人機介面大量運用於族群溝通，且搭載於數位媒體例如平板電腦或智慧型手機已為潮流趨勢。因此，令人滿意的介面型態有其研究必要性。本研究結合介面、互動、認知、特殊教育之跨領域研究，目的在於了解非口語溝通環境中，符號介面以何種模式表現，能夠達到最佳溝通成效。研究目前聚焦在符號介面的再現風格與動靜狀態之偏好。研究分為兩大部分：1.表情符號（emoticon），2.核心字彙符號（core vocabulary）兩者研究皆同時採以質量並行的研究方法，結果將提供介面設計參考並期提升溝通品質以降低損害。

在表情符號的研究上，將符號分類為：風格－抽象幾何、擬人化、具象化，狀態－動態、靜態。調查結果發現，當表情符號「風格」從抽象幾何變化至擬人化、再到具象時，相對的，使用者偏好的符號狀態，也由靜態轉變為動態，呈現交互作用。質性訪談除了再次應證量化研究的上述結果，並發現風格與動靜狀態的關係中，同時也牽引著使用者人際互動親密關係的軸線。

在核心字彙的探討上，依擴大性及替代性溝通系統（Augmentative and Alternative Communication, AAC）常用歸類區分為：人的關係名詞、物體名詞、動詞、和形容詞（含副詞）四詞性做兩種常見風格－攝影與線條稿，以及動靜狀態的研究。風格的結果顯示，名詞採攝影風格皆有較高的偏好程度；而部分動詞和形容詞採線條稿風格的偏好程度較高。狀態的結果顯示，名詞偏好純粹靜態形式；動詞與形容詞則需視其字彙義涵本身的概念是否具抽象性而決定其動靜狀態。符號字彙意涵再現時可依賴的具象性越高時，動態形式的偏好程度就越高，反之，其可依賴的具象性越低、概念抽象成分越高，靜態形式的偏好程度則越高。一般人與失語症者的偏好結果大致相同。在失語症者的質性訪談過程中更發現，符號的視覺內容構成上，若含有具體物件、人臉、正向情緒表現以及互動時，會增強個人自信與愉悅感受；以線條輔助來提示因果連續或細微變化的動詞是較受喜愛的。

未來將納入更多字彙意涵的分析對照並加入色彩與文化的變項探討。此外，建議將動態符號的動態頻率做更細緻的劃分，以了解使用者認知過程的運作、閱讀的流暢性以及偏好程度，以提供給非口語介面設計者參考。

Interface has been applied to human communication and represented via tablet or smart phone. It is necessary to do research with satisfied interface. This study combines with interface, interaction, cognition and special education fields and focuses on the preference of symbol represented form and status. It contains eomticons and core vocabulary two parts and discusses with normal and Aphasia users. The two parts adapt both quantitative and qualitative methods, and the purpose is to analyze the representation form and status for communication interface design to improve the communication quality.

The emoticon study classifieds eomticons as forms (abstract/geometric, personification, and concrete) and status (animation and static) to construct a investigation. The quantitative investigation revealed that when the form of an emoticon shifted from abstract/geometric to personification and subsequently concrete, the status of the emoticon deemed suitable by the users also shifted from static to animated. Furthermore, the qualitative focus group discussion unexpectedly contributed that the participants used particular emoticon forms and status in accordance with the timing/intimacy and targets of their conversations.
The core vocabulary study concentrated on Augmentative and Alternative Communication single-meaning symbols, and it classified the vocabularies as people related nouns, object nouns, verbs and adjectives (incl. adverbs) to discuss represented form (photographs and line drawings) and status. From the perspective of representation form, the results showed that all the preference of nouns is high with photograph nouns and the preference of part verbs/adjectives is high with illustration form. Meanwhile, from the perspective of status, static nouns are preferred. The abstract level of concepts determined the status of verbs and adjectives. When the abstract level is higher and the static preference is higher. The preference results are almost shared with both normal and Aphasia adults. In addition, it is founded from Aphasia interviewers that symbol visual elements of figurative objects, human faces, objective emotion and interactions expressions would contribute personal confidence and pleasure. Moreover, Aphasia interviewers also prefer verbs which contain cause-effect relation concepts to be represented with supplemented lines.

This study focused on certain high frequency vocabularies and it would include more vocabularies, color and culture factors in the future studies. In addition, animated symbols would be classified with more dynamic levels to discuss user cognition, fluency of reading and the preference. The results could contribute to symbol designers as interface guidelines.

1. Amalanathan, A., & Margret Anouncia, S. (2015). Social network user’s content pearsonalization based on emoticons. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 8(23). doi:10.17485/ijst/2015/v8i23/72773
2. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (ASHA) (2011). Who uses AAC. Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/public/speech/disorders/InfoAACUsers.htm
3. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA)(n.d.). How do you decide what kind of symbols or what kind of AAC device to use? Retrieved from http: http://www.asha.org/NJC/faqs-aac-basics.htm
4. Anderson, K., Boisvert, M. K., Doneski-Nicol, J., Gutmann, M. L., Hall, N. C., Morelock, C., Steele, R., & Cohn, E. R. (2012). Tele-AAC Resolution. International Journal of Telerehabilitation, 4(2), 79-82.
5. Andrade, R. V., Silva-Munhoz, L. de F. da, & Limongi, S. C. O. (2014). The use of augmentative and alternative communication in morphosyntax intervention in adolescents with Down Syndrome. Revista CEFAC, 16(3), 863-873.
6. Aoki, S., & Uchida, O. (2011). A method for automatically generating the emotional vectors of emoticons using weblog articles. In Proceedings of the 10th WSEAS International Conference on Applied Computer and Applied Computational Science (pp. 132-136). Stevens Point, WI: World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society.
7. Arshad, F., Nnamoko, N., Wilson, J., Roy, B., & Taylor, M. (2015). Improving healthcare system usability without real users. International Journal of Healthcare Information Systems and Informatics, 10(1), 67-81.
8. Babic, J., Slivar, I., Car, Z., & Podobnik, V. (2015). Prototype-driven software development process for augmentative and alternative communication applications. In Proceedings of International Conference on Telecommunications (pp. 1-8). Graz: IEEE.
doi: 10.1109/ConTEL.2015.7231204
9. Baker, B., Hill, K., & Devylder, R. (2000). Core vocabulary is the same across environments. Retrieved from http://www.csun.edu/cod/conf/2000/proceedings/0259Baker.htm.
10. Balandin, S., & Iacono, T. (1999). Crews, wusses, and whoppas: Core and fringe vocabularies of Australian meal-break conversations in the workplace. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 15, 95-109.
11. Beck, A., & Fritz, H. (1998). Can people who have aphasia learn iconic codes? Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 14(3), 184-196.
12. Beukelman, D. & Mirenda, P. (2005). Augmentative and alternative communication: Management of severe communication disorders in children and adults ( 3rd Edition). Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks.
13. Best, S. J., & Bigge, J. L. (2005). Cerebral palsy. In S. J. Best, K. W. Heller, & J. L. Bigge (Eds.), Teaching individuals with physical or multiple disabilities (5th ed., pp. 87-109). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
14. Bloomberg, K., & Johnson, H. (1990). A statewide demographic survey of people with severe communication impairments. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 6(1), 50-60.
15. Blom, J., & Monk, A. (2001). One-to-one e-commerce: who's the one? In Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 341-342). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/634067.634269
16. Bruijn, O., McDougall, S., & Curry, M. B. (1999). Espbase: A microsoft access tool for selecting symbol and icon sets for usability. Behavior Research Methods, 31(3), 479-486.
17. Cafiero, J. (2001) The effect of an augmentative communication intervention on the communication, behavior, and academic program of an adolescent with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16, 179-193.
18. Charmaz, L. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.
19. Communication Matters (2011). Specialised AAC provision Commissioning national services: A model service specification. Edinburgh: Communication Matters.
20. Communication Matters (2013). Shining a light on Augmentative and Alternative Communication. Edinburgh: Communication Matters. Retrieved from
21. http://www.communicationmatters.org.uk/shining-a-light-on-aac
22. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2007).Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
23. Crema, C. (2009). Augmentative and Alternative Communication in the geriatric population: A review of literature. Perspectives on Gerontology, 14(2), 42-46. doi: 10.1044/gero14.2.42
24. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25. Cross, R. T. (2013, November). The value and limits of automated data logging and analysis in AAC devices. Paper presented at the ASHA Convention, Chicago, IL.
26. Cook, M. P. (2006). Visual representation in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90(6), 1073-1091.
27. Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes' error: Emotion, reason and the human brain. New York, NY: Gosset/Putnam Press.
28. Derks, D. et al. (2007). Emoticons and social interaction on the internet: The importance of social context. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 842-849.
29. Dolić, J., Pibernik, J., & Car, C. (2013). Design and development of symbol based services for persons with complex communication needs. Acta Graphica, 24, 19-28.
30. Downing, J. E., & Ryndak, R. (2015). Integrating team expertise to support communication. In J. E. Downing (Ed.), Teaching communication skills to students with severe disabilities (pp. 85-106). Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes.
31. Dresner, E., & Herring, S. C. (2010). Functions of the nonverbal in CMC: Emoticons and illocutionary force. Communication Theory, 20(3), 249-268.
32. Evans, D. G., Bowick, L., Johnson, M., & Blenkhorn, P. (2006). Using iconicity to evaluate symbol use. In K. Miesenberger, J. Klaus, W. L. Zagler, & A. I. Karshmer (Eds.), Proceedings of Computers Helping People with Special Needs (pp. 874-881). Berlin: Springer.
33. Ferm, U., Amberntsson, B., & Thunberg, G. (2001). Development of a Minspeak application using Blissymbols: Experiences from two case studies. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 17(4), 233-244.
34. Fujisawa, K., Inoue, T., Yamana, Y., & Hayashi, H. (2011). The effect of animation of learning action symbols by individuals with intellectual disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 27(1), 53-60. doi: 10.3109/07434618.2011.553245
35. Fullwood, C., Orchard, L. J., & Floyd, S. A. (2013). Emoticon convergence in Internet chat rooms. Social Semiotics, 23(5), 648-662. doi:10.1080/10350330.2012.739000
36. Gonasillan, A., Bornman, J., & Harty, M. (2013). Vocabulary used by ethno-linguistically diverse South African toddlers: A parent report using the Language Development Survey. South African Journal of Communication Disorders, 60, 10-15.
37. Griffon, N., Kerdelhué, G., Hamek, S., Hassler, S., Boog, C., Lamy, J. B., …Darmoni, S. J. (2014). Design and usability study of an iconic user interface to ease information retrieval of medical guidelines. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 21(e2), 270-277.
38. Harmon, A. C., Schlosser, R. W., Gygi, B., Shane, H. C., Kong, Y. Y., Book, L., … Hearn, E. (2014). Effects of environmental sounds on the guessability of animated graphic symbols. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 30(4), 298-313.
39. Hartley, S. D., & Wirz, S. L. (2002). Development of a ‘communication disability model’ and its implication on service delivery in low-income countries. Social Science & Medicine, 54, 1543-1557.
40. Hasler, B. S., Kersten, B., & Sweller, J. (2007). Learner control, cognitive load and instructional animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21 (6), 713-729.
41. Hebert, L. E., Beckett, L. A., Scherr, P. A., & Evans, D. A. (2001). Annual incidence of alzheimer disease in the United States projected to the years 2000 through 2050. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 15(4), 169-173. doi:10.1097/00002093-200110000-00002
42. Higgins, D. G., Bleasby, A. J., & Fuchs, R. (1992). CLUSTAL V: Improved software for multiple sequence alignment. Computer Applications in the Biosciences, 8(2), 189-191.
43. Hill, K., Kovacs, T., & Shin, S. (2015). Critical issues using brain-computer interfaces for augmentative and alternative communication. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 96(3), S8-S15.
44. Higgins, D. G., Bleasby, A. J., & Fuchs, R. (1992). CLUSTAL V: improved software for multiple sequence alignment. Computer Applications in the Biosciences (CABIOS), 8(2), 189-191.
45. Hu, Y., Wood, J. F., Smith, V., & Westbrook, N. (2006). Friendships through IM: Examining the relationship between instant messaging and intimacy. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(1). Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2004.tb00231.x/full doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2004.tb00231.x
46. Huffaker, D. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2006). Gender, identity, and language use in teenage blogs. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue2/huffaker.html. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00238.x
47. Isherwood, S. (2009). Graphics and semantics: The relationship between what is seen and what is meant in icon design. In D. Harris (Ed.), Engineering psychology and cognitive ergonomics (pp. 197-205). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
48. Jagaroo, V., & Wilkinson, K. (2008). Further considerations of visual cognitive neuroscience in aided AAC: The potential role of motion perception systems in maximizing design display. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24(1), 29-42. doi: 10.1080/07434610701390673
49. Jokela, T., Koivumaa, J., Pirkola, J., Salminen, P., & Kantola, N. (2006). Methods for quantitative usability requirements: A case study on the development of the user interface of a mobile phone. Personal Ubiquitous Computing, 10(6), 345-355. doi: 10.1007/s00779-005-0050-7
50. Katja Wiemer-Hastings, K., & Xu, X. (2005). Content differences for abstract and concrete concepts. Cognitive Science, 29(5), 719-736. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0000_33
51. Khowaja, K., & Salim, S. S. (2015). Heuristics to evaluate interactive systems for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). PLoS ONE, 10(7), e0132187. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0132187
52. Kim, K., & Kim, D. (2003). Design of emotional bulletin board to support learning motivation of CoP in web-based learning environment: Based on emoticon & color. Journal of the Korea Society of Computer and Information, 6(2), 165-173.
53. Kim, S., Park, S., Lee, S., Lee, L., Lee, B., Lee, J., & You, H. (2015). Usability evaluation of graphic user interfaces for a military computer-based training system. Journal of the Ergonomics Society of Korea, 34(5), 401-410.
54. Kolb, D. A., & Fry, R. (1975). Toward an applied theory of experiential learning. In C. Cooper (ed.), Theories of group process (pp. 33-58). London: John Wiley & Sons.
55. Koul, R., Corwin, M., & Hayes, S. (2005). Production of graphic symbol sentences by individuals with aphasia: Efficacy of a computer-based augmentative and alternative communication intervention. Brain and Language, 92(1), 58-77. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2004.05.008
56. Kurlander, D., Skelly, T., & Salesin, T. (1996, August). Comic chat. In SIGGRAPH 1996 Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (pp. 225-236). New York, NY: ACM.
57. Lambeens, T., & Pint, K. (2014). The interaction of image and text in modern comics. In A. Lardinois, S. Levie, H. Hoeken, & C. Lüthy (Eds.), Texts, transmissions, receptions modern approaches to narratives (pp. 240-257). Retrieved from
http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/form/books/b9789004270848_014/?crawler=true&mimetype=application/pdf
58. Lee, E., Hwang, E., Hur, T., Woo, Y., & Min. H. (2003). A Study on the predicate prediction using symbols in Augmentative and Alternative Communication system. In L. Chittaro (Ed), Human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services (pp. 466-470). Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
59. Leung, L. (2004). Net-generation attributes and seductive properties of the internet as predictors of online activities and internet addiction. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 333-348. doi:10.1089/1094931041291303.
60. Li, H., & Chatterjee, S. (2010). Designing effective persuasive systems utilizing the power of entanglement: Communication channel, strategy and affect. Persuasive, 6137, 274-285. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-13226-1_27
61. Light, J., Page, R., Curran, J., & Pitkin, L. (2007). Children’s ideas for the design of AAC assistive technologies for young children with complex communication needs. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23(4), 1-14.
62. Lin, T. J., Chen, C. H., & Chen, S. C. (2012, October). The usability of interface for non-verbal communication. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Service Innovation Design Conference (pp. 135-142). Tainan City: Cheng Kung University.
63. Lindgaard, G., & Dudek, C. (2002, November). Aesthetic appeal versus usability: Implications for user satisfaction. Paper presented at the 2002 Human Factors Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
64. Lim, C., Park, T. & Hong, W. (2012). Developing emoticon support tool based on emotional affordance to facilitate peer Feedback in online collaborative learning. In T. Bastiaens & G. Marks (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 1106-1111). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
65. Lim, S. H., Kim, D., & Watts, S. (2011). An empirical study of the usage performance of mobile emoticons. Journal of Information Technology Applications & Management, 18(4), 21-40.
66. Locke, P., & Mirenda, P. (1988). A computer-supported communication approach for a child with severe communication, visual, and cognitive impairments: A case study. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 4(1),15-22.
67. Lubas, M., Mitchell, J., & Leo, G. D. (2014). User-centered design and augmentative and alternative communication apps for children with autism spectrum disorders. Sage Open, 4(2), 1-10. Retrieved from http://sgo.sagepub.com/content/4/2/2158244014537501 doi: 10.1177/2158244014537501
68. Lund, S. K., & Light, J. (2006). Long-term outcomes for individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication: Part 1-what is a “good “outcome? Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 22(4), 284-299.
69. Mankoff, J., Hayes, G. R., & Kasnitz, D. (2010, October). Disability studies as a source of critical inquiry for the field of assistive technology. In Proceedings of the 12th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (pp. 3-10). New York, NY: ACM.
70. Maynard, D., Bontcheva, K., & Rout, D. (2012). Challenges in developing opinion mining tools for social media. In Proceedings of the 8th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (pp. 15-22). Paris: ELRA.
71. McDougall, S., Forsythe, A., Isherwood, S., Petocz, A., Reppa, I., & Stevens, C. (2009). The use of multimodal representations in icon interpretation. In D. Harris (Ed.), Engineering, psychology and cognitive ergonomics, human-computer interaction (pp. 62-70). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
72. McDougall, S., Reppa, I., Smith, G., & Playfoot, D. (2009). Beyond emoticons: Combining affect and cognition in icon design. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5639, 71-80. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02728-4_8
73. Mehl-Schneider, T. B. (2015). Recent advances in augmentative and alternative communication: The advantages and challenges of technology applications for communicative purposes. In N. R. Silton (Ed.), Recent advances in recent advances in assistive technologies to support children with developmental disorders (pp. 128-140). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi: 10.4018/978-1-4666-8395-2.ch006
74. Millikin, C. (1997). Symbol systems and vocabulary selection strategies. In S. L. Glennen & D. C. DeCoste (Eds.), The handbook of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (pp. 97-148). San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing.
75. Mineo, B. A., Peischl, D., & Pennington, C. (2008). Moving targets: The effect of animation on identification of action word representations. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24(2), 162-173. doi: 10.1080/07434610802109915
76. Mizukoa, M. (1987). Transparency and ease of learning of symbols represented by Blissymbols, PCS, and Picsyms. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 3(3), 129-136.
77. Mizuko, M., & Reichle, J. (1989). Transparency and recall of symbols among intellectually handicapped adults. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, 627-633.
78. Moore, K. (2011). Ten tips for best practice in AAC. Presenters at the More than Gadgets Conference. Retrieved from http://morethangadgets.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Ten-Tips-for-Best-Practice-in-AAC.pdf
79. Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. (1994). Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 6(4), 351-371. doi: 10.1007/bf02213420
80. Park, J., Barash, V., Fink, C., & Cha, M. (2013). Emoticon style: Interpreting differences in emoticons across cultures. In Proceedings of the Seventh International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (pp. 466-475). Palo Alto, CA: Association for the Advancement of ArtificialIntelligence.
81. Patel, R., Pilato, S., & Roy, D.(2004). Beyond linear syntax: An image-oriented communication aid. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 1(1), 57-66.
82. Persson, P. (2003). Exms: An animated and avatar-based messaging system for expressive peer communication. (2003, November). In Proceedings of the 2003 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work (pp. 31-39). New York, NY: ACM.
83. Petroi, D., Koul, R. K., & Corwin, M. (2014). Effect of number of graphic symbols, levels, and listening conditions on symbol identification and latency in persons with aphasia. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 30(1), 40-54.
84. Preece, J. (Ed.). (1993). A guide to usability: Human factors in computing. Wokingham: Addison-Wesley.
85. Punyanunt-Carter, N. M., & Hemby, C. O. (2006). College students’ gender differences regarding E-Mail. College Student Journal, 40(3), 651-653.
86. Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center (2011a). Mobile devices and communication apps: An AAC-RERC White Paper. Retrieved From http://aac-rerc.psu.edu/index.php/pages/show/id/46
87. Reiter, E., Turner, R., Alm, N., Black, R., Dempster, M., & Waller, A. (2009, March). Using NLG to help language-impaired users tell stories and participate in social dialogues. In Proceedings of the 12th European Workshop on Natural Language Generation (pp. 1-8). Athens: Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.3115/1610195.1610196
88. Research Autism (2011). Research. Retrieved from
http://www.researchautism.net/autism_treatments_therapies_intervention.ikml?print&ra=36&infolevel=4
89. Ro, J. M., & Thomsen, A. (2014, June). Communication peeled and cored for the classroom! Paper presented at the IDEAS 2014 Conference, Glynn, GA.
90. Ross, A. J. (1979). A study of the application of Blissymbolics as a means of communication for a young brain damaged adult. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 14(2), 103-110.
91. Ross, A., Winslow, I., Marchant, P., & Brumfitt, S. (2006). Evaluation of communication, life participation and psychological well‐being in chronic aphasia: The influence of group intervention. Aphasiology, 20(5), 427-448. doi:10.1080/02687030500532786
92. Saturno, C. E., Ramirez, A. R. G., Conte, M. J., Farhat, M., & Piucco, E. C. (2015). An augmentative and alternative communication tool for children and adolescents with cerebral palsy. Behaviour & Information Technology, 34(6), 632-645. doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2015.1019567
93. Schlosser, R. W., & Koul, R. K. (2015). Speech output technologies in interventions for individuals with autism spectrum disorders: A scoping review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 31(4), 285-309.
94. Schlosser, R. W., Shane, H., Sorce, J., Koul, R., Bloomfield, E., Debrowski, L.,…Neff, A. (2012a). Animation of graphic symbols representing verbs and prepositions: Effects on transparency, name agreement, and identification. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55(2), 342-358.
95. Schlosser, R., Koul, R., Fuller, D., Shane, H., Sorce, J., Bloomfield, E.,…Hearn, E. (2012b). Effects of animation on iconicity of symbols by SLP students. Paper presented at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Convention in Atlanta, Georgia.
96. Schlosser, R., Koul, R., Fuller, D., Shane, H., Sorce, J., Bloomfield, E., Brock, K., & Hearn, E. (2012, November). Effects of animation on iconicity of symbols by SLP students. Paper presented at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Convention in Atlanta, Georgia.
97. Schlosser, R. S., Koul, R., Shane, H., Sorce, J., Brock, K., Harmon, A.,…Hearna, E. (2014). Effects of animation on naming and identification across two graphic symbol sets. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 57(5), 1779-1791.
98. Schnotz, W., Böckheler, J., & Grzondziel, H. (1999). Individual and co-operative learning with interactive animated pictures. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14(2), 245-265. doi:10.1007/bf03172968
99. Schröder, S., & Ziefle, M. (2008). Making a completely icon-based menu in mobile devices to become true: A user-centered design approach for its development. In Mobile HCI 2008 Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (pp. 137-146). New York, NY: ACM.
100. Schwalm, N. D., Shaviv, V., & Goldschmidt, G. (2000, August). Can icon animation enhance human performance. or is it just another gimmick? In Proceedings of the International Ergonomics Association & the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Congress (pp. 323-326). San Diego, CA: International Ergonomics Association.
101. Shane, H., Laubscher, E. H., Schlosser, R. W., Flynn, S., Sorce, J. F., & Abramson, J. (2012). Applying technology to visually support language and communication individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Development Disorders, 42(6), 1228-1235. doi: 10.1007/s10803-011-1304-z
102. Sigafoos, J., Schlosser, R. W., & Sutherland, D. (2010). Augmentative and Alternative Communication. In J. H. Stone, & M. Blouin (Eds.), International encyclopedia of rehabilitation. Retrieved from http://cirrie.buffalo.edu/encyclopedia/en/article/50/
103. Smith, M. A., Farnham, S. D., & Drucker, S. M. (2000). The social life of small graphical chat spaces. In R. Schroeder (Ed.) The social life of avatars. Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 205-220). London: Springer.
104. Smith, M., Farnham, S., & Drucker, S. (2002). The social life of small graphical chat spaces. In R. Schroeder (Ed.), The social life of avatars: Presence and interaction in shared virtual environments (pp. 205-220). London: Springer-Verlag.
105. Smith, M. M. (2015). Language development of individuals who require aided communication: Reflections on state of the science and future research directions. Augmentative & Alternative Communication, 31(3), 215-233.
106. Su, D. K., & Yee, V. S. (2008). A comparative evaluation of user preferences for mobile chat usable interface. In S. Lee et al. (Eds.), APCHI 2008, LNCS 5068 (pp. 258–265). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
107. The Clear Communication People Ltd. (2006). Using words, photos and symbols: A practical guide to communication. Retrieved from
http://www.surreypb.org.uk/section3/communication/Using%20words%20photos%20and%20symbols.pdf
108. Thistle, J. J., & Wilkinson, K. M. (2015). Building evidence based practice in AAC display design for young children: Current practices and future directions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 31(2), 124-136.
109. To, N. (2008). The influence of emoticons on message interpretation in computer mediated-communication (Unpublished master thesis). Goldsmiths, University of London, London.
110. Tornero, S., & Kan, K. H. (2017). Remix with humor: Motivating learners in an inclusion classroom with visual culture. Art Education, 70(5), 50-56.
111. van Tatenhove, G. (2007). Normal language development, generative language & AAC. Retrieved from http://www.vantatenhove.com/index.html
112. van der Meer, L., Didden, R., Sutherland, D., O'Reilly, M. F., Lancioni, G. E., & Sigafoos, J. (2012). Comparing three augmentative and alternative communication modes for children with developmental disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 24(5), 451-468. doi: 10.1007/s10882-012-9283-3
113. Vangelov, N. (2017). Emojis in marketing communications. Balkan Social Science Review, 10(10), 131-147.
114. van Weert, J. C. M., van Noort, G., Bol, N., van Dijk, L., Tates, K., & Jansen, J. (2011). Tailored information for cancer patients on the Internet: Effects of visual cues and language complexity on information recall and satisfaction. Patient Education and Counseling, 84(3), 368-378.
115. Visch, V. T., & Goudbeek, M. B. (2009). Emotion attribution to basic parametric static and animated stimuli. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (pp. 346-351). Amsterdam: IEEE. doi:10.1109/acii.2009.5349548
116. Wilkinson, K., & McIlvane, W. (2002). Considerations in teaching graphic symbols to beginning communicators. In J. Reichle, D. Beukelman, & J. Light (Eds.), Exemplary practices for beginning communicators: Implications for AAC (pp. 273-321). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
117. Wolf, A. (2000). Emotional expression online: gender differences in emoticon use. Cyber Psychology Behavior, 3(5), 827-833.
118. Worah, N., McNaughton, D., Light, J., & Benedek-Wood, E. (2015). A comparison of two approaches for representing AAC vocabulary for young children. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 16, 1-10.