Supporting effective alternative access for individuals with physical disabilities: state of the science, emerging technologies, and future research directions.

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q1 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
Heidi Koester, Susan Koch Fager, Jessica Gormley, Erik Jakobs, Kelli Johnsen, Jon Brumberg
{"title":"Supporting effective alternative access for individuals with physical disabilities: state of the science, emerging technologies, and future research directions.","authors":"Heidi Koester, Susan Koch Fager, Jessica Gormley, Erik Jakobs, Kelli Johnsen, Jon Brumberg","doi":"10.1080/07434618.2025.2499676","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Alternative access methods accommodate an individual's specific physical disability, by adjusting the typical keyboard/mouse/touchscreen interface or using an alternative interface such as head controls, eye trackers, or switches. Ideally, they allow for efficient and comfortable use of any computing device, such as laptops, tablets, and smartphones. This paper reviews the literature to address two main questions: how well do existing access methods meet users' needs? And what is the best way to choose the \"right\" access method(s) for a given individual? We report on typing speeds for various access methods across 57 studies, as well as experimental multimodal access methods across 34 papers. Results support the intuitive understanding that the access method affects the end user's experience and productivity. We also reviewed 33 papers and resources related to alternative access assessment and service provision. Existing evidence remains emerging and suggests that use of a systematic, user-centered approach to alternative access assessment may reap significant benefits, including better team performance and improved user satisfaction. Yet although many alternative access assessment resources are available, providers may not always use them. While today's alternative access methods can be an impactful means of enabling participation for people with physical disabilities, there is room for improvement, both in the access methods themselves, as well as their associated service provision and support. To identify and implement these improvements, the field needs research and development that is fully inclusive of people with disabilities in all phases of the work. We list some additional priorities for future work.</p>","PeriodicalId":49234,"journal":{"name":"Augmentative and Alternative Communication","volume":" ","pages":"1-14"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Augmentative and Alternative Communication","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2025.2499676","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Alternative access methods accommodate an individual's specific physical disability, by adjusting the typical keyboard/mouse/touchscreen interface or using an alternative interface such as head controls, eye trackers, or switches. Ideally, they allow for efficient and comfortable use of any computing device, such as laptops, tablets, and smartphones. This paper reviews the literature to address two main questions: how well do existing access methods meet users' needs? And what is the best way to choose the "right" access method(s) for a given individual? We report on typing speeds for various access methods across 57 studies, as well as experimental multimodal access methods across 34 papers. Results support the intuitive understanding that the access method affects the end user's experience and productivity. We also reviewed 33 papers and resources related to alternative access assessment and service provision. Existing evidence remains emerging and suggests that use of a systematic, user-centered approach to alternative access assessment may reap significant benefits, including better team performance and improved user satisfaction. Yet although many alternative access assessment resources are available, providers may not always use them. While today's alternative access methods can be an impactful means of enabling participation for people with physical disabilities, there is room for improvement, both in the access methods themselves, as well as their associated service provision and support. To identify and implement these improvements, the field needs research and development that is fully inclusive of people with disabilities in all phases of the work. We list some additional priorities for future work.

支持身体残疾人士的有效替代途径:科学现状、新兴技术和未来研究方向。
通过调整典型的键盘/鼠标/触摸屏界面或使用诸如头部控制、眼动追踪器或开关等替代界面,可选择的访问方法适应个人的特定身体残疾。理想情况下,它们允许高效和舒适地使用任何计算设备,如笔记本电脑、平板电脑和智能手机。本文回顾了文献,以解决两个主要问题:现有的访问方法如何满足用户的需求?为给定的个人选择“正确”访问方法的最佳方法是什么?我们报告了57项研究中各种访问方法的打字速度,以及34篇论文中的实验性多模式访问方法。结果支持直观的理解,即访问方法影响最终用户的体验和生产力。我们还回顾了33篇与替代途径评估和服务提供相关的论文和资源。现有的证据仍在不断涌现,并表明使用系统的、以用户为中心的方法进行替代访问评估可能会获得显著的好处,包括更好的团队绩效和更高的用户满意度。然而,尽管有许多可供选择的访问评估资源,提供者可能并不总是使用它们。虽然目前的替代获取方法可以成为促进身体残疾者参与的有效手段,但在获取方法本身以及相关的服务提供和支持方面都有改进的余地。为了确定和实施这些改进,该领域需要在工作的各个阶段充分考虑残疾人的研究和开发。我们列出了未来工作的一些额外优先事项。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Augmentative and Alternative Communication
Augmentative and Alternative Communication AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
15.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: As the official journal of the International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (ISAAC), Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) publishes scientific articles related to the field of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) that report research concerning assessment, treatment, rehabilitation, and education of people who use or have the potential to use AAC systems; or that discuss theory, technology, and systems development relevant to AAC. The broad range of topic included in the Journal reflects the development of this field internationally. Manuscripts submitted to AAC should fall within one of the following categories, AND MUST COMPLY with associated page maximums listed on page 3 of the Manuscript Preparation Guide. Research articles (full peer review), These manuscripts report the results of original empirical research, including studies using qualitative and quantitative methodologies, with both group and single-case experimental research designs (e.g, Binger et al., 2008; Petroi et al., 2014). Technical, research, and intervention notes (full peer review): These are brief manuscripts that address methodological, statistical, technical, or clinical issues or innovations that are of relevance to the AAC community and are designed to bring the research community’s attention to areas that have been minimally or poorly researched in the past (e.g., research note: Thunberg et al., 2016; intervention notes: Laubscher et al., 2019).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信