{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03043867502238138, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009847806624888093, 'mean_word_length': 5.5, '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}}
Teaching Nonvocal Communications to Nonverbal Retarded Children

Twenty-eight hearing, nonverbal, moderately to profoundly retarded children were successfully taught a nonvocal symbol system based on Premack's work in which plastic shapes represent words. Twenty-five profoundly retarded children learned an average of 10 symbols within six months. Slow learners (13 out of 25) generated one and two-word sentences. Three additional children with higher mental ages constructed more complex nine-symbol sentences, learning an average of 50 symbols. A matched control group was given equal time in one-to-one vocal interaction with analogous materials. Additional findings on pre-post testing were: (1) no significant differences in mental age, IQ, or vocalization between groups; (2) significant increase in attention span for the trained group and a significant decrease for controls; and (3) significant increase in receptive language and cooper- ation for slow learners, in contrast to controls. Conclusion: The symbol system is useful for nonvocal retardates where alternate communication models are not feasible.