Blind spot sensor systems for power wheelchairs: obstacle detection accuracy, cognitive task load, and perceived usefulness among older adults

References

• Logan SW, Bogart KR, Ross SM, et al. Mobility is a fundamental human right: factors predicting attitudes toward self-directed mobility. Disabil Health J. 2018;11(4):562–567.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mollenkopf H, Marcellini F, Ruoppila I, et al. Outdoor mobility and social relationships of elderly people. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 1997;24(3):295–310.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith EM, Giesbrecht EM, Mortenson WB, et al. Prevalence of wheelchair and scooter use among community-Dwelling Canadians. Phys Ther. 2016;96(8):1135–1142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auger C, Demers L, Gélinas I, et al. Powered mobility for middle-aged and older adults: systematic review of outcomes and appraisal of published evidence. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;87(8):666–680.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frank A, Neophytou C, Frank J, et al. Electric-powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs (EPIOCs): users’ views of influence on family, friends and carers. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2010;5(5):327–338.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brandt Å, Iwarsson S, Ståhle A. Older people’s use of powered wheelchairs for activity and participation. J Rehabil Med. 2004;36(2):70–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pettersson I, Törnquist K, Ahlström G. The effect of an outdoor powered wheelchair on activity and participation in users with stroke. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2006;1(4):235–243.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Salminen A, Brandt A, Samuelsson K, et al. Mobility devices to promote activity and participation: a systematic review. J Rehabil Med. 2009;41(9):697–706.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fomiatti R, Richmond J, Moir L, et al. A systematic review of the impact of powered mobility devices on older adults’ activity engagement. Phys Occup Ther Geriatr. 2013;31(4):297–309.
   Google Scholar
• Löfqvist C, Pettersson C, Iwarsson S, et al. Mobility and mobility-related participation outcomes of powered wheelchair and scooter interventions after 4-months and 1-year use. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2012;7(3):211–218.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sund T, Iwarsson S, Anttila H, et al. Effectiveness of powered mobility devices in enabling community mobility-related participation: a prospective study among people with mobility restrictions. Pm&R. 2015;7(8):859–870.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shields M. Use of wheelchairs and other mobility support devices. Health Rep. 2004;15(3):37–41.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kairy D, Rushton P, Archambault P, et al. Exploring powered wheelchair users and their caregivers’ perspectives on potential intelligent power wheelchair use: a qualitative study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11(2):2244–2261.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rushton PW, Kairy D, Archambault P, et al. The potential impact of intelligent power wheelchair use on social participation: perspectives of users, caregivers and clinicians. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2015;10(3):191–197.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rushton PW, Mortenson BW, Viswanathan P, et al. Intelligent Intelligent power wheelchair use in long-term care: potential users’ experiences and perceptions. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017;12(7):740–746.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards K, Mccluskey A. A survey of adult power wheelchair and scooter users. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2010;5(6):411–419.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Viswanathan P, Zambalde EP, Foley G, et al. Intelligent wheelchair control strategies for older adults with cognitive impairment: user attitudes, needs, and preferences. Auton Robot. 2017;41(3):539–554.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson RC. Smart wheelchairs: a literature review. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005;42(4):423–436.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mortenson WB, Clarke LH, Best K. Prescribers’ experiences with powered mobility prescription among older adults. Am J Occup Ther. 2013;67(1):100–107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, et al. The montreal cognitive assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment: MOCA: a brief screening tool for MCI. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(4):695–699.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hart SG. Nasa-task load index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet. 2006;50(9):904–908.
   Google Scholar
• Hart SG, Staveland LE. Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Adv Psychol. 52:139–183.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis JR, Utesch BS, Maher DE. Investigating the correspondence between UMUX-LITE and SUS scores. In: Marcus A, editor. Design, user experience, and usability: design discourse., vol. 9186, Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2015. p. 204–211.
   Google Scholar
• Carter SM, Little M. Justifying knowledge, justifying method, taking action: epistemologies, methodologies, and methods in qualitative research. Qual Health Res. 2007;17(10):1316–1328.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larivière N, Corbière M, editors. Méthodes qualitatives, quantitatives et mixtes: dans la recherche en sciences humaines, sociales et de la santé. Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Cronin-Davis J, Butler A, Mayers CA. Occupational therapy and interpretative phenomenological analysis: Comparable research companions? Br J Occup Ther. 2009;72(8):332–338.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang RH, Mihailidis A, Dutta T, et al. Usability testing of multimodal feedback interface and simulated collision-avoidance power wheelchair for long-term-care home residents with cognitive impairments. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(7):801–822.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Heerink M, Kröse B, Evers V, et al. Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: the almere model. Int J of Soc Robotics. 2010;2(4):361–375.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smarr C-A, Mitzner TL, Beer JM, et al. Domestic robots for older adults: attitudes, preferences, and potential. Int J Soc Robot. 2014;6(2):229–247.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kearney E, Shellikeri S, Martino R, et al. Augmented visual feedback-aided interventions for motor rehabilitation in Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41(9):995–1011.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics, World Health Organization, United States, Agency for International Development. Guide pour les services de fauteuils roulants manuels dans les régions à faibles revenus. Genève: Organisation mondiale de la Santé; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Wu Y-H, Ware C, Damnée S, et al. Bridging the digital divide in older adults: a study from an initiative to inform older adults about new technologies. Clin Interv Aging. 2015; 10:193–200.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee C, Coughlin JF. Perspective: older adults’ adoption of technology: an integrated approach to identifying determinants and barriers: Older adults’ adoption of technology. J Prod Innov Manag. 2015;32(5):747–759.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett B. Technology, ageing and human rights: challenges for an ageing world. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2019;66:101449.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson G, Dickinson C, Brittain K, et al. Personalisation, customisation and bricolage: how people with dementia and their families make assistive technology work for them. Ageing and Society. 2019;39(11):2502–2519.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar