Updated Science on Nonspeaking People: What New Evidence Is Telling Us

Who we mean by 'nonspeaking'

'Nonspeaking' is often used for people who cannot rely on speech to communicate, but this is not one uniform group. Some people use a few words. Some speak in limited or scripted ways that do not reflect what they understand. Others cannot speak reliably at all, even when signs of comprehension are clearly present.

More nonspeaking people are now using text-based communication, including letterboards, keyboards, tablets, and other AAC tools. For some, these tools provide a pathway to communication that speech has not.

The two claims that keep getting repeated

Much of the skepticism comes down to two familiar claims: that these methods have already been debunked, and that there is no credible evidence they can work. Those claims sound strong, but they are easier to say than to defend.

Imagine searching a forest for oak trees, but before beginning your search, deciding that only oak trees taller than 100 feet count. After finding none, you announce that there is no evidence oak trees exist. Most people immediately recognize the flaw. The issue is not the forest. The issue is the filter.

That analogy helps explain one of the biggest problems with claims that spelling and typing methods have been 'debunked.' Some reviews use criteria so narrowly defined that almost nothing can qualify. When researchers set the bar that way, they can exclude large amounts of relevant evidence before the review even begins — and then point to the lack of included studies as proof that no evidence exists. Research on eye-tracking, motor skills, literacy, communication, and related topics is often excluded simply because it does not fit the review's narrow definition of acceptable evidence.

The result is sometimes what researchers themselves call an 'empty review.' An empty review does not prove something does not exist. It proves only that nothing met the review's chosen criteria. Yet those findings are often presented as though decades of research produced nothing worth examining.

Studies from the 1990s are often cited as if they settled today's debate. But science does not work that way. Findings must be weighed against what has been learned since, and the last three decades have brought major advances in autism research, motor neuroscience, eye-tracking technology, and communication science. Older studies remain part of the conversation, but they cannot be treated as the final word on questions that are still being actively investigated.

If these approaches had truly been settled, researchers would not still be publishing studies on literacy, eye movements, motor planning, and communication access in nonspeaking autistic people. Yet that is exactly what is happening.

What newer studies are showing

No single study answers every question. But recent findings make it much harder to claim there is 'nothing there.'

In Autism, Vikram Jaswal, Andrew Lampi, and Kayden Stockwell reported in 2024 that many nonspeaking autistic participants showed signs of foundational literacy, including sensitivity to spelling patterns and word boundaries. Their conclusion was careful but important: many nonspeaking autistic people may be able to acquire the literacy skills needed for typing-based communication when given appropriate opportunity and support.

In Scientific Reports, Vikram Jaswal, Allison Wayne, and Hudson Golino reported in 2020 that nonspeaking autistic letterboard users typically looked at letters before selecting them. They found that participants' timing, speed, accuracy, and gaze patterns made a simple cueing explanation unlikely and supported continued investigation of communicative agency.

There is also growing evidence that autism often involves significant motor differences. In Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, Haylie Miller and colleagues argued in 2024 that motor problems in autism are highly prevalent, underdiagnosed, and poorly managed, and that an evidence-based clinical pipeline for identifying them is urgently needed. That matters because speech and outward performance are not always reliable measures of what a person understands.

Taken together, these findings do not prove that every message produced with support is independently authored. They do show that the claim of 'no credible evidence' can no longer be taken seriously. Reasonable people can debate what the evidence means, how strong it is, or what questions remain. But it is no longer accurate to claim that the evidence does not exist.

Maybe the real question is different

Families often report very different realities, and that may be because they are dealing with different underlying profiles. Two children may both have profound support needs and look very similar to outsiders. Both may be nonspeaking. Both may struggle to show what they know. But the reason may not be the same.

Some children may have more classic autism with significant language impairment or intellectual disability. Others may have relatively strong language but global or whole-body apraxia that makes speech and purposeful movement extremely difficult. Some may have both.

That difference matters. It helps explain why one person may not respond to motor-based communication supports while another does. When a person begins to communicate through spelling or typing after motor coaching helps them bypass an uncooperative body, that response may be meaningful in itself. It may suggest that the primary barrier is not lack of thought, but lack of reliable motor access.

In time, response to these kinds of supports could help inform assessment and lead to more precise distinctions within groups that are currently treated as one category. Science moves forward by making those distinctions more carefully, not by assuming that people who look similar on the outside must have the same underlying challenges.

Beyond the research itself, there are now nonspeaking people attending college, writing books, participating in research, serving on advisory boards, advocating publicly, and building careers through spelling and typing — outcomes that would have been considered impossible for many of them just a generation ago.

Why this matters

This does not require blind acceptance of every method or every message. It does require honesty about what the evidence now shows.

There is still much to learn about authorship, support, and who benefits most from different communication approaches. But saying the science is fully settled, or that there is no credible evidence to examine, no longer matches the current literature.

Some nonspeaking people have clearly been underestimated. That alone is reason enough to keep looking.

If the science is truly settled, why are researchers still asking these questions? And if the answers are already known, why does new evidence keep emerging?

References

• Jaswal, V. K., Lampi, A. J., & Stockwell, K. M. (2024). Literacy in nonspeaking autistic people. Autism, 28(10), 2503–2514. DOI: 10.1177/13623613241230709.
• Jaswal, V. K., Wayne, A., & Golino, H. (2020). Eye-tracking reveals agency in assisted autistic communication. Scientific Reports, 10, 7882. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-64553-9.
• Miller, H. L., Licari, M. K., Bhat, A., Srinivasan, S. M., Barnett, A., Imboden, K., Caçola, P., McCleery, J. P., Staples, K. L., & Khowaja, M. K. (2024). Motor problems in autism: Co-occurrence or feature? Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 66(1), 16–22. DOI: 10.1111/dmcn.15674.