There has been much debate recently around how some non-speaking autistic individuals choose to communicate. Scientific consensus claims all their communications are mere illusions, and the Spellers’ partner is the one authoring the messages. We cannot collectively accept this.
Yes, questioning scientific consensus can be dangerous. The anti-vaxx movement has shown how harmful "doing your own research" can be. But what happens when our commitment to science causes us to overlook—or even silence—those who can’t speak up for themselves?
Approximately 1 in 31 children in the U.S. are autistic, and around 30% of them are minimally speaking or non-speaking. That means this directly affects over half a million people in the United States alone.
I’m talking about Spelling—the highly controversial communication method used by some non-speaking autistic individuals.
Spelling involves a communication partner working with a non-speaker in various ways. The partner offers support while the non-speaker points to letters and spells out words. Hence the name “Spelling”. Desperate for help, thousands of families are choosing to practice Spelling with their non-speaking children.
The original method being Faciliated Communication or FC, was developed in Australia and brought to the United States in the early 90s. FC involved a facilitator supporting the non-speaker’s hand or wrist. Isolating a finger to point with, the non-speaker could then select letters on a keyboard or letter board. After wide adoption, FC underwent robust, repeatable testing and was deemed invalid in the late 1990s. Improved Spelling methods have been evolving and include Rapid Prompting Method (RPM), Spelling 2 Communicate (S2C), and The Spellers Method.
These modern methods involve much less physical touch to minimize partner influence, often no touch. While different from FC, they still require a partner to help the non-speaker in various ways. The partner offers physical and regulation support.
Non-speakers experience motor challenges and dysregulation challenges, which is why they benefit from supports during communication. These supports may be as essential for Spellers as interpreters are for the Deaf community.
Unfortunately, the newer Spelling methods have not involved ‘robust’ studies, and are therefore invalid in the eyes of many scientists (K. P. Beals, 2022). All FC and Spelling methods have been essentially banned by scientific authorities (ASHA, AAIDD). And not without good reason, there is technically no permissible research on Spelling.
When I dug deeper, I found several peer-reviewed, published papers supporting Spelling. Yet none of this peer-reviewed data met the criteria. What is this criteria keeping scientists from considering any of these studies? I learned that Spelling research must involve a double-blind test. Any studies without it are dismissed, regardless of the findings.
Let’s look at one dismissed study from the University of Virginia, published in Nature Scientific Reports in 2020. The study used eye-tracking devices to evaluate authorship in Spelling. They set out to determine if non-speakers were indeed choosing the letters they were selecting. The data clearly showed that non-speakers first look at the letter before pointing to it (Jaswal et al., 2020). This is critical— Spellers’ eyes find the letter before they move to select it. Recall that Spelling is dismissed because the partner is controlling the selections. Unless the partner is practicing Morse Code with the speller somehow, no cue could communicate the precise letter. If the Speller’s eyes look at the letter they want to select, before they move to select it, clearly the Speller is controlling their own selections.
Arguments against this were made (K. Beals, 2021), but the most critical finding—how non-speakers' eyes look at the letter before they point to it—cannot be explained away with existing theories. It was suggested the communication partner could have moved the letter board into the non-speaker’s line of sight. Technically, the communication partner could move the board, but partners are trained to keep the board as still as possible.
It was suggested the boards should be stationary, but I learned Spelling partners hold up the flimsy boards so the non-speakers do not harm themselves while making selections. Pointing to a board held up in the air is more gentle on their hands than a stationary board on a table. But many Speller’s do eventually work up to stationary boards, and even keyboards. But alas, this study did not include a double-blind test, so it was dismissed.
One could ask, why won’t Spellers simply participate in a double-blind test?
Historically, these tests have gone poorly for non-speaking individuals and their families. Imagine being a parent who sees clear signs that your child is communicating, only to be asked to "prove it" for scientists. These tests don’t just assess communication; they inherently question whether the non-speaker is even "in there". It’s no surprise families are reluctant to participate.
Refusing testing isn’t necessarily avoidance—it could be a reasonable, protective choice. That’s why so many alternative tests have been developed. These are efforts to respectfully demonstrate authorship and agency without dehumanizing the people involved.
These tests have been deemed the only way to validate Spelling communication methods. While double-blind tests are one way to validate communication, claiming they are the only way is unscientific.
Non-speaking individuals have the right to decline these tests, particularly when they feel dehumanized or mistrusted by the very premise. To disregard all other forms of evidence imposes an impossible standard. This requirement is effectively silencing any alternative data.
True scientific inquiry requires adapting methodologies to respect human rights while still seeking truth. Not rigidly adhering to a single test at the expense of understanding.
Families continue to use Spelling because they are getting results. But that’s never addressed in the approved literature. The non-speakers who use Spelling are often shown to have improved mental health. Families are connecting in meaningful ways, and parents are observing the benefits of genuine communication. Like all things Spelling—these benefits are also ignored.
So, how did everyone become so utterly convinced that all Spelling methods are invalid?
Two words: Ideomotor Effect.
The theory assumes the communication partner is subconsciously cueing the non-speaker to select letters. This idea started in the mid-1990s to explain the failed double-blind tests from FC research. The ideomotor effect was assumed to be the cause of failure. No additional research has been done to validate the ideomotor cueing theory for modern Spelling.
All messages produced by Spellers are assumed to be nothing more than a hopeful facilitator unknowingly guiding the process. But, based on the many research papers stating otherwise, continuing this stance may be a serious human rights violation.
It’s important to mention here that I do not know any non-speakers. My claims are all based on published research and observations.
I’m not a scientific authority; I just have a technical mind with a relentless neurodivergent hyperfixation. Please share this with anyone who could help or add insights.
And if you can, respectfully, prove me wrong.
Next, I’ll be unpacking the many flaws of the Cueing Theory. Please subscribe if interested.
Photo by ameenfahmy on Unsplash
It's good to see you in this space. It can be a lonely place - online. The impulse to suppress this material is very strong among most people.