'Pseudoscience,' really?
The label gets used as a conclusion, not an argument. Once you look at what Assisted Communication is actually claiming, the label fits worse than its users let on.
Assisted Communication (AC) — the umbrella for S2C, RPM, the Spellers Method, supported typing, and FC — has evolved over time. Today, it is a set of teaching practices grounded in motor learning, AAC, and disability accommodation. Skills build with practice; partner contact may be faded; outcomes vary with regulation, time, and level of partner training.
"Pseudoscience" is not a description of unsettled evidence; it is a rhetorical move that ends conversations. It also depends on conflating every AC approach with 1990s FC — a move ASHA's own position statement leans on heavily, and one the contemporary peer-reviewed literature (e.g., the January 2026 Autism Research paper on the path to independent typing) does not support. The honest version of the critique is: these methods have open empirical questions and an uneven historical track record. Both are true. Neither makes the field pseudoscientific.