View of Each General at Type Is Discussed
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Exploring Empirical Guidelines for Selecting Computer Assistive Technology for People with Disabilities A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science By Jennifer Border B.S., Wright State University, 2008 2011 Wright State University WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES DATE MARCH 7, 2011 I HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE THESIS PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION BY Jennifer Border ENTITLED Exploring Empirical Guidelines for Selecting Computer Assistive Technology for People with Disabilities BE ACCEPTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Master of Science. Wayne Shebilske, Ph.D. Thesis Director Scott Watamaniuk, Ph.D. Graduate Program Director Committee on Final Examination John Flach, Ph.D. Chair, Department of Psychology Wayne Shebilske, Ph.D. John Flach, Ph.D. Clark Shingledecker, Ph.D. Andrew T. Hsu, Ph.D. Dean, School of Graduate Studies ii ABSTRACT Border, Jennifer. M.S., Department of Psychology, Wright State University, 2011. Exploring Empirical Guidelines for Selecting Computer Assistive Technology for People with Disabilities. Assistive technologies (AT) enable people with disabilities (PWD) who are unable to use traditional computer workstations to independently access computers. The selection process of AT is complex due to the numerous AT available and the specific needs of the user. This study examined the process to select new AT for a PWD with Arthrogryposis. In part 1, a series of two different typing sessions (typing test & journal response) were completed by three different AT (voice recognition (VRS), head tracker (HT), & brain computer interface (BCI)). In part 2 only journaling sessions using VRS & the user’s traditional typing method (touch screen) were completed. Quantitative & qualitative data was analyzed for both parts. For the current PWD, a combination of HT and VRS AT was selected as AT choices. Her results provided a discovery of important AT features and implications for improving AT selection for the general population. Future research is needed to explore these implications. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction. 1 Understanding the Goals… . 2 User Selection . 4 Problem Space Dimensions. 5 The Cause of the Problem. 7 Physical Ability Level…. 9 Previous AT Workstations . 10 Current and Future Work Demands that use Computer Technology. 14 Personal Attitudes and Preferences. 15 Solution Space. 16 Mode of User Input. 19 Level of Technology Used. 19 Text Input Methodology. 20 Typing Productivity. 20 Cursor Control Methodology. 21 Keyboard Type. 21 Key Selection. 22 Keyboard Character Layout. 23 Qwerty. 23 Dvorak. 24 Fitaly. 24 iv Physical Hardware Keyboard. 25 Virtual Keyboard Platforms. 26 WiViK. 26 Hot Virtual Keyboard. 27 Eye Gaze Interaction Keyboard Platforms. 27 GazeTalk. 27 Dasher. 28 StarGazer. 28 Predictive Text. 28 T9. 29 Character. 29 Word Bank. 29 Detailed Description of Six General AT. 29 Eye Gaze Interaction. 29 Usability and Productivity Of Eye Gaze. 30 Head Tracking. 31 Usability and Productivity of Head Tracking. 31 Brain Computer Interface (BCI). 33 Usability and Productivity of BCIs. 34 Voice Recognition Software (VRS). 36 Usability and Productivity of VRS. 37 Stylus Mouth Stick/Head Stick Typing. 38 Usability and Productivity of One Digit Typing Performance. 38 v General Cursor Manipulation Using External Devices. 39 Usability and Productivity Using an External Device. 39 Assistive Technologies Used in Current Study. 40 Voice Recognition Software. 41 Head Tracking. .. 42 Brain Computer Interface. 43 II. Methods. 44 Participant. 44 Experimental Design. 44 III. Procedure. 46 IV. Results. 49 Quantitative Analysis. 49 Experimental Part 1. 49 Experimental Part 2. 52 Qualitative Analysis. 53 Independence Frustration. 54 Low Output and Cognitive Speed Ratio Frustration. 56 Reliability Frustration. 56 Personalization Frustration. ..