Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 82 references

One Does Not Simply 'Mm-hmm': Exploring Backchanneling in the AAC Micro-Culture

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read AAC users have built their own backchanneling micro-culture, and AAC design should amplify it rather than replace it with speaking norms.

desk verdict Useful exploratory study that puts backchanneling on the map as an AAC design problem; the partner-composition claim is confounded, but the SLP triangulation and design recommendations hold up. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17890 v1 pith:XH7TE54T submitted 2025-06-22 cs.HC

Tobias Weinberg , Claire O'Connor , Ricardo E. Gonzalez Penuela , Stephanie Valencia , Thijs Roumen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords backchannelingaugmentativeandalternativecommunication(AAC)micro-culturemulti-modalco-designspeech-languagepathologyturn-takingconversationanalysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Backchanneling—the tiny 'mm-hmm' and nod cues that show a listener is engaged—is a large and culturally specific part of conversation. This paper argues that people who use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) technology have developed their own micro-culture of backchanneling, using a rich mix of facial expressions, gestures, body movements, chair sounds, and programmed quick phrases, and that this culture differs between AAC–AAC and AAC–non-AAC conversations. The author team, led by an AAC user, runs a co-design workshop with four AAC users and interviews four speech-language pathologists to document these strategies. Their conclusion is that future AAC tools should treat backchanneling as a first-class design goal: fast, low-effort, customizable, and partner-aware cues that respect each user's existing communication norms rather than imposing non-AAC ones. The paper also finds that speech-language pathologists are not trained to teach backchanneling, pointing to a gap in clinical curricula.

What carries the argument

The central object is the AAC micro-culture of backchanneling: the shared, locally negotiated set of multimodal listener-feedback norms that AAC users and their frequent partners develop. The mechanism that carries the argument is the observed repertoire of low-effort parallel cues—facial expressions, gestures, body movement, chair sounds, and QuickFire phrases—which operate alongside device composition and allow the user to signal presence without interrupting message construction. The paper uses the contrast between AAC–AAC and AAC–non-AAC dyads to show that these norms are partner-dependent, and uses SLP interviews to show that the practice is recognized in the clinic but absent from training.

What would settle it

Record natural, unprompted AAC-to-AAC conversations outside a workshop and compare the frequency and variety of backchanneling cues (eyebrow raises, chair taps, QuickFire phrases) with the workshop-elicited reports; if these cues are rare or absent without prompting, the micro-culture claim is substantially a product of the elicitation protocol.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

AAC users engage in backchanneling through a wide, individually tailored repertoire of low-effort, parallel cues—eyebrow raises, head nods, chair taps, 'beep' sounds, sign language, QuickFire phrases, and pre-programmed emotional responses—that let them show they are listening while composing a message on their device. This repertoire forms what the paper calls a micro-culture of listener-feedback: a locally negotiated set of norms that shifts with partner composition. In AAC-to-AAC pairs, both partners look down to type, so visual cues are missed and simultaneous composition creates silent overlaps; in AAC-to-non-AAC pairs, non-AAC partners default to repeating the AAC user's words with rising intonation as a confirmation strategy, a pattern that fades as mutual understanding grows. The paper's central claim is that backchanneling in AAC is a culturally shaped practice, not a latency problem, so technology should augment the body's existing communicative cues—and train partners—rather than impose generic speaking norms.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's account of an existing AAC backchanneling micro-culture rests on a small, English-speaking sample whose members were prompted with researcher-defined modality categories before describing their own cues; if the prompting itself created or exaggerated the reported repertoire, the central cultural claim would be partly an artifact of the protocol.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • AAC devices should include fast, low-effort backchanneling triggers, such as a 'still here' or 'I'm listening' button, that work in parallel with typing.
  • Backchanneling presets should be customizable and emotion-tagged (e.g., 'surprised mm-hmm' or 'agreeing hmm-hmm') so users control tone as well as content.
  • Systems should offer partner-aware timing support, such as visualizing that one's partner is typing or offering a 'hold on' gesture while composing.
  • Speech-language pathology training and curricula should include backchanneling as an explicit pragmatic skill, since none of the interviewed SLPs had been taught to teach it.
  • Conversations between AAC and non-AAC users are meetings of dialects requiring mutual adaptation, so design should support partner training rather than forcing mainstream norms.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the micro-culture claim holds, then measures of conversational 'success' in AAC research should include listener-feedback richness, not just message transmission speed; current timing-based metrics may miss the value of these cues.
  • A larger study comparing AAC users with different motor profiles and devices could map which cues are device-driven versus community-driven, and whether micro-cultures vary across regions or language communities as spoken backchanneling does.
  • The observation that non-AAC partners naturally adapt (repetition fading over time) implies that partner training might be more effective if it builds on this natural adaptation rather than teaching a fixed backchanneling script.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a qualitative study of backchanneling among AAC users, combining a co-design workshop with four AAC users and two technology specialists, plus four semi-structured interviews with speech-language pathologists. It argues that AAC users form a 'micro-culture' of multi-modal backchanneling cues, that this culture shifts with partner composition (AAC–AAC versus AAC–non-AAC dyads), and it derives design recommendations for fast low-effort cues, customizable emotion-tagged presets, and partner-aware timing support. The paper is explicitly framed as exploratory and includes a positionality statement from the lead author, who is an AAC user.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the paper makes a timely and valuable contribution: it centers backchanneling as a first-class design goal in AAC, reframes AAC communication as a micro-culture requiring mutual adaptation rather than assimilation, and identifies a gap in SLP curricula. The study benefits from a lead author with lived AAC experience, transparent positionality, two independent coders, and triangulation with SLP interviews. However, the central comparative claim rests on a single confounded dyad contrast, so the significance is provisional pending reanalysis or reframing.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2, §5.3.5–5.3.6, §7.1] The Activity 2 comparison of AAC–AAC versus AAC–non-AAC dyads confounds partner composition with participant-level factors: the only AAC–AAC dyad (P1–P2) consists of two full-time AAC users, whereas P3 and P4 in the two AAC–non-AAC dyads are part-time AAC users who can rely on natural speech, and P2/P3/P4 (and P1/P2) had prior familiarity from the same facility or events. The contrasts reported in §5.3.5–5.3.6 (missed visual cues and overlapping typing versus confirmation by repetition) are therefore equally compatible with differences in AAC-use status, motor severity, or familiarity as with the dyad's AAC composition. Since §7.1 states that 'this culture shifts with partner composition' and §7.4 derives partner-aware timing support from this contrast, the claim is load-bearing. I recommend re-analyzing any available within-subject interactions (e.g., P1/P2 with non-AAC partners in the group discussion) or explicitly reframing the partner-dependence claim as a hypothesis for future work.
  2. [§5.2, §5.3.1] Activity 1 prompted participants with researcher-defined modality categories ('facial expressions and eye gaze, gestures and body movements, vocal and sound-based cues, haptic and tactile feedback, and AAC-specific features') before they described their own cues. The finding of a 'wealth of multi-modal cues' may partly reflect this elicitation. The paper should acknowledge this in the limitations and, if possible, distinguish cues that were volunteered spontaneously from those that were prompted, especially because the positionality statement in §2 already asserts that 'AAC users form their own micro-cultural agreement on communication' before data collection.
  3. [§6.4.5] The SLP interviews are used to contextualize the micro-culture construct, but the term was introduced by the research team: SLP4 is quoted as saying 'I love that word, micro-culture', which indicates affirmation of a label supplied by the interviewer rather than independent emergence of the category. The paper should present this as participant resonance with the researcher's framing, not as independent validation of the micro-culture concept.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5.3.3, §5.3.5, §6.4.4] There are several typos: 'lower lipnd' should be 'lower lip' (§5.3.3), 'messagends' is missing a word and should read something like 'composing a message requires' (§5.3.5), and 'QuickFirespage' should be 'QuickFires page' (§6.4.4).
  2. [Figure 3] The caption reads '(a) both P1 and P2 typically looked downward while entering text'; 'both' should be capitalized or the sentence restructured for grammatical consistency with the caption style.
  3. [§4.3, Reference [59]] The text cites 'Senk [59]' but the reference list gives 'K Maynard Senk'; please align the in-text citation with the full name or use a consistent short form.
  4. [§6.2, §7.4] The paper inconsistently spells 'backchanneling' and 'backchannelling'; please choose one spelling. Also, 'hmmhm' in §7.4 should be 'hmm-hm' or 'mm-hm' for consistency with the rest of the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the micro-culture claim is an interpretive summary of workshop and interview data, not a consequence of the paper's definitions or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—that AAC users in the workshop used multimodal backchanneling and that backchanneling style varied between dyad types—are empirical observations from recorded workshop interaction and SLP interviews, not quantities derived from fitted inputs or definitions. The phrase "micro-culture" is explicitly defined (Section 7.1: "a locally negotiated style of engagement") after the observations, and the paper cites external prior work (Hübscher et al. [42]) for the interpretive frame, not a self-citation. Self-citations (Weinberg et al. [74], Valencia et al. [67-69]) are confined to related work and design motivation and are not load-bearing for the empirical findings. The positionality statement (Section 2) does assert a micro-cultural view before data collection, but the paper treats it as disclosed perspective, not as evidence; the finding is grounded in the workshop record and SLP interviews. The Activity 2 comparison (AAC-AAC P1/P2 vs AAC-non-AAC P3-S1/P4-S2) is confounded by participant fixed effects (full- vs part-time AAC use, prior familiarity, motor severity), which weakens the causal claim that "this culture shifts with partner composition" (Section 7.1). That is a validity threat, not a circularity: no equation or definition forces the conclusion, and the paper itself acknowledges generalizability limits (Section 3; Section 7.5: "findings... cannot be considered generalizable"). Therefore no step reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented mechanisms. The paper adds an analytic lens, the AAC micro-culture, but no new physical or technological entity. The load-bearing assumptions are definitional and self-report based, typical of qualitative research.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Backchanneling, defined after Yngve, includes verbal and non-verbal cues that negotiate turn-taking rather than convey information.
    Adopted in Section 1 to bound the phenomenon studied; a different definition would change which behaviors count as backchanneling.
  • domain assumption Senk's six-function taxonomy of backchanneling applies to AAC-mediated interaction.
    Used in Activity 2 (Section 5.2) to organize the dialogue task and later analysis; no evidence is given that the taxonomy transfers from spoken conversation to AAC.
  • domain assumption Self-reports and prompted demonstrations during the workshop reflect participants' natural backchanneling practices.
    Activity 1 (Section 5.2) asks participants to reflect on specific modality categories, so the resulting inventory may be elicited rather than spontaneous.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of One Does Not Simply 'Mm-hmm': Exploring Backchanneling in the AAC Micro-Culture." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XH7TE54T

@misc{pith2026250617890,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: One Does Not Simply 'Mm-hmm': Exploring Backchanneling in the AAC Micro-Culture},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XH7TE54T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17890}
}
read the original abstract

Backchanneling (e.g., "uh-huh", "hmm", a simple nod) encompasses a big part of everyday communication; it is how we negotiate the turn to speak, it signals our engagement, and shapes the flow of our conversations. For people with speech and motor impairments, backchanneling is limited to a reduced set of modalities, and their Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) technology requires visual attention, making it harder to observe non-verbal cues of conversation partners. We explore how users of AAC technology approach backchanneling and create their own unique channels and communication culture. We conducted a workshop with 4 AAC users to understand the unique characteristics of backchanneling in AAC. We explored how backchanneling changes when pairs of AAC users communicate vs when an AAC user communicates with a non-AAC user. We contextualize these findings through four in-depth interviews with speech-language pathologists (SLPs). We conclude with a discussion about backchanneling as a micro-cultural practice, rethinking embodiment and mediation in AAC technology, and providing design recommendations for timely multi-modal backchanneling while respecting different communication cultures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.17890 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A conversation between two AAC users. We find that backchanneling (active-listening) plays a crucial role in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. P3 and P1 always shifted their bodies while P4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) both P1 and P2 typically looked downward while [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: P4 maintained continuous eye contact and re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: P3 would look to the side each time he is thinking. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Dean C Barnlund. 1970. A TRANSACTIONAL MODEL OF COMMUNICATION. Janua Linguarum(1970), 43

    1970

  2. [2]

    Janet B Bavelas, Linda Coates, and Trudy Johnson. 2000. Listeners as co-narrators. Journal of personality and social psychology79, 6 (2000), 941

    2000

  3. [3]

    Erin Beneteau, Alexis Hiniker, Beck Tench, Seray B Ibrahim, and Wanda Pratt

    work page

  4. [4]

    Roxane Bertrand, Gaëlle Ferré, Philippe Blache, Robert Espesser, and Stéphane Rauzy. 2007. Backchannels revisited from a multimodal perspective. InAuditory- visual Speech Processing. 1–5

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Beukelman and Janice C

    David R. Beukelman and Janice C. Light. 2020.Augmentative & alternative communication: supporting children and adults with complex communication needs (fifth edition ed.). Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co, Baltimore London Sydney

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Cathy Binger, Jacqueline Berens, Jennifer Kent-Walsh, and Stacy Taylor. 2008. The Effects of Aided AAC Interventions on AAC Use, Speech, and Symbolic Gestures.Seminars in Speech and Language29, 02 (May 2008), 101–111. https: //doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1079124 One Does Not Simply ‘Mm-hmm’: Exploring Backchanneling in the AAC Micro-Culture

    work page doi:10.1055/s-2008-1079124 2008

  7. [7]

    Filip Bircanin, Bernd Ploderer, Laurianne Sitbon, Andrew A Bayor, and Margot Brereton. 2019. Challenges and opportunities in using augmentative and alterna- tive communication (AAC) technologies: Design considerations for adults with severe disabilities. InProceedings of the 31st Australian Conference on Human- Computer-Interaction. 184–196

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Steven Bloch and Ray Wilkinson. 2004. The Understandability of AAC: A Con- versation Analysis Study of Acquired Dysarthria.AAC: Augmentative & Al- ternative Communication20, 4 (Dec. 2004), 272–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 07434610400005614 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Ltd

    work page 2004

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    Marilyn Jean Buzolich and John M Wiemann. 1988. Turn taking in atypical conversations: The case of the speaker/augmented-communicator dyad.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research31, 1 (1988), 3–18

    1988

  2. [10]

    MacDonald, Emily Kornman, Daniel Vance, Blair Casey, Steve M

    Shanqing Cai, Subhashini Venugopalan, Katie Seaver, Xiang Xiao, Katrin Tomanek, Sri Jalasutram, Meredith Ringel Morris, Shaun Kane, Ajit Narayanan, Robert L. MacDonald, Emily Kornman, Daniel Vance, Blair Casey, Steve M. Glea- son, Philip Q. Nelson, and Michael P. Brenner. [n. ...

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    Herbert Clark and Susan Brennan. 1991. Grounding in Communication. In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition. 222–233. https://www.cs.cmu.edu/ ~illah/CLASSDOCS/Clark91.pdf

    1991

  4. [12]

    1996.Using language

    Herbert H Clark. 1996.Using language. Cambridge university press

    1996

  5. [13]

    Michael Clarke and Steven Bloch. 2013. AAC practices in everyday interaction. Augmentative and Alternative Communication29, 1 (2013), 1–2

    2013

  6. [14]

    Humphrey Curtis, Ying Hei Lau, and Timothy Neate. 2024. Breaking Badge: Augmenting Communication with Wearable AAC Smartbadges and Displays. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–25

    2024

  7. [15]

    Humphrey Curtis and Timothy Neate. 2023. Watch Your Language: Using Smartwatches To Support Communication. InProceedings of the 25th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 1–21

    2023

  8. [16]

    Humphrey Curtis and Timothy Neate. 2024. Beyond Repairing with Electronic Speech: Towards Embodied Communication and Assistive Technology. InPro- ceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12

    2024

  9. [17]

    Humphrey Curtis, Timothy Neate, and Carlota Vazquez Gonzalez. 2022. State of the art in AAC: A systematic review and taxonomy. InProceedings of the 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 1–22

    2022

  10. [18]

    Pino Cutrone. 2005. A case study examining backchannels in conversations between Japanese–British dyads. (2005)

    2005

  11. [19]

    Pino Cutrone. 2010. The backchannel norms of native English speakers: A target for Japanese L2 English learners.language Studies Working papers2 (2010), 28–37

    2010

  12. [20]

    Carrie Demmans Epp, Justin Djordjevic, Shimu Wu, Karyn Moffatt, and Ronald M Baecker. 2012. Towards providing just-in-time vocabulary support for assistive and augmentative communication. InProceedings of the 2012 ACM international conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 33–36

    2012

  13. [21]

    Lauran Doak. 2021. Rethinking family (dis)engagement with augmentative & alternative communication.Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs21, 3 (2021), 198–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12510 _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1471-3802.12510

    2021

  14. [22]

    Richard Ellis and Ann McClintock. 1990. If you take my meaning: Theory into practice in human communication.(No Title)(1990)

    1990

  15. [23]

    Yuyang Fang, Yunkai Xu, Zhuyu Teng, Zhaoqu Jiang, and Wei Xiang. [n. d.]. SocializeChat: a GPT-based AAC Tool for Social Communication Through Eye Gazing. InAdjunct Proceedings of the 2023 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing & the 2023 ACM ...

    2023

  16. [24]

    Lynn Farrier, Kathryn Yorkston, Nola Marriner, and David Beukelman. 1985. Conversational control in nonimpaired speakers using an augmentative com- munication system.Augmentative and Alternative Communication1, 2 (1985), 65–73

    1985

  17. [25]

    Alexander Fiannaca, Ann Paradiso, Mira Shah, and Meredith Ringel Morris. 2017. AACrobat: Using mobile devices to lower communication barriers and provide autonomy with gaze-based AAC. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Co...

    2017

  18. [26]

    1993.Developing through relationships

    Alan Fogel. 1993.Developing through relationships. University of Chicago Press

    1993

  19. [27]

    Mauricio Fontana De Vargas, Jiamin Dai, and Karyn Moffatt. [n. d.]. AAC with Automated Vocabulary from Photographs: Insights from School and Speech- Language Therapy Settings. InProceedings of the 24th International ACM SIGAC- CESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility(Ath...

    2022

  20. [28]

    Mauricio Fontana de Vargas and Karyn Moffatt. [n. d.]. Automated Generation of Storytelling Vocabulary from Photographs for use in AAC. InProceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natu...

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    Eric Friginal, Pamela Pearson, Laura Di Ferrante, Lucy Pickering, and Carrie Bruce. 2013. Linguistic characteristics of AAC discourse in the workplace.Dis- course Studies15, 3 (2013), 279–298

    2013

  22. [30]

    Shinya Fujie, Kenta Fukushima, and Tetsunori Kobayashi. 2004. A conversation robot with back-channel feedback function based on linguistic and nonlinguistic information. InProc. ICARA Int. Conference on Autonomous Robots and Agents. Citeseer, 379–384

    2004

  23. [31]

    Katrina Fulcher-Rood and Jeff Higginbotham. 2019. Interacting with persons who have ALS: Time, media, modality, and collaboration via speech-generating devices.Topics in Language Disorders39, 4 (2019), 370–388

    2019

  24. [32]

    Rod Gardner. 1997. The conversation object mm: A weak and variable acknowl- edging token.Research on Language and Social Interaction30, 2 (1997), 131–156

    1997

  25. [33]

    Carlota Vazquez Gonzalez, Timothy Neate, and Rita Borgo. 2025. Trusting Track- ing: Perceptions of Non-Verbal Communication Tracking in Videoconferencing. InCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI)

    2025

  26. [34]

    AJ Granda and Jelica Nuccio. 2018. Protactile principles.Monmouth, OR: Tactile Communications(2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    Kenneth R Hackbarth et al . 2024. Revolutionizing augmentative and alterna- tive communication with generative artificial intelligence.Assistive Technology Outcomes & Benefits18 (2024), 100–123

    2024

  28. [36]

    Bettina Heinz. 2003. Backchannel responses as strategic responses in bilingual speakers’ conversations.Journal of pragmatics35, 7 (2003), 1113–1142

    2003

  29. [37]

    DJ Higginbotham, Katrina Fulcher, and Jennifer Seale. 2016. Time and timing in interactions involving individuals with ALS, their unimpaired partners and their speech generating devices.The silent partner(2016), 199–229

    2016

  30. [38]

    D Jeffery Higginbotham and Kevin Caves. 2002. AAC performance and usability issues: The effect of AAC technology on the communicative process.Assistive Technology14, 1 (2002), 45–57

    2002

  31. [39]

    David Jeffery Higginbotham and Christopher R Engelke. 2013. A primer for doing talk-in-interaction research in augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication29, 1 (2013), 3–19

    2013

  32. [40]

    D Jeffery Higginbotham and David P Wilkins. 2013. Slipping through the timestream: Social issues of time and timing in augmented interactions. In Constructing (in) competence. Psychology Press, 49–82

    2013

  33. [41]

    Anthony J Hornof. 2009. Designing with children with severe motor impairments. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2177–2180

    2009

  34. [42]

    Iris Hübscher, Christiane Hohenstein, Martina Spiess, and Brigitte Gantschnig

  35. [43]

    Seray Ibrahim, Michael Clarke, Asimina Vasalou, and Jeff Bezemer. 2023. Com- mon ground in AAC: how children who use AAC and teaching staff shape interaction in the multimodal classroom.Augmentative and Alternative Commu- nication40, 2 (2023), 74–85

    2023

  36. [44]

    Seray B Ibrahim, Asimina Vasalou, and Michael Clarke. 2018. Design opportu- nities for AAC and children with severe speech and physical impairments. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13

    2018

  37. [45]

    Daniel Jurafsky, Rebecca Bates, Noah Coccaro, Rachel Martin, Marie Meteer, Klaus Ries, Elizabeth Shriberg, Andreas Stolcke, Paul Taylor, and Carol Van Ess- Dykema. 1997. Automatic detection of discourse structure for speech recognition and understanding. In1997 IEEE Workshop o...

    1997

  38. [46]

    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 confere...

    2017

  39. [47]

    Göran Kjellmer. 2009. Where do we backchannel?: On the use of mm, mhm, uh huh and such like.International Journal of Corpus Linguistics14, 1 (2009), 81–112

    2009

  40. [48]

    Arlene W Kraat. 1987. Communication interaction between aided and natural speakers: A state of the art report. (1987)

    1987

  41. [49]

    1991.The use of back channel behaviors by Japanese and Ameri- can bilingual persons

    Mayumi Kubota. 1991.The use of back channel behaviors by Japanese and Ameri- can bilingual persons. Indiana University

    1991

  42. [50]

    Mascha Legel, Stijn RJM Deckers, Gloria Soto, Nicola Grove, Annalu Waller, Hans van Balkom, Ronald Spanjers, Christopher S Norrie, and Bert Steenbergen

  43. [51]

    Han Z Li. 2006. Backchannel responses as misleading feedback in intercultural discourse.Journal of intercultural communication research35, 2 (2006), 99–116

    2006

  44. [52]

    Lara J Martin and Malathy Nagalakshmi. 2024. Bridging the Social & Technical Divide in Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) Applications for Autistic Adults.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.17730(2024). Weinberg et al

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Michael Murray, Nick Walker, Amal Nanavati, Patricia Alves-Oliveira, Nikita Fil- ippov, Allison Sauppe, Bilge Mutlu, and Maya Cakmak. 2022. Learning backchan- neling behaviors for a social robot via data augmentation from human-human conversations. InConference on robot learni...

    2022

  46. [54]

    Bengt Oreström. 1983. Turn-taking in English conversation.(No Title)(1983)

    1983

  47. [55]

    Hae Won Park, Mirko Gelsomini, Jin Joo Lee, and Cynthia Breazeal. 2017. Telling stories to robots: The effect of backchanneling on a child’s storytelling. InPro- ceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction. 100–108

    2017

  48. [56]

    Hae Won Park, Mirko Gelsomini, Jin Joo Lee, Tonghui Zhu, and Cynthia Breazeal

  49. [57]

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Tao Xu, Greg Brockman, Christine McLeavey, and Ilya Sutskever. 2023. Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervision. InInternational conference on machine learning. PMLR, 28492–28518

    2023

  50. [58]

    Jennifer M Seale, Ann M Bisantz, and Jeff Higginbotham. 2020. Interaction symmetry: Assessing augmented speaker and oral speaker performances across four tasks.Augmentative and alternative communication36, 2 (2020), 82–94

    2020

  51. [59]

    K Maynard Senk. 1997. Analyzing interactional management in native/non- native English conversation: A case of listener response.IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching35, 1 (1997), 37

    1997

  52. [60]

    Junxiao Shen, Boyin Yang, John J Dudley, and Per Ola Kristensson. [n. d.]. KWickChat: A Multi-Turn Dialogue System for AAC Using Context-Aware Sentence Generation by Bag-of-Keywords. In27th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces(Helsinki Finland, 2022-03-22). ...

    2022

  53. [61]

    Kiley Sobel, Alexander Fiannaca, Jon Campbell, Harish Kulkarni, Ann Paradiso, Ed Cutrell, and Meredith Ringel Morris. 2017. Exploring the design space of AAC awareness displays. InProceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2890–2903

    2017

  54. [62]

    Hongyin Tao and Sandra A Thompson. 1991. English backchannels in Mandarin conversations: A case study of superstratum pragmatic ‘interference’.Journal of pragmatics16, 3 (1991), 209–223

    1991

  55. [63]

    Helena Tegler, , and Helen Melander Bowden. 2024. Aided-speaking students’ unsolicited questions in teacher-fronted classroom talk: the use of speech- generating devices to ask questions.Classroom Discourse15, 4 (Oct. 2024), 374–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2024.23225...

    2024

  56. [64]

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

    2008

  57. [65]

    Khiet Phuong Truong, Ronald Walter Poppe, IA de Kok, and Dirk KJ Heylen. 2011. A multimodal analysis of vocal and visual backchannels in spontaneous dialogs. In12th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, INTERSPEECH 2011. International Speech ...

    2011

  58. [66]

    The less I type, the better

    Stephanie Valencia, Richard Cave, Krystal Kallarackal, Katie Seaver, Michael Terry, and Shaun K. Kane. [n. d.]. “The less I type, the better”: How AI Language Models can Enhance or Impede Communication for AAC Users. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in...

    2023

  59. [67]

    Stephanie Valencia, Jessica Huynh, Emma Y Jiang, Yufei Wu, Teresa Wan, Zixuan Zheng, Henny Admoni, Jeffrey P Bigham, and Amy Pavel. 2024. COMPA: Using Conversation Context to Achieve Common Ground in AAC. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–18

    2024

  60. [68]

    Bigham, and Henny Admoni

    Stephanie Valencia, Michal Luria, Amy Pavel, Jeffrey P. Bigham, and Henny Admoni. 2021. Co-designing Socially Assistive Sidekicks for Motion-based AAC. InProceedings of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, Boulder CO USA, 24–33. https://d...

    2021 doi

  61. [69]

    Stephanie Valencia, Amy Pavel, Jared Santa Maria, Seunga Yu, Jeffrey P Bigham, and Henny Admoni. 2020. Conversational agency in augmentative and alterna- tive communication. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12

    2020

  62. [70]

    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 Conference on Computers and Accessibility. ACM, Vi...

    2021

  63. [71]

    Annalu Waller. [n. d.]. Telling tales: unlocking the potential of AAC technolo- gies. 54, 2 ([n. d.]), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12449 _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1460-6984.12449

  64. [72]

    Annalu Waller. 2006. Communication access to conversational narrative.Topics in language disorders26, 3 (2006), 221–239

    2006

  65. [73]

    Nigel Ward. 2006. Non-lexical conversational sounds in American English. Pragmatics & Cognition14, 1 (2006), 129–182

    2006

  66. [74]

    Tobias Weinberg, Kowe Kadoma, Ricardo E Gonzalez Penuela, Stephanie Valencia, and Thijs Roumen. 2024. Why So Serious? Exploring Timely Humorous Com- ments in AAC Through AI-Powered Interfaces.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.16634 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Ron White. 1997. Back channelling, repair, pausing, and private speech.Applied linguistics18, 3 (1997), 314–344

    1997

  68. [76]

    Sheida White. 1989. Backchannels across cultures: A study of Americans and Japanese1.Language in society18, 1 (1989), 59–76

    1989

  69. [77]

    Victor H Yngve. 1970. On getting a word in edgewise. InPapers from the sixth regional meeting Chicago Linguistic Society, April 16-18, 1970, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago. 567–578

    1970

  70. [78]

    Hussein Yusufali, Stefan Goetze, and Roger K Moore. 2023. Bridging the Com- munication Rate Gap: Enhancing Text Input for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC). InInternational Conference on Human-Computer Interac- tion. Springer, 434–452

    2023

  71. [2017]

    In2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Backchannel opportunity prediction for social robot listeners. In2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2308–2314

  72. [2023]

    In18th International Pragmatics Conference (IPrA), Brussels, Belgium, 9-14 July 2023

    The role of discourse markers, backchannels and pauses on discourse struc- ture in Alternative and Augmented Communication (AAC). In18th International Pragmatics Conference (IPrA), Brussels, Belgium, 9-14 July 2023

    2023

  73. [2024]

    Aligned Co-Design: An Interdependent, Multi-Modal Method for People with Motor and Communication Disabilities.International Journal of Human– Computer Interaction(2024), 1–19

    2024

  74. [2025]

    Multimodal Technologies and Interaction9, 3 (2025), 25

    Self-Created Film as a Resource in a Multimodal Conversational Narrative. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction9, 3 (2025), 25

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.