Purpose Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems support individuals who cannot rely on natural speech by enabling communication through symbol selection on electronic devices. Effective AAC use requires motor learning, yet limited research has examined how practice structure influences AAC performance. This feasibility study examined whether different practice schedules: blocked practice (repeated practice of the same target symbol before moving on to the next target) versus random practice (practice of target symbols in a randomized, nonconsecutive order) are associated with differences in response time and accuracy retention during AAC symbol selection. Design/methodology/approach Eight young adults were randomly assigned to either a blocked or random practice schedule and completed four days of symbol-selection practice on a high-technology AAC device. Participants practiced selecting target vocabulary items arranged within a grid-based display. Response time and accuracy were measured immediately after training and again one week later to assess short-term retention. Mixed-model analyses were used to evaluate whether the experimental paradigm was sensitive to differences in performance associated with practice schedule, retention interval and task demands. Findings Accuracy remained consistently high across both practice schedules, with no detectable differences between conditions, suggesting a ceiling effect for this outcome measure. Response time showed greater variability: random practice was associated with faster performance during acquisition but slower response times at the one-week retention test, whereas blocked practice demonstrated more stable response times across sessions. These patterns indicate that response time may be more sensitive than accuracy to practice-schedule manipulation within this task design. Originality/value This study is the first to examine the feasibility of comparing blocked and random practice schedules in high-technology AAC symbol training. The findings provide preliminary insight into how practice structure may influence motor performance and inform the design of future AAC motor learning studies incorporating more complex tasks, longer training periods and AAC user populations.
Chen et al. (Fri,) studied this question.