A wearable fabric-based speech-generating device: system design and case demonstration

Abstract

Fabric-based SGDs are a new alternative to conventional SGD designs using rigid electronics. As such, tactile differentiability of keys, device wearability and esthetic personalization may be promising advantages for pediatric users. Implications for rehabilitation Fabric-based switches may be a promising alternative to conventional electro-mechanical switches for the control of speech-generating devices, offering functional (e.g., comfort and tactile differentiability), expressive (e.g., non-stigmatizing textile integration) and esthetic (e.g., colors and textures) appeal. The material combination of two layers of woven conductive material and one insulating layer of felt with 10 mm diameter apertures seems to provide a fabric-based keypad suitable for pediatric use, requiring low-force activation and minimal cross-talk among buttons. Fabric-based devices offer advantages of tactile differentiability and thus may be particularly suited to individuals with vision impairments. Wearable textile SGDs can be persistently available and may thus increase opportunities for communication.

Creating a Path for Systematic Investigation of Children With Cortical Visual Impairment Who Use Augmentative and Alternative Communication

“…Ten studies met inclusion criteria for the review (see Table 1). Searches of the databases yielded eight peerreviewed studies that specifically included children with CVI (Blischak, 1995;Fleury et al, 2017;Hudson et al, 2016;Mathy-Laikko et al, 1989;Probst & Walker, 2017;Schweigert, 1989;Schweigert & Rowland, 1992;Snodgrass et al, 2013). Three studies were also included in the review conducted by Sigafoos et al (2008;Mathy-Laikko et al, 1989;Schweigert, 1989;Schweigert & Rowland, 1992).…”

“…The remaining nine studies utilized single-subject designs. Three followed an ABAB (Abaseline measurement, Bintervention introduction, Aintervention withdrawal, Bintervention reintroduction) design methodology (Fleury et al, 2017;Mathy-Laikko et al, 1989;Schweigert, 1989), and one followed a modified ABAB design methodology (Schweigert & Rowland, 1992). Four studies followed a multiple-baseline approach (Bresee, 2019;Hudson et al, 2016;Probst & Walker, 2017;Yorke, 2017), and one followed a modified multiple-baseline approach (Snodgrass et al, 2013).…”

“…Children presented with a range of diagnoses. In addition to CVI, participants were diagnosed with cerebral palsy (Blischak, 1995;Bresee, 2019;Hudson et al, 2016; Mathy-Laikko Schweigert, 1989), intellectual impairment (Fleury et al, 2017;Mathy-Laikko et al, 1989;Probst & Walker, 2017;Schweigert, 1989;Snodgrass et al, 2013;Yorke, 2017), seizure disorder (Bresee, 2019;Fleury et al, 2017;Hudson et al, 2016;Schweigert, 1989), and hearing loss (Mathy-Laikko et al, 1989;Schweigert, 1989;Schweigert & Rowland, 1992;Snodgrass et al, 2013). It is of interest to note that seven of the 14 participants were confirmed to have mild-to-severe hearing impairments.…”

“…It is of interest to note that seven of the 14 participants were confirmed to have mild-to-severe hearing impairments. Additional diagnoses noted included hemiparesis (Fleury et al, 2017), autism spectrum disorder (Bresee, 2019;Probst & Walker, 2017), and Down syndrome (Snodgrass et al, 2013).…”

“…Technology-based interventions were defined as interventions that introduced an external piece of technology, either low or high tech. Technology-based interventions included a fabric-based communication device (Fleury et al, 2017) and textured microswitches to gain attention/stimulation (Mathy-Laikko et al, 1989;Schweigert, 1989). The fabricbased wristband introduced by Fleury et al (2017) provided the participant with four recorded messages that were directly accessible on the participant's wrist.…”