Re: Communication methods for people with extremely limited articulation

Sai Emrys wrote:

> quoting me:
>> 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.
Sorry, but here I don't follow you. What is a 'mapping and frequency
list'? Not sure about 'phonotactics list' either. Do you think the
language should have different phonotactics in different L1 zones?
Should it contain message parts that correspond (are mapped) to words
in the various L1s?

I am thinking that this non-verbal language should have bigger atoms
of information, expressing wider concepts than words, else it would
be too slow and unwieldy. For example we could have one distinct
signal for each of the main feelings, and means to modify them in
order to go into more detail. Same with other concepts. For example,
if you want food, simply open your mouth. If you want a hot dog, open
your mouth and stick your tongue out. Etc...

>> 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.
Hmm, you are thinking of a system that consists half of a signalling
system for urgent messages and half of a system to spell words in
your L1. It makes sense to use a language that's already available.
But this spelling would tend to be very slow. It would help if some
T9-like electronic means were available. Of course, any interlocutors
would gladly act like natural T9 systems themselves, completing words
for the patient. The patient then only needs a signal to agree or
disagree with the suggested completion.

> 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.
I agree with you on these points.

>> 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?
The degree of consciousness was clearly rapidly diminishing. But the
person stubbornly refused to admit that something was wrong. They
said it was typical. If the brain stops working, I guess a means of
communication isn't what you need the most, really.

>> 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.
Maybe it's a good idea, as patients have different degree of control
over their head, toes, finger, etc.

So how many phonemes (which mostly aren't exactly "phon"-emes) should
we reckon that we have, actually?

> (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
I think you are referring to the sequence of instructions to nurses
or other people who deals with the person who has limited
articulation. Are you?

Have you gotten any others interested in the project yet? I'm
surprised that there aren't any others interested.

LEF

Reply