Special issue on technology and neuropsychological rehabilitation: Overview and reflections on ways to conduct future studies and support clinical practice

References

• Alm, N., Astell, A., Ellis, M., Dye, R., Gowans, G., & Campbell, J. (2004). A cognitive prosthesis and communication support for people with dementia. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 14(1–2), 117–134. doi: 10.1080/09602010343000147
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aubin, G., Béliveau, M. F., & Klinger, E. (2018). An exploration of the ecological validity of the Virtual Action Planning–Supermarket (VAP-S) with people with schizophrenia, Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, doi: 10.1080/09602011.2015.1074083
   Google Scholar
• Barcenilla, J., & Bastien, J.-M.-C. (2009). L’acceptabilité des nouvelles technologies: quelles relations avec l’ergonomie, l’utilisabilité et l’expérience utilisateur? [The acceptability of new technologies: What relationship with ergonomics, usability and user experience?]. Le Travail Humain, 72(4), 311–331. doi: 10.3917/th.724.0311
   Google Scholar
• Bier, N., Paquette, G., & Macoir, J. (2018). Smartphone for smart living: Using new technologies to cope with everyday limitations in semantic dementia, Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 28(5), 734–754. doi: 10.1080/09602011.2015.1094395
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brangier, E., & Barcenilla, J. (2003). Concevoir un produit facile à utiliser : Adapter les technologies à l’homme [Designing an easy to use product: Adapt technologies to humans]. Paris: Editions d’organisation.
   Google Scholar
• Briand, C., Sablier, J., Therrien, J.-A., Charbonneau, K., Pelletier, J.-F., & Weiss-Lambrou, R. (2018). Use of a mobile device in mental health rehabilitation: A clinical and comprehensive analysis of 11 cases, Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 28(5), 832–863. doi: 10.1080/09602011.2015.1106954
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clemensen, J., Larsen, S. B., Kyng, M., & Kirkevold, M. (2007). Participatory design in health sciences: Using cooperative experimental methods in developing health services and computer technology. Qualitative Health Research, 17(1), 122–130. doi: 10.1177/1049732306293664
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook, A., & Polgar, J. M. (2008). Cook and Hussey’s principles of assistive technology. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Cook, A. M., & Polgar, J. M. (2014). Assistive technologies: Principles and practice. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Dabbs, A. D. V., Myers, B. A., Mc Curry, K. R., Dunbar-Jacob, J., Hawkins, R. P., Begey, A., & Dew, M. A. (2009). User-centered design and interactive health technologies for patients. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 27(3), 175–183.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darses, F., & Reuzeau, F. (2004). Participation des utilisateurs à la conception des systèmes et dispositifs de travail [User participation in the design of work systems and devices]. In Ergonomie (pp. 405–420). Paris: Presse universitaire de France.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38(2), 475–487. https://doi.org/10.1006/imms.1993.1022
   Google Scholar
• de Joode, E., van Heugten, C., Verhey, F., & van Boxtel, M. (2010). Efficacy and usability of assistive technology for patients with cognitive deficits: A systematic review. Clinical Rehabilitation, 24(8), 701–714. https://doi.org/0269215510367551 doi: 10.1177/0269215510367551
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demers, L., Monette, M., Descent, M., Jutai, J., & Wolfson, C. (2002). The psychosocial impact of assistive devices scale (PIADS): Translation and preliminary psychometric evaluation of a Canadian–French version. Quality of Life Research, 11(6), 583–592. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016397412708
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demers, L., Monette, M., Lapierre, Y., Arnold, D. L., & Wolfson, C. (2002). Reliability, validity, and applicability of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST 2.0) for adults with multiple sclerosis. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(1–3), 21–30. doi: 10.1080/09638280110066352
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fruhling, A., & Lee, S. (2005). Assessing the reliability, validity and adaptability of PSSUQ. In 11th Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS 2005: A Conference on a Human Scale, Proceedings, 2231–2239.
   Google Scholar
• Foloppe, D. A., Richard, P., Yamaguchi, T., Etcharry-Bouyx, F. & Allain, P. (2018). The potential of virtual reality-based training to enhance the functional autonomy of Alzheimer's disease patients in cooking activities: A single case study, Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 28(5), 709–733. doi: 10.1080/09602011.2015.1094394
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gillespie, A., Best, C., & O’Neill, B. (2011). Cognitive function and assistive technology for cognition: A systematic review. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 18, 1–19. Journal Article. https://doi.org/S1355617711001548 doi: 10.1017/S1355617711001548
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gould, J., & Lewis, C. (1985). Designing for usability: Key principles and what designers think. Communications of the ACM, 28(3), 300–311. doi: 10.1145/3166.3170
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gregor, P., & Newell, A. (2004). Introduction. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 14(1–2), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602010343000093
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gregory, J. (2003). Scandinavian approaches to participatory design. International Journal of Engineering Education, 19(1), 62–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groussard, P.-Y., Pigot, H., Giroux, S. (2018). From conception to evaluation of mobile services for people with head injury: A participatory design perspective. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 28(5), 667–688. doi:10.1080/09602011.2015.1117499.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haskins, E. C. (2012). Cognitive rehabilitation manual. Translating evidence-based recommendations into practicetle. Reston, Virginia: American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine.
   Google Scholar
• Ienca, M., Fabrice, J., Elger, B., Caon, M., Pappagallo, A. S., Kressig, R. W., & Wangmo, T. (2017). Intelligent assistive technology for Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias: A systematic review. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 56(4), 1301–1340. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-161037
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imbeault, H., Gagnon, L., Pigot, H., Giroux, S., Marcotte, N., Cribier-Delande, P., Duval, J., Bocti, C, Lacombe, G., Fülöp, T. and Bier, N. (2018). Impact of AP@LZ in the daily life of three persons with Alzheimer’s disease: long-term use and further exploration of its effectiveness, Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 28(5), 755–778. doi: 10.1080/09602011.2016.1172491
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imbeault, H., Langlois, F., Bocti, C., Gagnon, L. & Bier, N. (2018). Can people with Alzheimer's disease improve their day-to-day functioning with a tablet computer?, Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 28(5), 779–796. doi: 1080/09602011.2015.1133431
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inglis, E. A., Szymkowiak, A., Gregor, P., Newell, A. F., Hine, N., Wilson, B. A., & Shah, P. (2004). Usable technology? Challenges in designing a memory aid with current electronic devices. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 14(1–2), 77–87. doi: 10.1080/09602010343000129
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Organization for Normalization (ISO). (2013). Usability of consumer products and products for public use—Part 2: Summative test method. Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:ts:20282:-2:ed-2:v1:en
   Google Scholar
• Jamieson, M., Cullen, B., McGee-Lennon, M., Brewster, S., & Evans, J. J. (2013). The efficacy of cognitive prosthetic technology for people with memory impairments: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 24(3–4), 419–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2013.825632
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Julien-Gauthier, F., Héroux, J., & Jourdan-Ionescu, C. (2011). Stratégies de “résilience assistée” auprès des personnes qui ont des incapacités cognitives dans le cadre des services de réadaptation [“Assisted resilience” strategies for people with cognitive disabilities in rehabilitation services]. Revue Développement Humain, Handicap et Changement Social, 19(1), 193–198.
   Google Scholar
• Julien-Gauthier, F., Jourdan-Ionescu, C., & Héroux, J. (2009). Favoriser la participation des personnes ayant une déficience intellectuelle lors d’une recherche [Promoting the participation of people with intellectual disabilities in research]. Revue Francophone de La Déficience Intellectuelle, 20, 178–188.
   Google Scholar
• Jutai, J. W., Fuhrer, M. J., Demers, L., Scherer, M. J., & DeRuyter, F. (2005). Toward a taxonomy of assistive technology device outcomes. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 84(4), 294–302. doi: 10.1097/01.PHM.0000157313.88732.DC
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelley, J. F. (1984). An iterative design methodology for user-friendly natural language office information applications. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 2(1), 26–41. doi: 10.1145/357417.357420
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, N. (2004). Using interviews in quatitative research. In C. Cassel & G. Symon (Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research ( chpt 2). London: Sage publications. doi: 10.4135/9781446280119.n2
   Google Scholar
• Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus group: A practical guide for applied research (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
   Google Scholar
• Lavoie, M., Macoir, J., & Bier, N. (2017). Effectiveness of technologies in the treatment of post-stroke anomia: A systematic review. Journal of Communication Disorders, 65, 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2017.01.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenker, J. A., & Paquet, V. L. (2003). A review of conceptual models for assistive technology outcomes research and practice. Assistive Technology, 15(1), 1–15. doi: 10.1080/10400435.2003.10131885
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, J. R. (2002). Psychometric evaluation of the PSSUQ using data from five years of usability studies. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 14(3–4), 463–488. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2002.9669130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindqvist, E., Larsson, T. J., & Borell, L. (2015). Experienced usability of assistive technology for cognitive support with respect to user goals. NeuroRehabilitation, 36(1), 135–149.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LoPresti, E. F., Mihailidis, A., & Kirsch, N. (2004). Assistive technology for cognitive rehabilitation: State of the art. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 14(1–2), 5–39. doi: 10.1080/09602010343000101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorenz, K., Freddolino, P. P., Comas-Herrera, A., Knapp, M., & Damant, J. (2017). Technology-based tools and services for people with dementia and carers: Mapping technology onto the dementia care pathway. Dementia (London), doi: 10.1177/1471301217691617
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lussier-Desrochers, D., Caouette, M., & Dupont, M.-É. (2011). Gestion de l’innovation technologique : défis et modalités d’accompagnement. Rapport de recherche adressé aux gestionnaires des CRDITED du Québec [Management of technological innovation: challenges and methods of support. Research Report addressed to the managers of the CRDITEDs of Quebec]. Trois-Rivières: Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières.
   Google Scholar
• Manly, T., Heutink, J., Davison, B., Gaynord, B., Greenfield, E., Parr, A., … Robertson, I. H. (2004). An electronic knot in the handkerchief: “Content free cueing” and the maintenance of attentive control. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 14(1–2), 89–116. doi: 10.1080/09602010343000110
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGee-Lennon, M., Smeaton, A., & Brewster, S. (2012). Designing home care reminder systems: Lessons learned through co-design with older users. 6th international Conference Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare (PervasiveHealth), 2012, 49–56.
   Google Scholar
• Mihailidis, A., Barbenel, J. C., & Fernie, G. (2004). The efficacy of an intelligent cognitive orthosis to facilitate handwashing by persons with moderate to severe dementia. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 14(1–2), 135–171. doi: 10.1080/09602010343000156
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen, J. (1994). Usability engineering. Cambridge: AP Professionnal.
   Google Scholar
• Niitamo, V.-P., Kulkki, S., Eriksson, M., & Hribernik, K. A. (2006). State-of-the-art and good practice in the field of living labs. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising: Innovative Products and Services through Collaborative Networks (pp. 349–357). Milan, Italy.
   Google Scholar
• Pinard, S., Bouchard, K., Adelise, Y., Fortin, V., Pigot, H., Bier, N., & Giroux, S. (2016). Valorization of assistive technologies for cognition: Lessons and practices. In K. K. Ravulakollu, M. A. Khan, & A. Abraham (Eds.), Trends in ambiant intelligence: The role of computational intelligence (633, pp. 57–86). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30184-6_3
   Google Scholar
• Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., Benyon, D, Holland, S., & Carey, T. (1994). Human-Computer Interaction: Concepts And Design (ICS) 1st Edition. Massachusetts, US: Addison Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Riek, L. D. (2012). Wizard of Oz studies in HRI: A systematic review and new reporting guidelines. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 1(1), 119–136. doi: 10.5898/JHRI.1.1.Riek
   Google Scholar
• Riley, W. T., Glasgow, R. E., Etheredge, L., & Abernethy, A. P. (2013). Rapid, responsive, relevant (R3) research: A call for a rapid learning health research enterprise. Clinical and Translational Medicine, 2(1), 10. doi: 10.1186/2001-1326-2-10
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rivest, J., Svoboda, E., McCarthy, J., & Moscovitch, M. (2018). A case study of topographical disorientation: behavioural intervention for achieving independent navigation, Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 28(5), 797–817. doi: 10.1080/09602011.2016.1160833
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders, E. B.-N. (2002). From user-centered to participatory design approaches. In J. Frascara (Ed.), Design and the social sciences: Making connections (pp. 1–8). London: Taylor and Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Schatzberg, E. (2006). Technik comes to America: Changing meanings of technology before 1930. Technology and Culture, 47, 486–512. doi: 10.1353/tech.2006.0201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer, M., Jutai, J., Fuhrer, M., Demers, L., & Deruyter, F. (2007). A framework for modelling the selection of assistive technology devices (ATDs). Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 2, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483100600845414
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Scherer, M. J. (2004). Connecting to learn: Educational and assistive technology for people with disabilities. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10629-011
   Google Scholar
• Scherer, M. J. (2011). Assistive technologies and other supports for people with brain impairment. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer, M. J., & Craddock, G. (2002). Matching person & technology (MPT) assessment process. Technology & Disability, 14, 125–131.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer, M. J., Sax, C., Vanbiervliet, A., Cushman, L. A., & Scherer, J. V. (2005). Predictors of assistive technology use: The importance of personal and psychosocial factors. Disability and Rehabilitation, 27(21), 1321–1331. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280500164800
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulz, R., Wahl, H.-W., Matthews, J. T., De Vito Dabbs, A., Beach, S. R., & Czaja, S. J. (2015). Advancing the aging and technology agenda in gerontology. The Gerontologist, 55(5), 724–734. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnu071
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sein, M., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Lindgren, R. (2011). Action design research. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 37–56. doi: 10.2307/23043488
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonsen, J., & Robertson, T. (2012). Routledge international handbook of participatory design. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Sohlberg, M. M., & Mateer, C. A. (1989). Training use of compensatory memory books: A three stage behavioral approach. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 11(6), 871–891. doi: 10.1080/01688638908400941
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spinsante, S., Antonicelli, R., Mazzanti, I., & Gambi, E. (2012). Technological approaches to remote monitoring of elderly people in cardiology: A usability perspective. International Journal of Telemedicine and Applications, 2012, 1–10. doi: 10.1155/2012/104561
   Google Scholar
• Stark, B. C. & Warburton, E. A. (2018). Improved language in chronic aphasia after self-delivered iPad speech therapy, Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 28(5), 818–831. doi: 10.1080/09602011.2016.1146150
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stary, C. (1997). The role of design and evaluation principles for user interfaces for all. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (HCI Int’l “97) (pp. 477–480). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
   Google Scholar
• Ståhlbröst, A., & Holst, M. (2012). The living Lab methodology handbook. Luleå: Plan Sju kommunikation AB.
   Google Scholar
• Svoboda, E., Richards, B., Polsinelli, A., & Guger, S. (2010). A theory-driven training programme in the use of emerging commercial technology: Application to an adolescent with severe memory impairment. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 20(4), 562–586. doi: 10.1080/09602011003669918
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veeckman, C., Schuurman, D., Leminen, S., & Westerlund, M. (2013). Linking living Lab characteristics and their outcomes: Towards a conceptual framework. Technology Innovation Management Review, 3, 6–15.
   Google Scholar
• Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425. doi: 10.2307/30036540
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wherton, J., Sugarhood, P., Procter, R., Hinder, S., & Greenhalgh, T. (2015). Co-production in practice: How people with assisted living needs can help design and evolve technologies and services. Implementation Science, 10(1), 75. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0271-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar