pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.24854 · v1 · pith:JEJHA2IJnew · submitted 2026-06-23 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.AI

It's Complicated: On the Design and Evaluation of AI-Powered AAC Interfaces

Blade Frisch , Will Wade , Dylan Gaines , Michelle Kinsella , Betts Peters , Tamara Broderick , Keith Vertanen This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 22:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.AI
keywords augmentative and alternative communicationAI interfacesevaluation metricsintersectionalityhuman-computer interactionAAC problem spacesassistive technology
0
0 comments X

The pith

Evaluating AI for augmentative communication requires metrics that account for users' intersectional and nuanced desires across six problem spaces.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines how artificial intelligence can enhance augmentative and alternative communication systems yet notes persistent difficulties in assessing those enhancements. Users of AAC bring overlapping identities that shape varied and subtle requirements for the technology. The authors map six distinct problem spaces in AAC design to illustrate potential AI roles and the shortcomings of conventional metrics. They advocate for evaluation approaches that incorporate these intersectional factors to better guide both design and assessment.

Core claim

Current evaluation metrics for AI-powered AAC interfaces struggle to capture the multifaceted and nuanced desires people may have for their AAC, requiring more robust methods that take the intersectional nuances of people into account across the six problem spaces.

What carries the argument

The six AAC problem spaces, used as a structure to examine AI applications and to identify where standard metrics fall short.

If this is right

  • AI uses in AAC should be analyzed and tailored within each of the six problem spaces rather than applied uniformly.
  • Evaluation must expand past speed or accuracy measures to include personal, social, and identity-related factors.
  • Broader cross-space issues such as privacy or equity can be addressed through the proposed evaluation approaches.
  • Design of AI-AAC systems needs to integrate user intersectionality at the outset of development.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar evaluation gaps likely exist in other assistive or personalized AI systems where user identities intersect in complex ways.
  • Applying the suggested methods to existing AAC prototypes could reveal concrete gaps in current testing practices.
  • The framework may inform evaluation standards for AI in related domains like accessible interfaces or personalized assistive tech.

Load-bearing premise

That more robust evaluation methods can be developed and applied to take intersectional nuances of people into account across the six problem spaces.

What would settle it

A controlled study demonstrating that existing performance-based metrics already fully reflect the range of intersectional user desires in AI-powered AAC without modification.

read the original abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) can enhance what people who use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) are able to do with their systems. However, evaluating AI-powered AAC interfaces can be difficult. People are intersectional beings and current evaluation metrics can struggle to capture the multifaceted and nuanced desires people may have for their AAC. We explore the complicated nature of six AAC problem spaces, explore how AI might be used in these spaces, and suggest more robust methods of evaluation that take the intersectional nuances of people into account. We also discuss broader issues that arise across these problem spaces and how they could be addressed using our proposed evaluation methods.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that evaluating AI-powered augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) interfaces is difficult because people are intersectional and current metrics struggle to capture multifaceted, nuanced user desires. It explores the nature of six AAC problem spaces, discusses potential AI applications in each, proposes more robust evaluation methods that account for intersectional nuances, and addresses broader cross-cutting issues.

Significance. If the suggested evaluation approaches are developed further, this position paper could help shift AAC and HCI research toward more holistic assessments that better reflect user complexities, potentially improving the relevance of AI enhancements in assistive communication. The work is exploratory and conceptual rather than empirical or formal, providing a framing for future studies without new data, derivations, or validated methods.

minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and introduction would benefit from briefly naming or characterizing the six problem spaces to orient readers before the detailed exploration.
  2. Consider citing specific prior AAC evaluation studies or frameworks when discussing limitations of current metrics, to strengthen the grounding of the argument.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful summary of our position paper and for recommending minor revision. The report accurately captures the exploratory and conceptual nature of the work. No specific major comments were provided in the report, so we have no point-by-point revisions to address. We remain open to incorporating any additional feedback that may arise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; discussion paper with no derivations or fitted claims

full rationale

This is a position/discussion paper exploring AAC problem spaces and evaluation challenges without equations, parameters, derivations, or any load-bearing technical steps. No self-definitional claims, fitted inputs presented as predictions, or self-citation chains appear; the suggestion of more robust methods is the exploratory contribution itself rather than a premise reduced to prior inputs. The paper is self-contained as a qualitative analysis and does not reduce any result to its own definitions or citations by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is conceptual and draws on standard domain assumptions in HCI about user diversity without introducing new free parameters or entities.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption People are intersectional beings whose desires for AAC cannot be fully captured by current metrics
    Directly stated in the abstract as the basis for needing new evaluation methods.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5645 in / 1184 out tokens · 27283 ms · 2026-06-25T22:18:01.551472+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Jiban Adhikary, Robbie Watling, Crystal Fletcher, Alex Stanage, and Keith Verta- nen. 2019. Investigating Speech Recognition for Improving Predictive AAC. In SLPAT ’19: Proceedings of the Workshop on Speech and Language Processing for Assistive Technologies(Minneapolis, MN). 37–43

    2019

  2. [2]

    2023.Measuring the User Experience: Collecting, Analyzing, and Presenting UX Metrics(3rd ed.)

    Bill Albert and Tom Tullis. 2023.Measuring the User Experience: Collecting, Analyzing, and Presenting UX Metrics(3rd ed.). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Cambridge, MA

    2023

  3. [3]

    Ohoud Alharbi and Wolfgang Stuerzlinger. 2022. Auto-Cucumber: The Impact of Autocorrection Failures on Users’ Frustration. InGraphics Interface 2022. https: //openreview.net/forum?id=dcbsb4qTmnt

    2022

  4. [4]

    Arnott, and Alan F

    Norman Alm, John L. Arnott, and Alan F. Newell. 1992. Prediction and conversa- tional momentum in an augmentative communication system.Commun. ACM 35, 5 (1992), 46–57

    1992

  5. [5]

    American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. [n. d.]. Components of Social Communication. https://www.asha.org/practice-portal/clinical-topics/social- It’s Complicated: On the Design and Evaluation of AI-Powered AAC Interfaces Speech AI for All Workshop at CHI, April 16, 2026, Barcelona, Spain communication-disorder/components-of-social-communication/

    2026

  6. [6]

    Shiri Azenkot and Nicole B. Lee. 2013. Exploring the Use of Speech Input by Blind People on Mobile Devices. InProceedings of the 15th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility(Bellevue, Washington) (ASSETS ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 11, 8 pages. doi:10.1145/2513383.2513440

    work page doi:10.1145/2513383.2513440 2013

  7. [7]

    Lisa G. Bardach. 2017. Communication Needs Questionnaire. Boston Children’s Hospital Augmentative Communication Program. https: //www.childrenshospital.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/communication- needs-questionnaire.pdf

    2017

  8. [8]

    Carol M. Barnum. 2021.Usability Testing Essentials: Ready, Set ...Test!(2nd ed.). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Cambridge, MA

    2021

  9. [9]

    Richard EA Bates. 2006.Enhancing the performance of eye and head mice: a validated assessment method and an investigation into the performance of eye and head based assistive technology pointing devices. Ph. D. Dissertation. De Montfort University

    2006

  10. [10]

    Carolyn Baylor, Kathryn Yorkston, Tanya Eadie, Jiseon Kim, Hyewon Chung, and Dagmar Amtmann. 2013. The Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB): Item bank calibration and development of a disorder-generic short form. (2013)

    2013

  11. [11]

    Ann Beck, Heidi Fritz, Allison Keller, and Marcia Dennis. 2000. Attitudes of school-aged children toward their peers who use augmentative and alternative communication.Augmentative and Alternative Communication16, 1 (2000), 13– 26

    2000

  12. [12]

    S J Bennett, Caroline Claisse, Ewa Luger, and Abigail C Durrant. 2023. Unpicking epistemic injustices in digital health: On the implications of designing data-driven technologies for the management of long-term conditions. InProceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 322–332

    2023

  13. [13]

    Nicholas Bonaker, Emli-Mari Nel, Keith Vertanen, and Tamara Broderick. 2023. A Usability Study of Nomon: A Flexible Interface for Single-Switch Users. In Proceedings of the 25th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility(New York, NY, USA)(ASSETS ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 3, 17 pages. ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3597638.3608415 2023

  14. [14]

    Nicholas Ryan Bonaker, Emli-Mari Nel, Keith Vertanen, and Tamara Broderick

  15. [15]

    InCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(New Orleans, LA, USA)(CHI ’22)

    A Performance Evaluation of Nomon: A Flexible Interface for Noisy Single- Switch Users. InCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(New Orleans, LA, USA)(CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 495, 17 pages. doi:10.1145/3491102.3517738

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102.3517738

  16. [16]

    2024.Unmasking AI: My Mission to Protect What Is Human in a World of Machines

    Joy Buolamwini. 2024.Unmasking AI: My Mission to Protect What Is Human in a World of Machines. Random House Trade Paperbacks, New York, NY

    2024

  17. [17]

    Timothy Bunnell, Jason Lilley, Celestine Foo, Han Wei Tan, and Wei Shun Lim

    Mo Chen, Jolene Hyppa-Martin, H. Timothy Bunnell, Jason Lilley, Celestine Foo, Han Wei Tan, and Wei Shun Lim. 2023. Voice banking to support individuals who use speech-generating devices: development and evaluation of Singaporean- accented English synthetic voices and a Singapore Colloquial English recording inventory.Augmentative and Alternative Communic...

    work page doi:10.1080/07434618.2023.2181213 2023

  18. [18]

    Siyuan Chen, Julien Epps, Natalie Ruiz, and Fang Chen. 2011. Eye activity as a measure of human mental effort in HCI. InProceedings of the 16th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces(Palo Alto, CA, USA)(IUI ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 315–318. doi:10.1145/1943403. 1943454

    work page doi:10.1145/1943403 2011

  19. [19]

    Patrick W Demasco and Kathleen F McCoy. 1992. Generating text from com- pressed input: An intelligent interface for people with severe motor impairments. Commun. ACM35, 5 (1992), 68–78

    1992

  20. [20]

    Melanie Fried-Oken, Michelle Kinsella, Ian Stevens, and Eran Klein. 2024. What stakeholders with neurodegenerative conditions value about speed and accuracy in development of BCI systems for communication.Brain-Computer Interfaces 11, 1-2 (2024), 21–32

    2024

  21. [21]

    Kinsella, Erik Jakobs, Tom Jakobs, Aimee Mooney, Betts Peters, Rebecca Pryor, and Scott Spaulding

    Melanie Fried-Oken, Michelle A. Kinsella, Erik Jakobs, Tom Jakobs, Aimee Mooney, Betts Peters, Rebecca Pryor, and Scott Spaulding. 2025. Smart Pre- dict: adding partner-suggested vocabulary to increase efficiency in a dual tablet AAC typing application.Augmentative and Alternative Communica- tion41, 4 (2025), 395–406. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/0743461...

    work page doi:10.1080/07434618.2024.2374314 2025

  22. [22]

    Blade Frisch and Keith Vertanen. 2025. Designing AAC for use in social and community contexts: a scoping review.Augmentative and Alternative Communication(Oct. 2025), 1–11. doi:10.1080/07434618.2025.2558851 _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2025.2558851

    work page doi:10.1080/07434618.2025.2558851 2025

  23. [23]

    Dylan Gaines, Per Ola Kristensson, and Keith Vertanen. 2021. Enhancing the composition task in text entry studies: Eliciting difficult text and improving error rate calculation. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Yokohama, Japan)(CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 725, 8 pa...

    work page doi:10.1145/3411764.3445199 2021

  24. [24]

    Dylan Gaines and Keith Vertanen. 2025. Adapting Large Language Models for Character-based Augmentative and Alternative Communication. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025. Association for Computational Linguistics, Suzhou, China, 15273–15291. doi:10.18653/v1/2025. findings-emnlp.826

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025 2025

  25. [25]

    Nestor Garay-Vitoria and Julio Abascal. 2006. Text prediction systems: a survey. Universal Access in the Information Society4, 3 (2006), 188–203. Issue 3

    2006

  26. [26]

    Rosemarie Garland-Thomson. 2011. Misfits: A Feminist Materialist Disability Concept.Hypatia26 (06 2011), 591 – 609. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01206.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01206.x 2011

  27. [27]

    Nicola Gatti and Matteo Matteucci. 2006. CABA2L a Bliss predictive composition assistant for AAC communication software. InEnterprise Information Systems VI. Springer, 277–284

    2006

  28. [28]

    Erving. Goffman. 1959.The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Anchor Books, New York, NY, USA

    1959

  29. [29]

    Erving. Goffman. 1963.Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Simon & Schuster Inc, New York, New York

    1963

  30. [30]

    Sandra G Hart and Lowell E Staveland. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. InAdvances in psy- chology. Vol. 52. Elsevier, 139–183

    1988

  31. [31]

    2025.Proceedings of the First Workshop on Language Models for Low-Resource Languages

    Hansi Hettiarachchi, Tharindu Ranasinghe, Paul Rayson, Ruslan Mitkov, Mo- hamed Gaber, Damith Premasiri, Fiona Anting Tan, and Lasitha Uyangodage (Eds.). 2025.Proceedings of the First Workshop on Language Models for Low-Resource Languages. Association for Computational Linguistics, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. https://aclanthology.org/2025.loreslm-1.0/

    2025

  32. [32]

    Hoag, Jan L

    Linda A. Hoag, Jan L. Bedrosian, Kathleen F. MCcoy, and Dallas E. Johnson

  33. [33]

    2008), 149–161

    Hierarchy of Conversational Rule Violations Involving Utterance-Based Augmentative and Alternative Communication Systems.Augmentative and Alter- native Communication24, 2 (Jan. 2008), 149–161. doi:10.1080/07434610802038288 _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610802038288

    work page doi:10.1080/07434610802038288 2008

  34. [34]

    Simon Judge and Gillian Townend. 2013. Perceptions of the design of voice output communication aids.Int. J. Lang. Commun. Disord.48, 4 (April 2013), 366–381

    2013

  35. [35]

    2013.Feminist, Queer, Crip

    Alison Kafer. 2013.Feminist, Queer, Crip. Indiana University Press, Blooming- ton. https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=16af4027-107a-3aed- b257-fad97d457a08

    2013

  36. [36]

    Kane, Barbara Linam-Church, Kyle Althoff, and Denise McCall

    Shaun K. Kane, Barbara Linam-Church, Kyle Althoff, and Denise McCall. 2012. What we talk about: designing a context-aware communication tool for people with aphasia. InProceedings of the 14th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility(Boulder, Colorado, USA)(ASSETS ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 49...

    work page doi:10.1145/2384916 2012

  37. [37]

    Shaun K Kane and Meredith Ringel Morris. 2017. Let’s Talk about X: Combining image recognition and eye gaze to support conversation for people with ALS. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. 129–134

    2017

  38. [38]

    At times avuncular and cantankerous, with the reflexes of a mongoose

    Shaun K. Kane, Meredith Ringel Morris, Ann Paradiso, and Jon Campbell. 2017. "At times avuncular and cantankerous, with the reflexes of a mongoose": Under- standing Self-Expression through Augmentative and Alternative Communication Devices. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Co- operative Work and Social Computing (CSCW ’17). A...

    work page doi:10.1145/2998181.2998284 2017

  39. [39]

    Eran Klein, Michelle Kinsella, Ian Stevens, and Melanie Fried-Oken. 2024. Ethical issues raised by incorporating personalized language models into brain-computer interface communication technologies: a qualitative study of individuals with neurological disease.Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology19, 3 (2024), 1041–1051. arXiv:https://doi.or...

    work page doi:10.1080/17483107.2022.2146217 2024

  40. [40]

    Heidi Horstmann Koester and Sajay Arthanat. 2018. Text entry rate of access interfaces used by people with physical disabilities: A systematic review.Assistive Technology30, 3 (2018), 151–163

    2018

  41. [41]

    Daniel Konadl. 2024. A Generative AI-based approach to support automated utterance generation for different conversational contexts within AAC systems

    2024

  42. [42]

    Janice Light and David McNaughton. 2013. Putting People First: Re- Thinking the Role of Technology in Augmentative and Alternative Com- munication Intervention.Augmentative and Alternative Communication 29, 4 (Dec. 2013), 299–309. doi:10.3109/07434618.2013.848935 _eprint: https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2013.848935

    work page doi:10.3109/07434618.2013.848935 2013

  43. [43]

    Hild, Deniz Erdogmus, Brian Roark, Barry Oken, and Melanie Fried-Oken

    Umut Orhan, Kenneth E. Hild, Deniz Erdogmus, Brian Roark, Barry Oken, and Melanie Fried-Oken. 2012. RSVP Keyboard: An EEG Based Typing Interface. Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP)(2012), 10.1109/ICASSP.2012.6287966. doi:10.1109/ ICASSP.2012.6287966

    work page doi:10.1109/icassp.2012.6287966 2012

  44. [44]

    Betts Peters, Aimee Mooney, Barry Oken, and Melanie Fried-Oken. 2016. Solicit- ing BCI user experience feedback from people with severe speech and physical impairments.Brain-Computer Interfaces3, 1 (2016), 47–58

    2016

  45. [45]

    Betts Peters, Jack Wiedrick, and Carolyn Baylor. 2023. Effects of aided commu- nication on communicative participation for people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.American journal of speech-language pathology32, 4 (2023), 1450–1465

    2023

  46. [46]

    Brian Roark, Jacques De Villiers, Christopher Gibbons, and Melanie Fried-Oken

  47. [47]

    In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 Workshop on Speech and Language Processing for Assistive Technologies

    Scanning methods and language modeling for binary switch typing. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 Workshop on Speech and Language Processing for Assistive Technologies. 28–36. Speech AI for All Workshop at CHI, April 16, 2026, Barcelona, Spain Frisch et al

    2010

  48. [48]

    Brian Roark, Andrew Fowler, Richard Sproat, Christopher Gibbons, and Melanie Fried-Oken. 2011. Towards technology-assisted co-construction with commu- nication partners. InProceedings of the second workshop on speech and language processing for assistive technologies. 22–31

    2011

  49. [49]

    Brian Roark, Melanie Fried-Oken, and Chris Gibbons. 2015. Huff- man and Linear Scanning Methods with Statistical Language Mod- els.Augmentative and Alternative Communication31, 1 (2015), 37–50. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2014.997890 doi:10.3109/07434618.2014. 997890 PMID: 25672825

    work page doi:10.3109/07434618.2014.997890 2015

  50. [50]

    2019.Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences(5th ed.)

    Irving Seidman. 2019.Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences(5th ed.). Teachers College Press, New York, NY

    2019

  51. [51]

    Darryl Sellwood, Lateef McLeod, Kevin Williams, Katie Brown, and Graham Pullin. 2024. Imagining alternative futures with augmentative and alternative communication: a manifesto.Medical Humanities50, 4 (2024), 620–623

    2024

  52. [52]

    2023.Against Technoableism: Rethinking Who Needs Improvement

    Ashley Shew. 2023.Against Technoableism: Rethinking Who Needs Improvement. W. W. Norton, New York, New York

    2023

  53. [53]

    Hugh Stewart and Ann Wilcock. 2000. Improving the communication rate for symbol based, scanning voice output device users.Technology and Disability13, 3 (2000), 141–150

    2000

  54. [54]

    John Todman, Norman Alm, Jeff Higginbotham, and Portia File. 2008. Whole utterance approaches in AAC.Augmentative and alternative communication24, 3 (2008), 235–254

    2008

  55. [55]

    2020.Qualitative Research Methods: Collecting Evidence, Crafting Analysis, Communicating Impact(2nd ed.)

    Sarah J Tracy. 2020.Qualitative Research Methods: Collecting Evidence, Crafting Analysis, Communicating Impact(2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ

    2020

  56. [56]

    Ha Trinh, Annalu Waller, Rolf Black, and Ehud Reiter. 2010. Further Development of the PhonicStick: The application of phonic-based acceleration methods to the speaking joystick. In14th Biennial Conference of the International Society of Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Communicating Worlds

    2010

  57. [57]

    Ha Trinh, Annalu Waller, Keith Vertanen, Per Ola Kristensson, and Vicki L. Hanson. 2012. iSCAN: A Phoneme-based Predictive Communication Aid for Nonspeaking Individuals. InASSETS ’12: Proceedings of the ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 57–64

    2012

  58. [58]

    McCoy, and Christo- pher Pennington

    Keith Trnka, John McCaw, Debra Yarrington, Kathleen F. McCoy, and Christo- pher Pennington. 2009. User Interaction with Word Prediction: The Effects of Prediction Quality.ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing1, 17:1–17:34. Issue 3

    2009

  59. [59]

    Stephanie Valencia, Mark Steidl, Michael Rivera, Cynthia Bennett, Jeffrey Bigham, and Henny Admoni. 2021. Aided Nonverbal Communication through Physical Expressive Objects. InProceedings of the 23rd International ACM SIGACCESS Con- ference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–11. doi:10.114...

    work page doi:10.1145/3441852.3471228 2021

  60. [60]

    2018.What is Sociolinguistics?(2nd ed.)

    Gerard Van Herk. 2018.What is Sociolinguistics?(2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, NJ

    2018

  61. [61]

    Krishna Venkatasubramanian, Haven Hardie, and Tina-Marie Ranalli. 2025. To- ward a taxonomy of negative outcomes from the use of AI-driven systems for people with disabilities. InProceedings of the 27th International ACM SIGAC- CESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–18. doi:10...

    work page doi:10.1145/3663547.3746359 2025

  62. [62]

    Stanage, Robbie Watling, and Per Ola Kristensson

    Keith Vertanen, Dylan Gaines, Crystal Fletcher, Alex M. Stanage, Robbie Watling, and Per Ola Kristensson. 2019. VelociWatch: Designing and Evaluating a Virtual Keyboard for the Input of Challenging Text. InCHI ’19: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Glasgow, Scotland). 1–14. doi:10.1145/3290605.3300821

    work page doi:10.1145/3290605.3300821 2019

  63. [63]

    Keith Vertanen and Per Ola Kristensson. 2014. Complementing Text Entry Evaluations with a Composition Task.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction21, 2, Article 8 (February 2014), 33 pages. doi:10.1145/2555691

    work page doi:10.1145/2555691 2014

  64. [64]

    Tonio Wandmacher, Jean-Yves Antoine, Franck Poirier, and Jean-Paul Départe

  65. [65]

    SIBYLLE, An Assistive Communication System Adapting to the Context and Its User.ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing1, Article 6, 6:1–6:30 pages. Issue 1

  66. [66]

    David J Ward, Alan F Blackwell, and David JC MacKay. 2000. Dasher—a data entry interface using continuous gestures and language models. InProceedings of the 13th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology(San Diego, CA, United States). ACM Press, 129–137. doi:10.1145/354401.354427

    work page doi:10.1145/354401.354427 2000

  67. [67]

    Gonzalez Penuela, Stephanie Valencia, and Thijs Roumen

    Tobias M Weinberg, Claire O’Connor, Ricardo E. Gonzalez Penuela, Stephanie Valencia, and Thijs Roumen. 2025. One Does Not Simply ‘Mm-hmm’: Explor- ing Backchanneling in the AAC Micro-Culture. InProceedings of the 27th In- ternational ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (AS- SETS ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3663547.3746381 2025

  68. [68]

    Roelof Wessels, Jan Persson, Øivind Lorentsen, Renzo Andrich, Maurizio Ferrario, Wija Oortwijn, Thijs Van Beekum, and Luc De Witte. 2002. IPPA: Individually Prioritised Problem Assessment.Technology and Disability14, 3 (2002), 141–145

    2002

  69. [69]

    Brian Whitmer. 2026. AAC Effort Algorithms (Algorithm Version 0.2). Google Document, Publicly Available Online. https://docs.google.com/document/d/ 1ZJAt1JkpXcHgazEkWMFxxD_l117eD21p1uEFLMqjrjA/edit

    2026

  70. [70]

    Bruce Wisenburn and D Jeffery Higginbotham. 2008. An AAC application using speaking partner speech recognition to automatically produce contextually rele- vant utterances: Objective results.Augmentative and alternative communication 24, 2 (2008), 100–109

    2008

  71. [71]

    A. J. Withers. 2012.Disability Politics & Theory. Fernwood Publishing, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

    2012

  72. [72]

    Mine Yasemin, Aniana Cruz, Urbano J Nunes, and Gabriel Pires. 2023. Single trial detection of error-related potentials in brain–machine interfaces: a survey and comparison of methods.Journal of Neural Engineering20, 1 (Jan. 2023), 016015. doi:10.1088/1741-2552/acabe9

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-2552/acabe9 2023

  73. [73]

    Yanmei Zhu, Qian Wang, and Li Zhang. 2021. Study of EEG characteristics while solving scientific problems with different mental effort.Scientific Reports11, 1 (Dec. 2021), 23783. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-03321-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-021-03321-9 2021