Skip to main content

Using Iconicity to Evaluate Symbol Use

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 4061))

Abstract

This paper investigates the use of iconicity testing to evaluate symbol ‘quality’ and to examine differences in symbol perception in different ethnic groups. The paper largely replicates an earlier study by Haupt and Alant in which a communication grid of PCS symbols was evaluated with Zulu children. In our study 10 university-educated people with long experience of Western European culture are used to test the symbols. They achieve an overall symbol correctness of 50.3% (compared with Haupt and Alant’s 18.9%) and 27.8% symbols are strictly iconic (2.8% for Haupt and Alant) and 55.6 are iconic according to a lenient criterion (11.1% for Haupt and Alant). The concept of distinctiveness as defined by Haupt and Alant is also investigated, as is a method of analyzing symbols based on frequency of selection and correctness when selected. The overall conclusion is that iconicity tests can be usefully employed for assessing symbol quality and determining the difference between ethnic groups.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Gerrish, K., Ruby, C., Sobowale, A., Birks, E.: Bridging the language barrier: the use of interpreters in primary care nursing. Health and Social Care in the Community 12(5), 407–413 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Johnson, M.: What can we learn from drawing parallels between people who use AAC and people whose first language is not English? Communication Matters 18(2), 15–17 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Johnson, M.J., Evans, D.G., Mohamed, Z.: A pilot study to investigate communication strategies in provider-patient interaction with Somalis refugees. In: Proc. HC 2006 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cairney, S., Sless, D.: Communication effectiveness of symbolic safety signs with different user groups. Applied Ergonomics 13, 91–97 (1982)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hanson, E.C., Hartzema, A.: Evaluating pictograms as an aid for counselling elderly and low-literate patients. Journal of Pharmaceutical Marketing and Management 9(3), 51–55 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Yovetich, W.S., Young, T.A.: The Effects of Representativeness and Concreteness on the “Guessability” of Blissymbols. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 4, 35–39 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bloomberg, K., Karlan, G.R., Llloyd, L.L.: The comparative translucency of initial lexical items represented in five graphic symbol systems and sets. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 33, 717–725 (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fuller, D.R.: Initial study into the effects of translucency and complexity on the learning of Blissymbols by children and adults with normal cognitive abilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 7, 30–39 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Huer, M.B.: Examining perceptions of graphic symbols across cultures: preliminary study of the impact of culture/ethnicity. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 16, 180–185 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Musselwhite, C.R., Ruscello, D.M.: Transparency of three communication symbol systems. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 27, 436–443 (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Mizuko, M.: Transparency and ease of learning of symbols represented by Blissymbols, PCS and Picsysms. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 3, 129–136 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dowse, R., Ehlers, M.S.: The influence of education on the interpretation of pharmaceutical pictograms for communicating medicine instructions. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice 11, 11–18 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Haupt, L., Alant, E.: The iconicity of picture communication symbols for rural Zulu children. South African Journal of Communication Disorders 49, 40–49 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Doherty, J.E., Daniloff, J.K., Lloyd, L.L.: The effect of categorical presentation on AmerInd transparency. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 1, 10–16 (1985)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Evans, D.G., Bowick, L., Johnson, M., Blenkhorn, P. (2006). Using Iconicity to Evaluate Symbol Use. In: Miesenberger, K., Klaus, J., Zagler, W.L., Karshmer, A.I. (eds) Computers Helping People with Special Needs. ICCHP 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4061. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11788713_127

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11788713_127

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-36020-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-36021-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics