It is certain that in the vast majority of cases, the parent/facilitator is entirely imagining the input from the subject. For instance, experiments have been d

It is certain that in the vast majority of cases, the parent/facilitator is entirely imagining the input from the subject. For instance, experiments have been done where a 'facilitated' subject who was apparently capable of complex conversations through facilitation was shown a simple object (eg an apple) where the facilitator could not see it, and then the subject was unable to name it through the facilitated communication. The APA and most psych bodies pretty much denounced it as bunk in the mid 90's (see http://www.apa.org/research/action/facilitated.aspx http://www.apa.org/research/action/facilitated.aspx). Studies that find it 'works' tend to avoid lab settings and 'overly controlled settings', similar to the studies of working telepathy. While it is not impossible for any given instance of facilitated communication to be actual communication, it is irresponsible to believe so without some pretty solid verification given that even proponents of the technique admit that in 'many' cases the facilitator was doing the communication. I believe that the most recent APA stance was that facilitated communication should be actively avoided.