PWP SAC 2016 Handouts · 2018-10-25 · Cognition and Navigational Skills SAC Conference 2016 Laurentian University 2 $$$ATTENTION$ ATTENTION$ SUSTAINED$ DIVIDED the%ability%to% concentrate%on%atask%

Cognition and Navigational Skills SAC Conference 2016

Laurentian University 1

How Cogni)on Impacts Naviga)onal Skills:

Taxonomic vs Schema)c Organiza)on Lauren)an University, Ontario, Canada

Sarah Blakely, B.Sc.S., SLP student Shawna Sterner, B.Sc.S., SLP student Mélanie Blais, B.Sc.S., SLP student Manon Robillard, Ph.D., Associate Professor

SAC Conference -‐ Halifax April 30, 2016

Introduc)on Goal: This study examined the impact of cogniDve skills on young children’s

ability to navigate a taxonomic versus schemaDc organizaDon within a speech-‐generaDng device (SGD).

ALenDon Sustained ALenDon Divided

CategorizaDon

CogniDve Flexibility Working Memory Fluid Reasoning

Taxonomic

Schematic

NAVIGATION

•  Children with complex communicaDon needs (CCN) oQen require a speech-‐generaDng device (SGD) in order to help them communicate their wants and needs (e.g., iPad, Dynovox, Aroga, etc)

•  Dynamic paging enables programming of many symbols onto various pages within the device

•  Naviga)on is the ability to search and retrieve a word or symbol within the dynamic pages of an SGD



ATTENTION

ATTENTION

SUSTAINED

DIVIDED

the ability to concentrate on a task for an extended period

of Dme

the ability to perform various tasks simultaneously

CATEGORIZATION

•  CategorizaDon is a cogniDve process by which the brain decides which group a word belongs to (Cohen & Lefebvre, 2005)

•  In order to categorize a word (i.e., the ability to classify), one must

first recognize, differenDate and understand the word (Cohen & Lefebvre, 2005)

FLUID REASONING

Fluid reasoning is an important characterisDc that helps people think logically and solve problems in new situaDon

(Gray, Chabris, & Braver, 2003)

“The ability to solve a problem in situa3ons without acquiring knowledge.”

(Robillard et al. 2013)



COGNITIVE FLEXIBILITY

CogniDve flexibility is an important characterisDc that helps people pursue complex tasks (Ionescu, 2012)

→ MulDtasking → Finding a new soluDon to a problem → CreaDng new knowledge or tools

“The ability to move from one idea / concept to another.”

(Hux & Manasse, 2003)

WORKING MEMORY

Working memory is the ability to maintain and process verbal, visual and spaDal informaDon

on a short term basis

ORGANIZATIONAL METHOD

Vocabulary is organized within a hierarchical categories→(e.g. places, food, people) (Light & Lindsay, 1992; Light et al., 2004).

TAXONOMIC

EXAMPLE

•  Nelson (1996) suggests that the retrieval of words within a taxonomic organisaDon layout requires cogniDve skills that are more developed since the words are grouped according to their hierarchical categories

•  Without the knowledge of hierarchical categorizaDon, retrieval of words is more challenging (Olin, Reichle, Johnson, and Monn, 2010)



ORGANIZATIONAL METHOD

The vocabulary is organized based on events or themes (e.g. gefng ready for school, playing outside, eaDng supper) (Light et al. 2004)

In other words, all the vocabulary that is required for a specific event is located

together (Drager & Light, 2006)

SCHEMATIC

EXAMPLE

•  According to Nelson (1996), the retrieval of words within a schemaDc organizaDon layout tends to be easier for young children.

Recent studies have confirmed that cogni)on has an impact on the ability to navigate within an SGD (Albert & Robillard, 2015; Robillard, Mayer-‐CriLenden, Roy-‐Charland, Minor-‐Corriveau & Bélanger, 2013; Rondeau, Robillard & Roy-‐Charland, submiLed; Wallace, Hux & Beukelman, 2010).

RECENT STUDIES NAVIGATION & COGNITION


Wallace et al. (2010) Robillard et al. (2013)

Goal: examine the influence of cogniDve flexibility on adults with severe brain injury when navigaDng the dynamic

screen’s of AAC systems → Cogni)ve flexibility had an impact

on navigaDon “Cogni3ve flexibility can predict who may or may not need intense training in order

to navigate an AAC device.”

Goal 1: determine which cogniDve factors

impact the ability to navigate an SGD in young children, using a taxonomic grid

→ Sustained aLenDon, CategorizaDon, Fluid reasoning, Working memory

→ Cogni)ve flexibility was not correlated with navigaDon

Goal 2: determine which cogniDve factors could best predict navigaDonal ability using a

taxonomic organizaDon. → Sustained aLenDon, CategorizaDon & Fluid reasoning




Rondeau, Robillard & Roy-Charland (submitted) Albert & Robillard (2015)

Goal: Examine the role of cogniDve skills in individuals with auDsm spectrum disorder (ASD) when

navigaDng an SGD with taxonomic organisaDon

→ Significant correlaDons between all cogni)ve factors and the ability to

navigate an SGD → Cogni)ve flexibility can best predict successful navigaDon within individuals

with ASD

Goal : Examine the impact of cogniDon with children who have CCN when navigaDng an SGD with taxonomic

organizaDon

→ Aèn)on, Categoriza)on, and Fluid reasoning were most correlated with successful navigaDon.

RECENT STUDIES ORGANIZATION & AGE

Drager et al. (2004) Light et al. (2004)

SCHEMATIC > TAXONOMIC

3 year-‐old children with typical development

SCHEMATIC = TAXONOMIC

4 and 5 year-‐old children with typical development

PROBLEMATIC

No research has compared the 2 organizaDonal methods (taxonomic and schemaDc) with young children’s cogniDve skills

No study has explored the impact of cogniDon in young children with respect to their ability to navigate a device programmed schema)cally

Schema)c Taxonomic

With this informaDon, clinicians can have a beLer idea how to program an SGD based on the child’s cogniDve skills



GOALS

Determine which organizaDonal method to use

based on the cogniDve abiliDes of the child.

TAXONOMIC SCHEMATIC OR

Understand the cogniDve demands involved in the navigaDon of 2 organizaDonal methods.

Research Ques)ons

1.  Which cogniDve skills are correlated with a young child’s ability to navigate an SGD programmed with a taxonomic organizaDon?

2.  Which cogniDve skills are correlated with a young child’s ability to navigate an

SGD programmed with a schema)c organizaDon? 3.  Which cogniDve skills can predict successful navigaDon within an SGD

programmed with a taxonomic organizaDon? 4.  Which cogniDve skills can predict successful navigaDon within an SGD

programmed with a schema)c organizaDon? 5.  Are cogni)ve skills more or as important than age for successful navigaDon within an SGD?

taxonomic

taxonomic

schema)c

schema)c

METHOD

→  209 children aged between 4 and 6 years •  111 boys, 98 girls •  102 in junior kindergarten (JK), 107 in senior kindergarten (SK)

→ Recruited from 5 English public schools within the Rainbow District School Board in Northern Ontario

PARTICIPANTS & SETTING

Sedng:

→ Private room within the child’s school

→ Doors were kept shut to reduce distracDons

→ Tests were not all administered at one Dme

→ Tests were not all administered in the same order



METHOD

→ Non-‐verbal test that requires the clinician to communicate non-‐verbal informaDon and cues

→ Standardized for the ages of 3 to 75+ years

→ This test was chosen because it can be administered to children who have CCN

→ Trained research assistants administered 8 subtests of the Leiter-‐3: ●  ALenDon Sustained (AS) ●  ALenDon Divided (AD)

●  ClassificaDon and Analogies (CA)

●  Figure Ground (FG)

COGNITION

Leiter InternaDonal Performance Scale, Third EdiDon (Leiter-‐3) (Roid, Miller, Pomplun, & Koch, 2013)

●  Form CompleDon (FC) ●  SequenDal Order (SO)

●  Forward Memory (FM)

●  Reverse Memory (RM)

→ Time= About 10 min for each subtest → ONLY non-‐verbal instrucDons given (ex. poinDng)

METHOD NAVIGATION

➔  iPad = SGD ➔  Proloquo2GoTM applicaDon ➔  2 different organizaDons:

◆  Taxonomic

◆  SchemaDc

➔  Goal= retrieve SymbolSDxTM symbols within the iPad

➔  Half of the children were assessed using the taxonomic organizaDon and the other half were assessed using the schema)c organizaDon.

◆  105 taxonomic, 104 schema;c

Demonstra)on Informal Task Formal Task 1 2 3

Informal naviga)on task •  Child retrieved 5 pracDce/

target words

•  Image (symbol) displayed on a portable easel and was placed in front of the child

•  PROMPTING allowed for pracDce porDon

METHOD NAVIGATION-‐ PROCEDURE

Formal naviga)on task •  Procedure = IdenDcal to Informal

task, NO PROMPTING!

•  Child retrieved 25 target words (symbols)

•  Image (symbol) displayed on a portable easel and was placed in front of the child

•  Allowed to skip the symbol if unable to find (turn the page on easel)

•  Symbol correctly found= 1 point; symbol NOT found= 0

•  Percentage of correctly found symbols calculated

= Child’s naviga)onal score

Demonstra)on Child was shown how to: •  Navigate from folder

→ folder •  Use the different

buLons & icons: •  Total Dme: 5-‐10 min

1 2 3



RESULTS

Aèn)on Sustained

CORRELATIONS

Working Memory

Fluid Reasoning

Cogni)ve Flexibility

Aèn)on Divided

Categoriza)on

SCHEMATIC TAXONOMIC

RESULTS REGRESSIONS

Can predict navigaDonal success using an SGD programmed with a

TAXONOMIC organizaDon

ALenDon Sustained & Working Memory ALenDon Sustained Age

Can predict navigaDonal success using an SGD programmed with a

SCHEMATIC organizaDon

INTERPRETATION

Cogni)on & taxonomic organiza)on

LINK

These results support those from the study completed by Robillard et al. (2013)

Sustained Aèn)on

Working Memory

TAXONOMIC NAVIGATION



INTERPRETATION

Cogni)on & schema)c organiza)on

•  Categoriza)on and divided aèn)on are 2 cogniDve skills that were not necessary in order to successfully navigate a schemaDc organizaDon within an SGD

A child with difficul)es in categoriza)on...

Greater chances of successful naviga)on within a schema)c

organiza)on

INTERPRETATION

Age & Naviga)on

•  For both organizaDons, age was NOT the best predicDng factor for successful navigaDon

•  Although previous studies (Drager et al., 2004; Light et al.,

2004) demonstrated that age is important for successful navigaDon, cogniDon is MORE important

•  This study indicates that a young child’s cogniDve skills are more important than age and should be primarily

considered when trying to predict navigaDonal success

LIMITS

•  InterrelaDon of cogniDve factors •  DuraDon of sessions •  ParDcipants were not idenDfied as having a complex

communicaDon needs (CCN) •  MulDple word retrieval (i.e., sequencing) could place more

demands on the working memory system



FUTURE STUDIES

➔  Children with CCN who require an SGD→ Albert (2015) studied the cogniDve abiliDes involved in navigaDng an SGD for 10 children who have CCN + Only employed a taxonomic organizaDon

➔  Comparing navigaDon skills in a variety of populaDons (congenital and neurological disorders) and ages; using both a taxonomic and schemaDc organizaDon is required

➔  InvesDgaDng the role of cogniDon during more complex navigaDonal tasks (i.e., sequencing) in order to determine the implicaDons on the working memory system is required

CONCLUSION

Clinicians who work with young children that require an AAC system should consider the child’s cogni)ve skills and not only their age in order to properly select an organizaDonal layout

for programming the vocabulary within the device.

REFERENCES

-‐ Albert, A., Robillard, M. (2015) Enfants et jeunes adultes avec besoins complexes en communicaDon et habiletés cogniDves impliquées dans la navigaDon d’une aide à la communicaDon avec sorDe vocale, Actes de la 22e Journée Sciences et Savoirs, hLps://zone.biblio.laurenDan.ca/dspace/handle/10219/2356 -‐ Apple Inc. (2015). Apple. Retrieved from hLp://www.apple.com/ -‐ AssisDveWare. (2015). Proloquo2go [Mobile applicaDon soQware]. Retrieved from hLp://itunes.apple.com/ -‐ Cohen, H., & Lefebvre, C. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of Categoriza;on in Cogni;ve Science. The Hague: Elsevier. -‐ Drager et al. (2004). Learning of dynamic display AAC technologies by typically developing 3-‐year-‐olds: Effect of different layouts and menu approaches. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 1133–1148. -‐ Drager, K. D., & Light, J. C. (2006). Designing dynamic display AAC systems for young children with complex communicaDon needs. Perspec;ves on Augmenta;ve and Alterna;ve Communica;on, 15, 3 – 7. -‐ Gray, J. R., Chabris, C. F., & Braver,T. S. (2003). Neural mechanisms of general uid intelligence. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 316–322. doi: 10.1038/nn1014 -‐ Hux, K., & Manasse, N. (2003). Assessment and treatment of cogniDve-‐communicaDon impairments. In K. Hux (Ed.), Assis;ng survivors of trauma;c brain injury (pp. 93–133). AusDn, TX: ProEd. -‐ Ionescu, T. (2012). Exploring the nature of cogniDve flexibility. New Ideas in Psychology, 30(2), 190-200. doi :10.1016/j.newideapsych.2011.11.001 -‐ Light, J., & Lindsay, P. (1992). Message encoding techniques in augmentaDve communicaDon systems: The recall performances of nonspeaking physically disabled adults. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 853 – 864. -‐ Light, J. C., Drager, K. D. R., & Nemser, J. G. (2004). Enhancing the appeal of AAC technologies for young children: Lessons from the toy manufacturers. Augmenta;ve and Alterna;ve Communica;on, 20,137-‐149. -‐ Nelson, K. (1996). Language in cogni;ve development: Emergence of the mediated mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. -‐ Olin, A. R., Reichle, J., Johnson, L., & Monn, E. (2010). Examining dynamic visual scene displays: ImplicaDons for arranging and teaching symbol selecDon. American Journal of Speech-‐Language Pathology, 19(4), 284-‐297. doi: 10.1044/1058-‐0360 -‐ Robillard, M., Mayer-‐CriLenden, C., Roy-‐Charland, A., Minor-‐Corriveau, M., & Bélanger, R. (2013). Exploring the impact of cogniDon on young children's ability to navigate a speech-‐generaDng device. Augmenta;ve and Alterna;ve Communica;on, 29(4), 347-‐359. doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2013.849754 -‐ Roid, G. H., Miller, L. J., Pomplun, M., & Koch, C. (2013). Leiter Interna;onal Performance Scale, Third Edi;on. Wood Dale, IL : StoelDng Co. -‐ Rondeau, S., & Robillard, M. (submiLed). The role of cogniDon on navigaDonal skills of children and adolescents with auDsm spectrum disorders. -‐ Wallace, S. E., Hux, K., & Beukelman, D. R. (2010). NavigaDon of a dynamic screen AAC interface by survivors of severe traumaDc brain injury. Augmenta;ve and Alterna;ve Communica;on, 26(4), 242-‐254.

http://www.engagingalllearners.ca/ls/collaborating-with-parents/index.php

http://www.engagingalllearners.ca/ls/collaborating-with-parents/index.php#5

https://share.ahsnet.ca/teams/hpsp/ipp/Shared Documents/1. Empathy.wmv