AAC and Autism: Manual Signs and Pecs, a Comparison.
No results yet — keep your eyes open for the full paper to see if signs or PECS nudge vocal speech more in kids with ASD.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Frolli and colleagues plan to compare two ways kids with autism can talk without speech.
One way is manual signs — simple hand gestures like “more” or “help.”
The other way is PECS — the Picture Exchange Communication System where kids hand over a card to ask for things.
The paper only tells us the plan; no children have been tested yet.
What they found
Nothing yet. The abstract stops at the study aim. We have to wait for the full article to see which method sparks more speech or better requests.
How this fits with other research
Roane et al. (2001) already showed that a reading-and-writing AAC program beat sign language for preschoolers with autism. Kids learned the printed words faster and kept them longer.
Crysdale et al. (2026) took a different road. They found that simply echoing a toddler’s sounds during play doubled the child’s own vocalizations. No cards or signs needed.
So et al. (2019) ran a head-to-head test like Frolli plans, but they compared robot versus human teachers for gesture lessons. Robots and humans tied, hinting that the tool (robot, picture, or sign) may matter less than clear teaching steps.
Together these studies say: structured AAC can work, but the best route to speech is still open. Frolli’s upcoming data will add a fresh two-way test of signs versus pictures.
Why it matters
You need evidence before you pick manual signs or PECS for a minimally verbal client. Right now we only have older sign-vs-print data and new echo-play results. Once Frolli publishes, you’ll get a clean side-by-side look at whether signs or pictures move kids toward speech faster. Hold off overhauling your AAC plan until the numbers land.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Note in the child’s file which AAC mode you use now so you can compare later when the new data drops.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) represent a heterogeneous group of disorders, with onset in developmental age, which present a clinical expressiveness that varies from subject to subject and in the same subject over time. The DSM 5 defines Autism Spectrum Disorders according to two main criteria: persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction in multiple contexts and limited and repetitive patterns of behavior, interests or activities. This disorder can manifest itself across a broad spectrum of severity levels. Indeed, ASD includes clinical conditions from low functioning (LF—Low Functioning) to high functioning (HF—High Functioning), taking cognitive and adaptive functioning as a reference. One of the main characteristics of individuals with ASD is a delay in receptive and expressive communication. These deficits have led to the identification of evidence-based practices, particularly for those with severe communication difficulties. Augmentative Alternative Communication (AAC) has been implemented to compensate for deficits in functional communication and language skills in individuals with complex communication deficits. The AAC comprises communication systems including the Manual Signs, speech and image output devices (Communicators), and Image Exchange Systems (PECS); these systems have been shown to actually improve various abilities in autism such as social skills, modify and improve dysfunctional behaviors and, above all, improve learning. Recent meta-analyses have shown how PECS and Manual Sign can have great effects on the communication skills of young people with autism. The aim of this study is to compare these two types of intervention to improve communication in terms of vocalization in subjects with ASD and try to understand which of the two lead to more significant and rapid improvements.
Behavioral Sciences, 2022 · doi:10.3390/bs12100359