Communicative Interaction with and without Eye-Gaze Technology between Children and Youths with Complex Needs and Their Communication Partners.

Use of eye-gaze assistive technology (EGAT) provides children/youths with severe motor and speech impairments communication opportunities by using eyes to control a communication interface on a computer. However, knowledge about how using EGAT contributes to communication and influences dyadic interaction remains limited. AIM: By video-coding dyadic interaction sequences, this study investigates the impacts of employing EGAT, compared to the Non-EGAT condition on the dyadic communicative interaction. METHOD: Participants were six dyads with children/youths aged 4-19 years having severe physical disabilities and complex communication needs. A total of 12 film clips of dyadic communication activities with and without EGAT in natural contexts were included. Based on a systematic coding scheme, dyadic communication behaviors were coded to determine the interactional structure and communicative functions. Data were analyzed using a three-tiered method combining group and individual analysis. RESULTS: When using EGAT, children/youths increased initiations in communicative interactions and tended to provide more information, while communication partners made fewer communicative turns, initiations, and requests compared to the Non-EGAT condition. Communication activities, eye-control skills, and communication abilities could influence dyadic interaction. CONCLUSION: Use of EGAT shows potential to support communicative interaction by increasing children's initiations and intelligibility, and facilitating symmetrical communication between dyads.

Is hearing loss due to mutations in the Connexin 26 gene progressive?

Serial audiograms were analysed for seven subjects, who were homozygous for the 35delG GJB2 mutation. The criterion for determining progression of hearing loss was at least a 1-dB loss in air conduction pure-tone average-3 (ACPTA-3) or ACPTA-4 per year for 2 to 10 years, with a minimum change of 10 dB ACPTA 3 or 4. Bilateral progression of hearing loss was found in 43% (3/7) of the subjects. A meta-analysis of seven studies with non-overlapping data sets and similar ascertainment criteria indicated that 19% of DFNB1 subjects with GJB2 mutations have progressive hearing loss. These data suggest that it may be incorrect to assume that congenital hearing loss due to this mutation is stable. We recommend rigorous audiologic surveillance for individuals with DFNB1.