This week, I woke up to some big excitement in the world of communication rights. It was surrounding an academic study that had just been published: Eye-tracking reveals agency in assisted autistic communication (Jaswal, Wayne, & Golino).
The excitement might not be immediately obvious to anyone unfamiliar with the subject, so I wanted to jump on the chance to break it down and let fellow reliably-speaking autistics join in the excitement.
The study comes on the heels of years of concerted efforts to downplay the potential for authentic communication with new teaching methods. Jaswal et al. describe the situation, with reference to the message-passing experiments that were popular with facilitated communication.
Studies with nonspeaking autistic people who type while an assistant supports their hand or arm have shown that the text they compose can be influenced by the assistant: If the typist and the assistant are shown different images, for example, the typist rarely types the name of the image they were shown and may instead type the name of the image the assistant was shown. The results of these experimental “message passing” tests have led many scientists to conclude that anyone who appears to communicate with assistance […] is actually responding to subtle cues from the assistant.
The crux follows, though:
Yet behavioural scientists have shown repeatedly that tests that fail to take into account a group’s unique developmental history can underestimate or misrepresent the abilities of members of that group.”
Autistic advocates know many examples of this! As a prominent example, in 1985, Simon Baron-Cohen et. al. published a fairly famous study, “Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind?” The procedure they used is sometimes called the “false belief test.”
In short, it involves a narrative played out between two dolls (Sally and Anne), wherein the participant must correctly identify that Anne will look for a marble where she thought it was, not where Sally placed it when she wasn’t looking; presumably indicating that one understands what Anne is thinking.
“Theory of mind” has gone through various changes since that time, and particularly because autistic people have refuted the theory very soundly. In 2019, Gernsbacher and Yergeau published a review of studies of theory of mind in autistic people, “Empirical Failures of the Claim That Autistic People Lack a Theory of Mind,” which is incredibly extensive.
Back to communication, though: researchers have not yet come up with a successful controlled message-passing experiment, and there have been numerous hypotheses laid out for why that could be, particularly when people who have learned to type or spell to communicate regularly pass information unknown to their support people.
Because of this, teaching methods that rely on both physical assistance (like facilitated communication, or FC) as well as methods which rely more on non-physical prompts (RPM, S2C) have been plagued by Skeptics claiming that even those who have achieved independent typing or spelling are somehow being “cued” by their support person.
Using eye-tracking technology was an excellent choice in terms of examining the process of spelling as communication. It provides the quantitative data that skeptics demand while examining communicative agency in a real world setting. Many of the same skeptics have suggested eye-gaze communication devices as an alternative to letterboards, so it is clear that eye-tracking is a trusted technology.
(Eye-gaze technology is theoretically a possibility for nonspeakers, though there are certainly a lot of barriers; it may not financially plausible; it might not be a sensory possibility; a person would have to be trained to use it in the same way that spellers need to train their motor functioning to point at letters; and finally, expensive technology and the unpredictable movements of an apraxic autistic person just might not be a good mix.)
In this study, the researchers took nine nonspeaking autistic participants and asked them open-ended questions about a piece of text. They used head-mounted technology to track where the participants’ eyes were looking as they responded to the questions (by pointing to letters to spell their answers).
“The accuracy, speed, timing, and visual fixation patterns reported here suggest that participants were not simply looking at and pointing to letters that the assistant holding the letterboard cued them to. Instead, our data […] suggest that participants actively generated their own text, fixating and pointing to letters that they selected themselves.”
This is why the study is a big deal in the nonspeaking world. It provides empirical evidence of communicative agency; that the “blanket dismissal” of assisted communication (particularly by organizations such as the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association) is “unwarranted” … the same thing communication rights activists have been saying for years now.
It is only one step, but it’s a big step. I’ve checked around, and I know that dedicated skeptics are already trying to figure out how to discredit the results, but so far, none of them have directly addressed the data collected.
All we have to do now is wait for other studies to replicate the findings. We live in exciting times!
I make it my full-time job to improve my understanding of myself and others, question unchallenged perceptions of normality, and identify value in what I have to offer.
- Sensory Processing is Only Half the Story: Movement Differences in Autistic People - March 14, 2021
- Game-Changing Research in the World of Communication Rights - May 19, 2020
- Our Movement Needs Mediators, Not Leaders - April 29, 2020
30 Responses
Autism and communication rights are becoming an increasingly important topic in research, focusing on ensuring that every individual has the ability to express themselves in a way that suits their needs and abilities. New studies highlight how better communication tools and inclusive approaches can improve quality of life and independence for autistic individuals.
At the same time, digital creativity platforms like Pokecard Generator show how interactive tools can support expression and engagement in fun, accessible ways for different users.
This is fascinating research. Using eye-tracking technology to study communication provides a much more direct way to examine agency and participation, especially in real-world communication settings.
It’s encouraging to see new evidence contributing to an important discussion and opening the door for further research and replication.
Careful observation, pattern analysis, and evidence-based conclusions are valuable in many fields, much like using a pattern recognition toolto better understand complex systems.
Studies like this show how critical it is to rely on evidence rather than assumptions when analyzing human interaction. In the digital world too, whether it’s communication tools or apps, understanding how users actually behave is more important than what we expect them to do.
Youcine APK for Android streaming movies, live TV and entertainment without buffering
This article discusses the excitement surrounding a 2020 study, Eye-tracking Reveals Agency in Assisted Autistic Communication, which used eye-tracking technology to examine how some nonspeaking autistic individuals communicate through spelling or typing with support. The author explains that for years, methods such as Facilitated Communication (FC), Rapid Prompting Method (RPM), and Spelling to Communicate (S2C) have faced skepticism due to concerns that assistants may unintentionally influence messages. The study was significant because it analyzed participants’ eye movements while they spelled, providing evidence that they were actively selecting letters themselves. Supporters viewed this as an important step toward demonstrating communicative agency and challenging assumptions that assisted communication is entirely driven by prompts from support persons, while also highlighting the need for research methods that better reflect the real-world experiences of autistic individuals.
This article discusses the significance of a 2020 study, Eye-tracking Reveals Agency in Assisted Autistic Communication, which generated excitement among autistic advocates because it used eye-tracking technology to examine how nonspeaking autistic individuals communicate through assisted spelling or typing. The author explains that earlier message-passing experiments led many researchers to believe assistants were influencing communication, but argues that such tests may fail to account for autistic individuals’ unique developmental experiences. Drawing parallels to past autism research, including the controversial theory of mind studies, the article suggests that traditional methods have often underestimated autistic abilities. The eye-tracking study is presented as an important step toward better understanding and validating the communicative agency of autistic people who rely on alternative communication methods.