Peripheral Vision: Perfect for Detecting Facilitator Cues

Recently, I watched a friend of mine struggle with macular degeneration. His central vision was severely damaged. He experienced extreme frustration as he lost his ability read. He could no longer discern individual letters and pick up on the finer details that would allow him to track words and sentences across the page. He could see shadows and movement by looking out the side of his eyes (e.g., using his peripheral vision). Day-to-day visual tasks took a lot of effort. If pressed, my friend could write his name, but only if someone showed him where to sign on the page was and then he’d scribble his signature—I am guessing mostly by feel and muscle memory.

This experience made me question anew proponent claims that their clients type by using  peripheral vision.

After watching hours of FC videos, I have questions:

• How effective is peripheral vision when someone has their eyes closed?

• How effective is it when a person’s hand is blocking their view or when their head and body are turned completely away from the desired object?

• What roles do central vision and peripheral vision play in reading and writing?

The first two questions make no logical or scientific sense, right? But, that is exactly what proponents of Facilitated Communication (FC) want us to believe.

Even the most carefully crafted and edited pro-FC videos and movies have examples of individuals being facilitated who are not visually attending to the typing activity. Instead, they have their eyes closed, or head bowed with hands over their eyes, or are turned away from the letter board altogether.

The student stands up and physically turns his body away from the typing activity while the facilitator’s gaze remains fixed on the letter board. (From “I AMN NOT AUTISTIVC OH THJE TYP”, Syracuse University FC Training Video, 1991).

 How can these individuals independently (e.g., without facilitator influence) select letters on a letter board if they are not even looking?

The simple answer is that they can’t. Facilitators rarely take their gaze off the letter board during facilitated sessions with those being facilitated disengage from the activity. Research shows a high likelihood (100% in reliably controlled tests) that facilitators, not individuals being subjected to its use, are controlling the typed messages. Peripheral vision is limited in scope (see “Put Your Peripheral Vision to the Test) and, to state the obvious, it is impossible to engage peripheral vision with closed or covered eyes or if the person’s gaze is turned too far away from the letter board.

Soma Mukhopadhyay using Rapid Prompting Method with a student who is engaged in looking at a plant. (From “A Mother’s Courage,” 2009).

But, what about the last question? Purportedly, individuals being subjected to FC fail to engage central vision (e.g., by looking away) and only use peripheral vision. If true, what is likely to happen to their ability to read and write accurately and proficiently?

According to the American Optometric Association, loss of central vision “makes it difficult to read, recognize faces and distinguish most details in the distance. (AOA, 2021)

Characteristics of central vision loss include reduced visual acuity (e.g., sharpness of vision), decreased contrast sensitivity (e.g, ability to distinguish between an object and the background behind it), increased letter-position uncertainty, and visual crowding (e.g., difficulty discriminating distinct object features and contours), and reading speed. (Deyue, et. al., 2018) Visual span (e.g., the number of letters that can be recognized on a single fixation) is also markedly reduced in peripheral vision. (Hye-Won Lee, et. al., 2003).

Vision science is beyond the scope of this blog post and my expertise, but even with just a rudimentary understanding of loss in central vision, I think it is safe to say “using peripherals” during facilitated sessions is problematic. Reading only with peripheral vision impacts

·      the speed of letter recognition,

·      eye movement and tracking,

·      discrimination among letter shapes,

·      visual span, and

·     visual clarity.

Letter selection would most likely slow down--not increase--in rapidity during facilitated sessions, even if the client had no discernable physical visual impairment.

Ido’s facilitator using hand signals within his peripheral vision for cuing. The shape of her hand changes, depending on desired letter selection. (From Ido Answers FAQ, Idoinautismland, 2013).

That said, it is quite possible that peripheral vision does play a significant part in facilitator cuing—especially with variant forms of FC such as Rapid Prompting Method (RPM) and Spelling to Communicate (S2C).

Unimpaired peripheral vision does a great job in detecting shadow and movement. Facilitators’ shifts in body position or hand/arm movements can be detected peripherally, even if, by chance, the individual being facilitated is visually attending to the letter board.

The Youtube videos Ido Answers FAQ (1) (1/2) and Ido Answers FAQ (2) (2/2) clearly show the facilitator shifting her weight, moving her mouth and head, and providing hand signals (e.g., opening and closing her fingers, cupping her fingers in various shapes) as her client points to a computer screen. These physical cues are broad enough and within the client’s peripheral vision—the facilitator deliberately shifts in her chair for positioning and places her hand forward on the table—and appear to serve as signals for him to select the desired letters.

In another video titled “Non-Verbal Boy with Autism Learns to Speak Through Typing on an iPad”, the facilitator uses hand signals held close to her face for cuing. The facilitator’s cues might go unnoticed if the viewer focuses only on the person being facilitated. Watch carefully and you can see the client’s eyes darting in the direction of the facilitator before making letter selections. This video probably needs more scrutiny, but, for now, I will focus on the issue of facilitator cuing and peripheral vision.

The facilitator raises and lowers her hand during an FC session. Emma’s hand motions match those of her facilitator. (From “The Reason I Jump”, 2020).

In a recent blog post, “No More! No More!,” Katherine also noted a facilitator’s use of hand gestures in a review of the pro-FC film “The Reason I Jump.” The video excerpt is one minute chock full of problems. Watch the facilitator, not the person being facilitated. Note how the facilitator uses broad gestures with her hand (the one not holding the board) to signal where to point on the letter board. These signals match the hand movements of the person being facilitated. Again, these gestures are well within peripheral range and perfectly suited to cuing.

Facilitator influence comes in many forms and, admittedly, FC-generated messages can, at first glance, appear “independent.” RPM and S2C, in particular, fool people partly because it looks like the facilitator cannot possibly be controlling the letter selection. However, physical cuing, (e.g., hand gestures, shifts in body weight, and head nods or shakes) are exactly the types of movements that peripheral vision is designed to detect. And, with hours of practice, the person being facilitated can learn to point on cue, regardless of whether or not they understand what it is they are typing.

Is it likely that FC clients are able to rapidly produce typed messages using “only their peripherals”? No. Without central vision, reading becomes laborious and, sometimes, impossible.

Is it likely that FC clients are peripherally detecting and responding to facilitator hand gestures and other physical cues? When they have their eyes open and are within visual range of their faciltiators—most definitely.