{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025616698292220113, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006641366223908918, 'mean_word_length': 5.806451612903226, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Examining perceptions of graphic symbols across cultures: Preliminary study of the impact of culture/ethnicity

Perceptions of three aided graphic symbol sets used in augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) (Blissymbols, DynaSyms®, and Picture Communication Symbols) were examined across four groups of adult participants with differing cultural histories and life experiences. One hundred and forty-seven individuals who identified themselves as African American, Chinese, European American, or Mexican and who ranged in age from 30 to 64 years participated in the investigation. Graphic symbols with translated referents (in English, Mexican Spanish, and Mandarin Chinese) from a 41-item lexicon were rated on a 7-point scale of iconicity. Results suggest that individuals from different cultural/ethnic groups perceive graphic symbols differently. Methodological issues related to the study of the impact of culture/ethnicity on graphic symbol recognition are described, and implications for the practice of AAC across cultures are discussed.