A wearable fabric-based speech-generating device: system design and case demonstration

References

• 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
• Chung YC, Carter EW, Sisco LG. Social interactions of students with disabilities who use augmentative and alternative communication in inclusive classrooms. Am J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2012;117:349–367.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Light J, Smith AK. Home literacy experiences of preschoolers who use AAC systems and of their nondisabled peers. AAC. 1993;9(1):10–25.
   Google Scholar
• Desai T, Chow K, Mumford L, et al. Implementing an iPad-based alternative communication device for a student with cerebral palsy and autism in the classroom via an access technology delivery protocol. Comput Educ. 2014;79:148–158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marculescu D, Marculescu R, Zamora NH, et al. Electronic textiles: a platform for pervasive computing. Proc. IEEE. 2003;91:1995–2018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castano LM, Flatau AB. Smart fabric sensors and e-textile technologies: a review. Smart Mater Struct. 2014;23:053001–053027.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shu L, Tao X, Feng DD. A new approach for readout of resistive sensor arrays for wearable electronic applications. IEEE Sens J. 2014;15:442–452.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho J, Moon J, Sung M, et al. Design and evaluation of textile-based signal transmission lines and keypads for smart wear. In: Human–computer interaction interaction platforms and techniques.Heidelberg, Germany:Springer; 2007. p. 1078–1085.
   Google Scholar
• Gilliland S, Komor N, Starner T, et al. The textile interface swatchbook: Creating graphical user interface-like widgets with conductive embroidery. In: International Symposium on Wearable Computers (ISWC); IEEE; 2010. p. 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Swallow SS, Thompson AP. Sensory fabric for ubiquitous interfaces. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2001;13:147–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. The quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (quest 2.0): an overview and recent progress. Technol Disabil. 2002;14:101–105.
   Google Scholar
• Lamb JM, Kallal MJ. A conceptual framework for apparel design. Cloth Text Res J. 1992;10:42–47.
   Google Scholar
• Post ER, Orth M, Russo PR, et al. E-broidery: design and fabrication of textile-based computing. IBM Syst J. 2000;39:840–860.
   Google Scholar
• Komor N, Gilliland S, Clawson J, et al. Is it gropable?–assessing the impact of mobility on textile interfaces. In: Wearable Computers, 2009. ISWC’09. International Symposium on; IEEE; 2009. p. 71–74.
   Google Scholar
• Parant A, Schiano-Lomoriello S, Marchan F. How would i live with a disability? Expectations of bio-psychosocial consequences and assistive technology use. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017;12:681–685.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shinohara K, Wobbrock JO. In the shadow of misperception: assistive technology use and social interactions. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; ACM; 2011. p. 705–714.
   Google Scholar
• Sullivan HT, Sahasrabudhe S. Envisioning inclusive futures: technology-based assistive sensory and action substitution. Futures. 2017;87:140–148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dada S, Horn T, Samuels A, et al. Childrens attitudes toward interaction with an unfamiliar peer with complex communication needs: comparing high- and low-technology devices. Augment Altern Commun. 2016;32:305–311.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Keefe B, Brown L, Schuller R. Identification and rankings of communication aid features by five groups. Augment Altern Commun. 1998;14:37–50.
   Google Scholar
• Allen J. Designing desirability in an augmentative and alternative communication device. Univ Access Inf Soc. 2005;4:135–145.
   Google Scholar
• Liskey-Fitzwater N, Moore CL, Gurel LM. Clothing importance and self-perception of female adolescents with and without scoliosis. Cloth Text Res J. 1993;11:16–22.
   Google Scholar
• Pullin G. Design meets disability. Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England: MIT press; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Eckman M, Damhorst ML, Kadolph SJ. Toward a model of the in-store purchase decision process: consumer use of criteria for evaluating women’s apparel. Cloth Text Res J. 1990;8:13–22.
   Google Scholar
• Chattaraman V, Rudd NA. Preferences for aesthetic attributes in clothing as a function of body image, body cathexis and body size. Cloth Text Res J. 2006;24:46–61.
   Google Scholar
• Biddiss E, Beaton D, Chau T. Consumer design priorities for upper limb prosthetics. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007;2:346–357.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Siebers T. Disability aesthetics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Eriksson L, Welander J, Granlund M. Participation in everyday school activities for children with and without disabilities. J Dev Phys Disabil. 2007;19:485–502.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raghavendra P, Olsson C, Sampson J, et al. School participation and social networks of children with complex communication needs, physical disabilities, and typically developing peers. Augment Altern Commun. 2012;28:33–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heron KE, Smyth JM. Ecological momentary interventions: incorporating mobile technology into psychosocial and health behaviour treatments. Br J Health Psychol. 2010;15:1–39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calculator S. Fostering early language acquisition and AAC use: exploring reciprocal influences between children and their environments. Augment Altern Commun. 1997;13:149–157.
   Google Scholar
• Snell ME, Brady N, McLean L, et al. Twenty years of communication intervention research with individuals who have severe intellectual and developmental disabilities. Am J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2010;115:364–380.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ganz JB. AAC interventions for individuals with autism spectrum disorders: State of the science and future research directions. Augment Altern Commun. 2015;31:203–214.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Light J, McNaughton D. Putting people first: re-thinking the role of technology in augmentative and alternative communication intervention. Augment Altern Commun. 2013;29:299–309.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke M, Kirton A. Patterns of interaction between children with physical disabilities using augmentative and alternative communication systems and their peers. Child Lang Teach Ther. 2003;19:135–151.
   Google Scholar
• Finke EH, Quinn E. Perceptions of communication style and influences on intervention practices for young children with aac needs. Augment Altern Commun. 2012;28:117–126.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Sax C, Vanbiervliet A, et al. Predictors of assistive technology use: the importance of personal and psychosocial factors. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27:1321–1331.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang PC, Yeh CH. Agreement between child self-report and parent proxy-report to evaluate quality of life in children with cancer. Psychooncology. 2005;14:125–134.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James A. Giving voice to children’s voices: practices and problems, pitfalls and potentials. ‎Am. Anthropol. 2007;109:261–272.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Light JC, Drager KD, Nemser JG. Enhancing the appeal of AAC technologies for young children: lessons from the toy manufacturers. Augment Altern Commun. 2004;20:137–149.
   Google Scholar
• Light J, Page R, Curran J, et al. Children’s ideas for the design of AAC assistive technologies for young children with complex communication needs. Augment Altern Commun. 2007;23:274–287.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar