Nsider this type of intervention as it L 663536MedChemExpress L 663536 relates to issues of relevance for AAC.The Potential Influence of Cyclopamine web stimulus Overselectivity in AAC: Information from Eye Tracking and Behavioral Studies of Attention with Individuals with Intellectual DisabilitiesSome clinicians may have experienced the following: An individual who requires AAC demonstrates clear and reliable understanding of a symbol or a written word during assessment, but then seems to confuse that same symbol or word with others when they are integrated onto a larger AAC communication display or used in other situations. Clinicians may have also observed individuals who show unusual error patterns, such as choosing a seemingly quite-different symbol (such as a line-drawing for cherry) when presented with orCorrespondence should be addressed to: William V. Dube, UMMS Shriver Center, 55 Lake Avenue North, Room S3-301, [email protected]. The contents of this paper are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NICHD.Dube and WilkinsonPagerequesting a particular item, (such as a pear). An oft-heard comment from parents and others when these patterns occur is: “But I’m sure you know that word!”NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptThere are many possible reasons for these types of unreliable or uneven performances. Fatigue, changing medication, occurrence of seizures, or personal life events may lead to variability in attentiveness to or retention of learned information. Another, perhaps less wellrecognized source of seemingly inexplicable errors may have to do with the features of the symbols themselves, and how those symbols are perceived by their viewers. Specifically, a phenomenon known as “stimulus overselectivity” or “overselective attention” may contribute to error patterns that are difficult to explain otherwise. This issue has been described from cognitive perspectives in terms of an overly narrow “spotlight” of attention, a deficit in broadening the spread of attention (e.g., Mann Walker, 2003), a deficit in disengaging attention before shifting from one stimulus to another (e.g., Landry Bryson, 2004), and as favoring local over global visual information processing (e.g., Porter Coltheart, 2006). In this paper we will consider it from the perspective of behavior analysis, in which stimulus overselectivity is defined as atypically narrow attending to only a part of a stimulus or stimulus array, to the exclusion of the typical, broader examination of the entirety of the stimulus (a tendency to “fail to see the forest for the trees”). Within AAC, the term “stimulus” could refer to symbols or line drawings on speech generating devices, drawings or pictures in a Picture Exchange Communication System (Bondy Frost, 1994), the elements within visual scene displays, or other types of AAC symbols, objects, and so forth. An example of stimulus overselectivity from an educational perspective, is the problem of confusion of written sight words with similar spelling (such as push and pull; this example is expanded in the section below on overselectivity problems in special education). From the standpoint of AAC, apparent confusion of two otherwise distinct symbols such as APPLE and PEAR in the Mayer Johnson Picture Symbols (PCS; Mayer Johnson, 1992) may in fact reflect overselective attending only to the small stems at the tops of the pictures, rather than attending to the entire.Nsider this type of intervention as it relates to issues of relevance for AAC.The Potential Influence of Stimulus Overselectivity in AAC: Information from Eye Tracking and Behavioral Studies of Attention with Individuals with Intellectual DisabilitiesSome clinicians may have experienced the following: An individual who requires AAC demonstrates clear and reliable understanding of a symbol or a written word during assessment, but then seems to confuse that same symbol or word with others when they are integrated onto a larger AAC communication display or used in other situations. Clinicians may have also observed individuals who show unusual error patterns, such as choosing a seemingly quite-different symbol (such as a line-drawing for cherry) when presented with orCorrespondence should be addressed to: William V. Dube, UMMS Shriver Center, 55 Lake Avenue North, Room S3-301, [email protected]. The contents of this paper are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NICHD.Dube and WilkinsonPagerequesting a particular item, (such as a pear). An oft-heard comment from parents and others when these patterns occur is: “But I’m sure you know that word!”NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptThere are many possible reasons for these types of unreliable or uneven performances. Fatigue, changing medication, occurrence of seizures, or personal life events may lead to variability in attentiveness to or retention of learned information. Another, perhaps less wellrecognized source of seemingly inexplicable errors may have to do with the features of the symbols themselves, and how those symbols are perceived by their viewers. Specifically, a phenomenon known as “stimulus overselectivity” or “overselective attention” may contribute to error patterns that are difficult to explain otherwise. This issue has been described from cognitive perspectives in terms of an overly narrow “spotlight” of attention, a deficit in broadening the spread of attention (e.g., Mann Walker, 2003), a deficit in disengaging attention before shifting from one stimulus to another (e.g., Landry Bryson, 2004), and as favoring local over global visual information processing (e.g., Porter Coltheart, 2006). In this paper we will consider it from the perspective of behavior analysis, in which stimulus overselectivity is defined as atypically narrow attending to only a part of a stimulus or stimulus array, to the exclusion of the typical, broader examination of the entirety of the stimulus (a tendency to “fail to see the forest for the trees”). Within AAC, the term “stimulus” could refer to symbols or line drawings on speech generating devices, drawings or pictures in a Picture Exchange Communication System (Bondy Frost, 1994), the elements within visual scene displays, or other types of AAC symbols, objects, and so forth. An example of stimulus overselectivity from an educational perspective, is the problem of confusion of written sight words with similar spelling (such as push and pull; this example is expanded in the section below on overselectivity problems in special education). From the standpoint of AAC, apparent confusion of two otherwise distinct symbols such as APPLE and PEAR in the Mayer Johnson Picture Symbols (PCS; Mayer Johnson, 1992) may in fact reflect overselective attending only to the small stems at the tops of the pictures, rather than attending to the entire.