Re: Communication methods for people with extremely limited articulation

On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Lars Finsen <lars.finsen@...> wrote:
> Would you prefer the language (or code) to be tied to English, or would you
> like a more independent communication system?
It ought to be compatible with whatever L1; certainly at least English
and French.

I think the only difference would be in the mapping and frequency list
/ phonotactics list.

> With my former comments I was
> mostly thinking of the needs of someone who has a short-duration fit. But I
> realise there are other time perspectives to consider. Maybe each should
> have different systems.
I think that the short-term version would just be a subset of the
regular system - i.e. the part that doesn't go into spelling arbitrary
strings.

> Anyway, if it's to be of any use at all, it needs to become somewhat
> widespread, or else you won't have any significant chance of making yourself
> understood to anyone nearby when you need it. It shouldn't be impossible to
> have it taught in schools, I think. Most countries have health-related TV
> programs, I guess, and those could take it up from time to time, though the
> audience is limited.
Ideally, it ought to be something where an untrained nurse (or
visitor) can grab a simple laminated sheet of instructions, go through
them step by step, and be using it within a couple minutes.

That is, no particular skill or learning needed whatsoever by either
party, just common fluency in some base language (for which the
instructions are tailored).

These sheets could then simply be carried with you, or kept around a
hospital - such that nurses know that they exist and where they are.

Very low tech.

More sophisticated, one could make an accessory program (a la T9) -
but at that point, I think one crosses into the region of full-scale
computer aides, and I don't want to compete with that just yet.

> Mind-boggling the idea that paramedics are so expensive.
*shrug* There're a lot of factors that cause this. Demand, insurance,
expensive equipment, zero real competition...

> Anyhow here it seems you have a good overview of the most urgent needs. This
> could be relevant to diabetics as well. I met two people last summer who
> have a history of diabetic seizures with low communication ability. One of
> them had a dangerous looking one coming on when I was there, but the other
> one knew exactly what to do. What if there's no-one around knowing exactly
> what to do some day?
*nod* I'm not familiar with diabetic seizures. What communication
ability did they have? What degree of consciousness?

>> More interesting, though, is the long-term use - communicating
>> arbitrary phrases and responses in the arbitrary base language with
>> maximal efficiency, using whatever means of articulation are
>> available.
>
> Yes, more interesting, but don't these people often have means to
> communicate with in ordinary language? Hawking does at least.
Hawking is an unusual case; he has very sophisticated software and
hardware that takes a long time to train and to learn to use.

There are even projects underway to research brain/computer interfaces
that allow someone to speak through a computer by thinking (somewhat
like the monkey-brain joystick experiments). It's interesting stuff,
but very expensive in equipment, training, research time, etc.

This system need not be as good as that, nor work independently of a
human aide; it has somewhat different goals.

Most people do not have the luxury of such systems, the time to train them, etc.

I want something which can be done with zero tech and minimal time to learn.

> Agreed. What I feel like now is having a list of "phonemes". Do we have
> anything else than blinks and grunts?
It could be any number of body movements.

Head gestures; toes; fingers; etc.

I'd rather that they be treated abstractly - e.g. "first binary
phoneme, second binary phoneme, first pointing phoneme [e.g. eye
gaze]" etc.

(Of course, the instructions wouldn't present it this way exactly -
it'd be more like a fill-in-the-blank bootstrapping.)

Sequence would be something like:

1. do something, then don't do it, then do it again
2. find out what that something is; repeat until found a binary
phoneme (e.g. blink)
3. explain & test boolean questions
4. emergency checklist
5. bootstrap other phonemes if available, add to list by type
- e.g. binary; directionality; strength; duration; ... as abstract phoneme types
6. explain & test full communication range
7. arbitrary communication

- Sai

Reply