» Articles » PMID: 34388175

Usability, Occupational Performance and Satisfaction Evaluation of a Smart Environment Controlled by Infrared Oculography by People with Severe Motor Disabilities

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2021 Aug 13
PMID 34388175
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

A smart environment is an assistive technology space that can enable people with motor disabilities to control their equipment (TV, radio, fan, etc.) through a human-machine interface activated by different inputs. However, assistive technology resources are not always considered useful, reaching quite high abandonment rate. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a smart environment controlled through infrared oculography by people with severe motor disabilities. The study sample was composed of six individuals with motor disabilities. Initially, sociodemographic data forms, the Functional Independence Measure (FIMTM), and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) were applied. The participants used the system in their domestic environment for a week. Afterwards, they were reevaluated with regards to occupational performance (COPM), satisfaction with the use of the assistive technology resource (QUEST 2.0), psychosocial impact (PIADS) and usability of the system (SUS), as well as through semi-structured interviews for suggestions or complaints. The most common demand from the participants of this research was 'control of the TV'. Two participants did not use the system. All participants who used the system (four) presented positive results in all assessment protocols, evidencing greater independence in the control of the smart environment equipment. In addition, they evaluated the system as useful and with good usability. Non-acceptance of disability and lack of social support may have influenced the results.

Citing Articles

Available Assistive Technology Outcome Measures: Systematic Review.

Borgnis F, Desideri L, Converti R, Salatino C JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2023; 10:e51124.

PMID: 37782310 PMC: 10687703. DOI: 10.2196/51124.

References
1.
Squires L, Williams N, Morrison V . Matching and accepting assistive technology in multiple sclerosis: A focus group study with people with multiple sclerosis, carers and occupational therapists. J Health Psychol. 2016; 24(4):480-494. DOI: 10.1177/1359105316677293. View

2.
Peterson D, Murray G . Ethics and assistive technology service provision. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2009; 1(1-2):59-67. DOI: 10.1080/09638280500167241. View

3.
van Es M, Hardiman O, Chio A, Al-Chalabi A, Pasterkamp R, Veldink J . Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Lancet. 2017; 390(10107):2084-2098. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31287-4. View

4.
Verza R, Carvalho M, Battaglia M, Messmer Uccelli M . An interdisciplinary approach to evaluating the need for assistive technology reduces equipment abandonment. Mult Scler. 2006; 12(1):88-93. DOI: 10.1191/1352458506ms1233oa. View

5.
Hooper B, Verdonck M, Amsters D, Myburg M, Allan E . Smart-device environmental control systems: experiences of people with cervical spinal cord injuries. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017; 13(8):724-730. DOI: 10.1080/17483107.2017.1369591. View