Assisting people with multiple disabilities and minimal motor behavior to improve computer Drag-and-Drop efficiency through a mouse wheel

2011 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 2867-2874 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ching-Hsiang Shih
Keyword(s):  
Motor Behavior ◽  
Multiple Disabilities ◽  
Drag And Drop

Enabling a Man with Multiple Disabilities and Limited Motor Behavior to Perform a Functional Task with Help of Microswitch Technology

2006 ◽  
Vol 103 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Antonucci ◽  
G. E. Lancioni ◽  
M. F. O'Reilly ◽  
N. N. Singh ◽  
J. Sigafoos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Motor Behavior ◽  
Multiple Disabilities ◽  
Microswitch Technology ◽  
Functional Task

Children with multiple disabilities and minimal motor behavior using chin movements to operate microswitches to obtain environmental stimulation

2006 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 290-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giulio E. Lancioni ◽  
Mark F. O’Reilly ◽  
Nirbhay N. Singh ◽  
Jeff Sigafoos ◽  
Alessia Tota ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Motor Behavior ◽  
Multiple Disabilities ◽  
Environmental Stimulation

Small Hand-Closure Movements Used as a Response through Microswitch Technology by Persons with Multiple Disabilities and Minimal Motor Behavior

2007 ◽  
Vol 104 (3) ◽  
pp. 1027-1034 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. E. Lancioni ◽  
M. F. O'Reilly ◽  
N. N. Singh ◽  
J. Sigafoos ◽  
R. Didden ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Control System ◽  
Motor Behavior ◽  
Multiple Disabilities ◽  
Electronic Control ◽  
Sensitive Layer ◽  
Electronic Control System ◽  
Small Hand ◽  
Microswitch Technology ◽  
The One ◽  
Palm Of The Hand

This study assessed small hand-closure movements as a potential response for microswitch activation with two participants with profound multiple disabilities of 5.2 and 20.6 yr. of age. The microswitch consisted of a two-membrane thin pad fixed to the palm of the hand and a control system. The outer membrane (the one facing the fingers) was a touch-sensitive layer; the inner membrane was activated if the participant applied a pressure of over 20 gm. The activation of either membrane triggered an electronic control system, which in turn activated one or more preferred stimuli for 6 sec. except in baseline phases. Each participant received an ABAB sequence, in which A represented baseline and B intervention phases, and a 1-mo. postintervention check. Analysis showed both participants increased their responding during the intervention phases and maintained that responding at the postintervention check. Implications of the findings are discussed.

Persons with Multiple Disabilities and Minimal Motor Behavior Using Small Forehead Movements and New Microswitch Technology to Control Environmental Stimuli

2007 ◽  
Vol 104 (3) ◽  
pp. 870-878 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giulio E. Lancioni ◽  
Mark F. O'Reilly ◽  
Nirbhay N. Singh ◽  
Jeff Sigafoos ◽  
Robert Didden ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Control System ◽  
Motor Behavior ◽  
Multiple Disabilities ◽  
Successful Outcome ◽  
Electronic Control ◽  
Environmental Stimuli ◽  
Optic Sensor ◽  
Electronic Control System ◽  
Microswitch Technology ◽  
Profound Multiple Disabilities

Persons with multiple disabilities and minimal motor behavior may be unable to use available microswitch technology to control environmental stimuli. For these persons, one may need to rely on small motor expressions (as responses) and new, matching microswitch technology to ensure a successful outcome. In the present study, a small movement of the forehead skin was selected as the response for two participants (ages 6.5 and 14.2 years) with profound multiple disabilities. The microswitch technology included (a) an optic sensor, i.e., barcode reader, (b) a small tag with horizontal bars attached to the participants' forehead, and (c) an electronic control system which activated stimuli in relation to response occurrence. Movement of the forehead skin shifted up or down the tag with bars and this shifting, if greater than a preset limit and therefore recorded as a response, led to the activation of the control system. Each participant received an ABAB sequence, in which A represented baseline and B intervention phases, and a 6-wk. postintervention check. Analysis showed both participants increased their responding during the intervention phases and maintained that responding at the postintervention check. Implications of the findings were discussed.

Comparative Effects of High-Tech Visual Scene Displays and Low-Tech Isolated Picture Symbols on Engagement From Students With Multiple Disabilities

2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 693-702 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Holyfield ◽  
Sydney Brooks ◽  
Allison Schluterman
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
Augmentative And Alternative Communication ◽  
Visual Analysis ◽  
Multiple Disabilities ◽  
Visual Scene ◽  
Future Research ◽  
High Tech ◽  
Single Subject ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Difference

Purpose Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) is an intervention approach that can promote communication and language in children with multiple disabilities who are beginning communicators. While a wide range of AAC technologies are available, little is known about the comparative effects of specific technology options. Given that engagement can be low for beginning communicators with multiple disabilities, the current study provides initial information about the comparative effects of 2 AAC technology options—high-tech visual scene displays (VSDs) and low-tech isolated picture symbols—on engagement. Method Three elementary-age beginning communicators with multiple disabilities participated. The study used a single-subject, alternating treatment design with each technology serving as a condition. Participants interacted with their school speech-language pathologists using each of the 2 technologies across 5 sessions in a block randomized order. Results According to visual analysis and nonoverlap of all pairs calculations, all 3 participants demonstrated more engagement with the high-tech VSDs than the low-tech isolated picture symbols as measured by their seconds of gaze toward each technology option. Despite the difference in engagement observed, there was no clear difference across the 2 conditions in engagement toward the communication partner or use of the AAC. Conclusions Clinicians can consider measuring engagement when evaluating AAC technology options for children with multiple disabilities and should consider evaluating high-tech VSDs as 1 technology option for them. Future research must explore the extent to which differences in engagement to particular AAC technologies result in differences in communication and language learning over time as might be expected.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document