Baltimore, MA: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
  • Bloomberg, K., Karlan, G., y Lloyd, L. (1990). The comparative translucency of initial lexical items represented in five graphical symbol systems and sets. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 33, 717-725.
  • Cabello, F., Barnes-Holmes, D., Stewart, I. y O’Hora, D. (2002). Visual Basic in the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin, 20, 17-20.
  • Fuller, D. (1997). Effects of translucency and complexity on the associative learning of Blissymbols by cognitively normal children and adults. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 12, 30–39.
  • Fuller, D., y Lloyd, L. (1997). Symbol selection. En L. Lloyd, D. Fuller y H. Arvidson (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication: Handbook of principles and practice (pp. 214–225). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Fuller, D., Lloyd, L., y Stratton, M. (1997). Aided AAC symbols. En L. Lloyd, D. Fuller y H. Arvidson (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication: Handbook of principles and practice (pp. 48–79). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Hetzroni, O. E., Quist, R., y Lloyd, L. (2002). Translucency and complexity: Effects on Blissymbol learning using computer and teacher presentations. Language, Speech, and Hearing Service in Schools, 33, 291–303.
  • Hulburt, B., Iwata, B. y Green, J. (1982). Nonvocal language acquisition in adolescents with severe physical disabilities: Blissymbols versus iconic stimulus formats. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 241-258.
  • Koul, R., Schlosser, R., y Sancibrian, S. (2001). Effects of symbol, referent, and instructional variables on the acquisition of aided and unaided symbols by individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16, 162-176.
  • Luftig, R., y Bersani, H. (1985). An investigation of two variables influencing Blissymbol learnability with nonhandicapped adults. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 1, 32-33.
  • Mirenda, P., y Locke, P. (1989). A comparison of symbol transparency in nonspeaking children with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, 131–140.
  • Mizuko, M. (1987). Transparency and ease of learning of symbols represented by Blissymbolics, PCS, and Picsyms. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 3, 129-136.
  • Mizuko, M., y Reichle, J. (1989). Transparency and recall of symbols among intellectually handicapped adults. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, 627–633.
  • Musselwhite, C., y Ruscello, D. (1984). Transparency of three communication symbol systems. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 27, 436-443.
  • Schlosser, R., y Sigafoos, J. (2002). Selecting graphic symbols for an initial request lexicon: Integrative review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18, 102–123.
  • Schlosser, R., Shane, H., Sorce, J., Koul, R., Bloomfield, E., Debrowski, L., DeLuca, T., Miller, S., Schneider, D. y Neff, A. (2012). Animation of graphic symbols representing verbs and prepositions: Effects on transparency, name agreement, and identification. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55, 342-358.
  • Tamarit, J. (1989). Uso y abuso de los sistemas de comunicación. Comunicación, Lenguaje y Educación, 1, 81-94.
  • Wilkinson, K., y Jagaroo, V. (2004). Contributions of principles of visual cognitive science to AAC system display design. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 20, 123–136.
Datuen iturria: Dialnet