Evaluation of a non-invasive vocal cord vibration switch as an alternative access pathway for an individual with hypotonic cerebral palsy – a case study

References

• Statistics Canada – Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division. Participation and activity limitation survey 2006: Analytical report. Ottawa, ON: Ministry of Industry; Dec 2007. 89-628-XIE. 38. Available from: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/bsolc/olc-cel/olc-cel?catno=89-628-X&lang=eng
   Google Scholar
• National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities. Internet. Electronic Citation. http://www.nichcy.org/Disabilities/Specific/Pages/SpeechLanguageImpairments.aspx. Last accessed April 2009.Washington, DC: NICHCY.
   Google Scholar
• Lancioni GE, Singh NN, O'Reilly MF, Oliva D. Some recent research efforts on microswitches for persons with multiple disabilities. J Child Family Studies 2003;12:251–256.
   Google Scholar
• DiCarlo CF, Banajee M. Using voice output devices to increase initiations of young children with disabilities. J Early Interv 2000;23:191–199.
   Google Scholar
• Romski MA, Sevcik R, Adamson LB, Cheslock M. Toddlers, parent-implemented augmented language interventions, and communication development. Paper presented at the biennial conference of the International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication; Dusseldorf, Germany; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Light J, Drager K. AAC technologies for young children with complex communication needs: State of the science and future research directions. Augment Altern Commun 2007;23:204–216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sevcik RA, Romski MA, Adamson LB. Measuring AAC interventions for individuals with severe developmental disabilities. Augment Altern Commun 1999;15:38–44.
   Google Scholar
• Light J, Drager K. Improving the design of augmentative and alternative communication technologies for young children. Assist Technol 2002;14:17–32.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Blackstone S, Williams M, Wilkins D. Key principles underlying research and practice in AAC. Augment Altern Commun 2007;23:191–203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higginbotham JD, Shane H, Russell S, Caves K. Access to AAC: Present, past, and future. Augment Altern Commun 2007;23:243–257.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennington L, Marshall J, Goldbart J. Describing participants in AAC research and their communicative environments: Guidelines for research and practice. Disabil Rehabil 2007;29:521–535.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lancioni GE, Singh NN, O'Reilly MF, Sigafoos J, Green V, Chiapparino C, Stasolla F, Oliva D. A voice-detecting sensor and a scanning keyboard emulator to support word writing by two boys with extensive motor disabilities. Res Develop Disabil 2009;30:203–209.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lancioni GE, Lems S. Using a microswitch for vocalization responses with persons with multiple disabilities. Rehabil Eng 2001;23:745–748.
   Google Scholar
• Chang A, Karnell MP. Perceived phonatory effort and phonation threshold pressure across a prolonged voice loading task: A study of vocal fatigue. J Voice 2004;18:454–466.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lund SK, Light J. Long-term outcomes for individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication: Part III – contributing factors. Augment Altern Commun 2007;23:323–325.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith MM, Connolly I. Roles of aided communication: Perspectives of adults who use AAC. Disabil Rehabil: Assist Technol 2008;3:260–273.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Long T, Huang L, Woodbridge M, Woolverton M, Minkel J. Integrating assistive technology into an outcome-driven model of service delivery. Infants Young Children 2003;16:272–283.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lund SK, Light J. Long-term outcomes for individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication: Part I – what is a “good” outcome. Augment Altern Commun 2006;22:284–299.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Words+. Internet. Electronic Citation. http://www.words-plus.com/website/products/input/istswtch.htm. Last accessed March 2009. Lancaster, CA: Simulations Plus.
   Google Scholar
• WiViK. Internet. Electronic Citation. http://www.wivik.com/. Last accessed April 2009. Toronto, ON: Bloorview Kids Rehab.
   Google Scholar
• Harada S, Wobbrock J, Landay J, Malkin J, Bilmes J. Longitudinal study of people learning to use continuous voice-based cursor control. In: Proceeding of the Conference in Human Factors in Computing Systems; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Lancioni G, Singh N, O'Reilly M, Oliva D, Groeneweg J. Enabling a girl with multiple disabilities to control her favourite stimuli through vocalization and a dual-microphone microswitch. J Vis Impair Blind 2005;99:133–140.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson KG. The Columbia guide to standard American English. New York: Columbia University Press; 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Baken RJ. Clinical measurement of speech and voice. London: Taylor and Francis Ltd; 1987.
   Google Scholar
• Talkin D. A robust algorithm for pitch tracking (RAPT). In: Kleijn WB, Paliwal KK, editors. Speech coding and synthesis. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1995. pp 495–518.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ. Outcomes of assistive technology use on quality of life. Disabil Rehabil 1996;18:439–448.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Sax C, Vanbiervliet A, Cushman LA, Scherer JV. Predictors of assistive technology use: The importance of personal and psychosocial factors. Disabil Rehabil 2005;27:1321–1331.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ. The change in emphasis from people to person: Introduction to the special issue on assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil 2002;24:1–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AutoHotkey. Internet. 2009. Electronic Citation. http://www.autohotkey.com/. Last accessed April 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Borg G. Borg's Perceived Exertion and Pain Scales. Stockholm: Human Kinetics; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology QUEST 2.0 – An outcome measure for assistive technology devices. Webster (NY): Institute for Matching Person and Technology, 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. The Quebec User satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST 2.0): An overview and recent progress. Technol Disabil 2002;14:101–105.
   Google Scholar
• Felce D, Perry J. Quality of life: Its definition and measurement. Res Develop Disabil 1995;16:51–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yorkston KM, Beukelman DR, Strand EA, Bell KR. Laryngeal function. In: Yorkston KM, Beukelman DR, Strand EA, Bell KR. Management of motor speech disorders in children and adults. 2nd ed. Texas: Pro-ed; 1999. pp 327–358.
   Google Scholar