Patients' experiences with technology during inpatient rehabilitation: opportunities to support independence and therapeutic engagement

References

• Higginbotham DF, Shane H, Russell S, Caves K. Access to AAC: present, past, and future. Augment Altern Commun 2007;23:243–57
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ball L, Nordness A, Fager S, et al. Eye gaze access of AAC technology for persons with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Med Speech Lang Pathol 2010;18:11–23
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fager S, Bardach L, Russell S, Higginbotham J. Access to augmentative and alternative communication: new technologies and clinical decision-making. J Pediatr Rehabil Med 2012;5:53–61
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tai K, Blain S, Chau Peng T. A review of emerging access technologies for individuals with severe motor impairments. Assist Technol 2010;20:204–21
   Google Scholar
• Barreto AB, Scargle SD, Adjouadi M. A practical EMG-based human-computer interface for users with motor disabilities. J Rehabil Res Dev 2000;37:53–64
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinheiro CG, Naves E, Pino P, et al. Alternative communication systems for people with severe motor disabilities: a survey. Biomed Eng Online, 2011;10:31 . Available from: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3103465/
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Galan F, Nuttin M, Lew E, et al. A brain-actuated wheelchair: asynchronous and non-invasive brain-computer interfaces for continuous control of robots. Clin Neurophysiol 2008;119:2159–69
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sellers EW, Vaughan TM, Wolpaw JP. A brain-computer interface for long-term independent home use. Amyotroph Lateral Scler 2010;11:1–7
   Google Scholar
• Brumberg JS, Nieto-Castanon A, Kennedy PR, Guenther FH. Brain-computer interfaces for speech communication. Speech Commun 2010;52:367–79
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fager S, Beukelman DR, Fried-Oken M, et al. Access interface strategies. Assist Technol 2012;24:25–33
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Cushman LA. Measuring subjective quality of life following spinal cord injury: a validation study of the assistive technology device predisposition assessment. Phys Med Rehabil 2001;23:387–93
   Google Scholar
• Alper S, Raharinirina S. Assistive technology for individuals with disabilities: a review and synthesis of the literature. J Spec Educ Technol 2006;21:47–64
   Google Scholar
• Kane SK, Jayant C, Wobbrock JO, Ladner RE. Freedom to roam: a study of mobile device adoption and accessibility for people with visual and motor disabilities. Assets ’09 Proceedings of the 11th international ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, Vancouver (BC);2009
   Google Scholar
• Baker P, Moon N. Wireless technologies and accessibility for people with disabilities: findings from a policy research instrument. Assist Technol 2008;20:149–56
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Froehlich J, Wobbrock JO, Kane SK. Barrier pointing: using physical edges to assist target acquisition on mobile device touch screens. Assets ’07 Proceedings of the 9th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, Tempe (AZ);2007
   Google Scholar
• Deutsch JE, Brettler A, Smith C, et al. Nintendo Wii sports and Wii fit game analysis, validation, and application to stroke rehabilitation. Top Stroke Rehabil 2011;18:701–19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saposnik G, Teasell R, Mamdani M, et al. Effectiveness of virtual reality using Wii gaming technology in stroke rehabilitation. Stroke 2010;41:1477–84
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loureiro RCV, Valentine D, Lamperd B, et al. Gaming and social interactions in the rehabilitation of brain injuries: a pilot study with the Nintendo Wii console. Des Incl Inter 2010;Part V:219–28
   Google Scholar
• Rand D, Kizony R, Weiss P. The Wony PlayStation II EyeToy: low-cost virtual reality for use in rehabilitation. J Neurol Phys Ther 2008;32:155–63
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Scherer MF, Craddock G. Matching person & technology (MPT) assessment process. Technol Disab 2002;14:125–31
   Google Scholar
• Lilja M, Bergh A, Johansson L, Nygård L. Attitudes towards rehabilitation needs and support from assistive technology and the social environment among elderly people with disability. Occup Therapy Int 2006;10:75–93
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Sax C, Vanbiervliet A, et al. Predictors of assistive technology use: the importance of personal and psychosocial factors. Disab Rehabil: Assist Technol 2005;27:1321–31
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Glueckauf, R. Assessing the benefits of assistive technologies for activities and participation. Rehab Psych 2005;50:132–41
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wielandt T, Mckenna K, Tooth L, Strong J. Factors that predict the post-discharge use of recommended assistive technology (AT). Disab Rehabil: Assist Technol 2006;1:29–40
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cushman LA, Scherer MJ. Measuring the relationship of assistive technology use, functional status over time, and consumer-therapist perceptions of ATs. Assist Technol 1996;8:103–09
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry & research design. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 2007
   Google Scholar
• Moustakas C. Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 1994
   Google Scholar