(NYT) – Proponents of assisted spelling say it has improved the lives of thousands of nonspeakers, some of whom have used it to write memoirs or obtain graduate degrees. Yet despite the potentially profound implications of these communication methods, there has been remarkably little scientific research evaluating them. Citing the risk that the person holding the letter board may influence the messages, and a history of such abuses with prior assisted communication methods, many medical groups have cautioned against them.

All of this has led to a growing debate dividing autistic people, families and the scientific community. The central question is less about whether breakthroughs like Tito’s are possible, but whether they are as widespread as many proponents claim. Do assisted spelling methods reliably reveal a person’s own thoughts, or do they give families a false sense of their loved ones’ inner world and capacities? (Read More)