Effect of diagnosis, body site and experience on text entry rate of individuals with physical disabilities: a systematic review

References

• Cook A, Polgar JM. Assistive technologies: principles and practice. 4th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Koester HH, Arthanat S. Text entry rate of access interfaces used by people with physical disabilities: a systematic review. Assist Technol. 2017; Epub 2017 Apr 3. https://doi.org/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10400435.2017.1291544.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Goodman N, Jette A, Houlihan B, et al. Computer and Internet use by persons after traumatic spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:1492–1498.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Folan A, Barclay L, Cooper C, et al. Exploring the experience of clients with tetraplegia utilizing assistive technology for computer access. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007;10:46–52.
   Google Scholar
• Davies T, Chau T, Fehlings D, et al. Youth with cerebral palsy with differing upper limb abilities: how do they access computers? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91:1952–1956.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LoPresti E, Brienza D, Angelo J, et al. Neck range of motion and use of computer head controls. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2003;40:199–211.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenko M, Matjacic Z, Vidmar G, et al. A method for selection of appropriate assistive technology for computer access. Int J Rehabil Res. 2010;33:298–305.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koester HH. Gathering and applying evidence in computer access services. Proceedings of AAATE Conference 2009. Florence, Italy: RESNA Press; 2009. p. 234–241.
   Google Scholar
• Hill K. A case study model for augmentative and alternative communication outcomes. Assist Technol Outcomes Benefits 2006;3:53–66.
   Google Scholar
• Hoppestad BS. Essential elements for assessment of persons with severe neurological impairments for computer access utilizing assistive technology devices: a Delphi study. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2006;1:3–16.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hoppestad BS. Current perspective regarding adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities accessing computer technology. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2013;8:190–194.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pouplin S, Roche N, Vaugier I, et al. Influence of the number of predicted words on text input speed in participants with cervical spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97:259–265.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pouplin S, Roche N, Vaugier I, et al. Text input speed in persons with cervical spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2016; 54:158–162.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koester HH, Mankowski J. Automatic adjustment of keyboard settings can enhance typing. Assist Technol. 2015;27:136–146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roark B, Fried-Oken M, Gibbons C. Huffman and linear scanning methods with statistical language models. Augment Altern Commun. 2015;31:37–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pouplin S, Robertson J, Antoine J-Y, et al. Effect of dynamic keyboard and word-prediction systems on text input speed in persons with functional tetraplegia. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51:467–479.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koester HH, Simpson RC. Method for enhancing text entry rate with single-switch scanning. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51:995–1012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lancioni GE, Singh NN, O’Reilly MF, et al. A man with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis uses a mouth pressure microswitch to operate a text messaging system with a word prediction function. Dev Neurorehabil. 2013;:315–320.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mankowski R, Simpson RC, Koester HH. Validating a model of row-column scanning. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2013;18:321–329.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pires G, Nunes U, Castelo-Branco M. Comparison of a row-column speller vs. a novel lateral single-character speller: assessment of BCI for severe motor disabled patients. Clin Neurophysiol. 2012;123:1168–1181.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nguyen T, Le D-A, Dang T-V, et al. The UITK: towards the designing a ubiquitous soft keyboard for disabled people. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Information Integration and Web-based Applications & Services (IIWAS ’12) [Internet]. New York, NY: ACM; 2012 [cited 2015 Dec 8]. p. 399–402. Available from: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2428736.2428809.
   Google Scholar
• Lancioni GE, Singh NN, O’Reilly MF, et al. Microswitch and keyboard-emulator technology to facilitate the writing performance of persons with extensive motor disabilities. Res Dev Disabil. 2011;32:576–582.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiapparino C, Stasolla F, Pace C, de, et al. A touch pad and a scanning keyboard emulator to facilitate writing by a woman with extensive motor disability. Life Span Disabil. 2011;14:45–54.
   Google Scholar
• Lancioni G, O’Reilly M, Singh N, et al. Use of microswitch technology and a keyboard emulator to support literacy performance of persons with extensive neuro-motor disabilities. Dev Neurorehabil. 2010;13:248–257.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan J, Falk TH, Teachman G, et al. Evaluation of a non-invasive vocal cord vibration switch as an alternative access pathway for an individual with hypotonic cerebral palsy – a case study. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2010;5:69–78.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Blain S, McKeever P, Chau T. Bedside computer access for an individual with severe and multiple disabilities: a case study. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2010;5:359–369.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smith JM, Simpson RC. Analyzing performance with computer access technology using unconstrained text entry protocol. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2009;46:1059–1068.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lancioni GE, Singh NN, O’Reilly MF, et al. A voice-detecting sensor and a scanning keyboard emulator to support word writing by two boys with extensive motor disabilities. Res Dev Disabil. 2009;30:203–209.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tam C, Wells D. Evaluating the benefits of displaying word prediction lists on a personal digital assistant at the keyboard level. Assist Technol. 2009;21:105–114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mezei P. Effects of word prediction on writing fluency for students with physical disabilities. Doctoral dissertation. Georgia State University, Atlanta GA. 2009. Available from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ986388.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Wobbrock JO, Myers BA. Enabling devices, empowering people: the design and evaluation of Trackball EdgeWrite. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2008;13:35–56.
   Google Scholar
• Garrett JT. Using speech recognition software to increase writing fluency for individuals with physical disabilities. Ann Arbor (MI): ProQuest Information & Learning; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Koester HH, Lopresti E, Simpson RC. Toward automatic adjustment of keyboard settings for people with physical impairments. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007;12:261–274.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Simpson R, Koester H, LoPresti E. Selecting an appropriate scan rate: the “65 rule”. Assist Technol. 2007;19:51–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alcantud F, Dolz I, Gaya C, et al. The voice recognition system as a way of accessing the computer for people with physical standards as usual. Technol Disabil. 2006;18:89–97.
   Google Scholar
• Wobbrock JO, Myers BA. From letters to words: efficient stroke-based word completion for trackball text entry. Proceedings of the 8th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Assets ’06) [Internet]; 2006 Oct 23–25; Portland, OR. New York, NY: ACM; 2006 p. 2–9. Available from: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1168987.1168990.
   Google Scholar
• Mezei P. Evaluating word prediction software for students with physical disabilities. Phys Disabil Educ Related Serv. 2005;23:93–113.
   Google Scholar
• Koester HH. Usage, performance, and satisfaction outcomes for experienced users of automatic speech recognition. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2004;41:739–754.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wobbrock JO, Myers BA, Aung HH, et al. Text Entry from Power Wheelchairs: Edgewrite for Joysticks and Touchpads. Proceedings of the 6th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Assets ’04) [Internet]; 2004 Oct 18–20; Atlanta, Georgia. New York, NY: ACM; 2004. p. 110–117. Available from: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1028630.1028650.
   Google Scholar
• Tumlin J, Heller KW. Using word prediction software to increase typing fluency with students with physical disabilities. J Spec Educ Technol. 2004;19:5–14.
   Google Scholar
• Tam C, Reid D, Naumann S, et al. Effects of word prediction and location of word prediction list on text entry with children with spina bifida and hydrocephalus. Augment Altern Commun. 2002;18:147–162.
   Google Scholar
• Sears A, Karat C-M, Oseitutu K, et al. Productivity, satisfaction, and interaction strategies of individuals with spinal cord injuries and traditional users interacting with speech recognition software. Univ Access Information Soc. 2001;1:4–15.
   Google Scholar
• Hsieh M, Luo C. Morse code typing training of an adolescent with cerebral palsy using microcomputer technology: case study.Augment Altern Commun. 1999;15:216–221.
   Google Scholar
• DeVries RC, Deitz J, Anson D. A comparison of two computer access systems for functional text entry. Am J Occup Ther. 1998;52:656–665.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manaris B, Harkreader A. SUITEKeys: a speech understanding interface for the motor-control challenged. Proceedings of the Third International ACM Conference on Assistive Technologies (Assets ’98); 1998 Apr 15–17; Marina del Rey, California, USA; New York, NY, USA: ACM; 1998. p. 108–115. Available from: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/274497.274517.
   Google Scholar
• Koester HH, Levine SP. Effect of a word prediction feature on user performance. Augment Altern Commun. 1996;12:155–168.
   Google Scholar
• Lau C, O’Leary S. Comparison of computer interface devices for persons with severe physical disabilities. Am J Occup Ther. 1993;47:1022–1030.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koester HH. Quantitative modeling in augmentative communication – a case study. In: RESNA 1990 Annual Conference [Internet]. 1990. Available from: http://kpronline.com/files/Horstmann-Koester-RESNA1990-modeling-of-an-AAC-system-case-study.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Smith RO, Christiaansen R, Borden B, et al. Effectiveness of a writing system using a computerized long-range optical pointer and 10-branch abbreviation expansion. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1989;26:51–62.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Levine S, Gauger J, Bowers L, et al. A comparison of Mouthstick and Morse code text inputs. Augment Altern Commun. 1986;2:51–55.
   Google Scholar
• Koester H, Arthanat S. Public TER data: for individual subjects and groups. Public dataset. Available from: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1U4gb_6Lckt-P2uUeQrkuRFlWJ5f39wbNXqZG-WmyMXo/edit#gid=1362503153.
   Google Scholar
• MacKenzie IS, Soukoreff RW. Text entry for mobile computing: models and methods, theory and practice. Hum Comp Interact. 2002;17:147–198.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang A. Utility to combine statistics from multiple groups into one group. StatsToDo; 2016. Available from: http://www.statstodo.com/ComMeans_Pgm.php.
   Google Scholar
• Koester HH, Arthanat S. AT-Node for Access website. http://www.kpronline.com/atnode.
   Google Scholar