There's been lots of comments about S2C. Let me answer some of those questions. What are some of the success case studies
associated with Spelling to Communicate? That's S2C. And how do they compare to
the scientific evidence? There are many young adults who are
nonspeaking, and they've used S2C to write books,
not just write books, publish books. There are so many examples of that. I actually have a whole playlist of videos that give a summary of
the book that they wrote. The scientific evidenc
e shows that the
person spelling is the person spelling. The case studies and the scientific
evidence, they align fantastically. Hi, I'm Dr.
Theresa Lyons. I teach parents the cutting-edge science
of autism so that you can make the best decision for your child based on
quality information. Here's another question: Are
there any ethical concerns related to the promotion and practice of Spelling to
Communicate within the autism community? I have heard people
raise ethical concerns. In fact, someon
e commented on one of the
videos that the argument is the person spelling can't
possibly have any intelligence. So it's unfair to get the parents' hope up
that they have an intelligent child. That was a comment. There is one published scientific article, a clinical trial, that used eye-tracking
technology to show that the person spelling, using their finger, pointing to
the letters, is actually looking at the letter
they point to before they point to it. The research went on to analyze a lot of
different really technical things,
like how fast they were spelling. If you think of the word toothbrush, T-O is usually spelled quicker than the H
and the B in between tooth and brush. A lot of analysis was done, and it was compared to the spelling patterns
that you would typically see. There's a lot of data in that research
study showing that the person spelling is actually the person spelling, and there's
more research continuing to go on. I have to say in this day and age,
a different questi
on would be, Are there any ethical concerns about
denying a person a way to communicate? Because that's effectively what is being
done and what that comment is about. Can Spelling to Communicate be considered a legitimate alternative
communication method for nonverbal individuals with autism,
or does it remain a subject of skepticism? It does remain an area of skepticism. So there is that one published scientific article, and hopefully there are more
articles coming out so that eventually, Spell
ing to Communicate can
be called evidence-based. Right now, it's cutting-edge. How has the controversy surrounding
Spelling to Communicate influenced the broader conversation about
autism therapy and interventions? It's a great question. People who have nonspeaking autism are more likely to be marginalized
in education and also healthcare. The broader conversation in the autism community is to be able to hear what a
nonspeaking autistic has to say now that they have a way to
express their high-l
evel thoughts. Autistic self-advocates emphasize the importance of recognizing and respecting
the communication preferences and abilities of each individual,
and that is why it's important that more research be done
into Spelling to Communicate. Non-speakers have ideas that they want to contribute, and
they should be allowed and encouraged. If you found this video to be helpful, please hit the like button and also
subscribe to my channel to get the cutting-edge scientific information about
autis
m so that you can make the best decision for your child based on
quality information.
Comments