The effects of word prediction on communication rate for AAC
Open accessAbstract
Individuals using an Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) device communicate at less than 10% of the speed of "traditional" speech, creating a large communication gap.In this user study, we compare the communication rate of pseudo-impaired individuals using two different word prediction algorithms and a system without word prediction.Our results show that word prediction can increase AAC communication rate and that more accurate predictions significantly improve communication rate.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
AAC typically do not exceed 15 WPM.
“This would likely provide substantial improvements over AAC, which typically do not exceed 15 WPM (refs. 146–148).”
From The speech neuroprosthesis (2024) · cites this paper as [146]
TTS system performance is often described using mel-cepstral distortion and open-ended human-transcribed WER.
“The performance of TTS systems is often described using mel-cepstral distortion (MCD) and open-ended human-transcribed WER149,150.”
From The speech neuroprosthesis (2024) · cites this paper as [149]
The Approach and Results sections evaluate AAC word prediction using communication rate, keystrokes, and related measures. Searches for mel-cepstral distortion, TTS, and human-transcribed word error rate found no passage addressing how TTS performance is described. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 6 · Cited by 41
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Gregory W. Lesher and D. Jeffery Higginbotham. 2005. Using web content to enhance augmentative commu- nication. In Proceedings of CSUN 2005.
- Authors
- Trnka, K., Yarrington, D., McCaw, J., McCoy, K. F., & Pennington, C.
- Affiliations
- University of Delaware (US)
- Venue
- Human Language Technologies 2007: The Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics; Companion Volume, Short Papers on XX - NAACL '07
- Published
- 2007
- Pages
- 173-176
- OpenAlex
- W2118519983
- Cited by
- 41
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 15.50
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Gaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
- Keywords
- augmentative and alternative communication, word prediction, communication rate, AAC devices, prediction accuracy, speech rate, communication gap, user study
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
