Assessment of a Communication Assistive Technology for Individuals with Deafblindness: A Case Study

Cantin, Sylvie; Cybis, Walter de Abreu; Trudeau, Suzanne; Poncet, F.; Wittich, Walter; Wanet-Defalque, Marie-Chantal

doi:10.21827/jdbsc.5.32575

Cited by 6 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 1 publication

(1 reference statement)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The study conducted by Emerson and Bishop (2012) on the use of videophone technology received a high score of 7. Two other articles (Cantin et al, 2019;Ozioko et al, 2020) received a score of 3, due to limitations to data extraction, interpretation and coherence between the various methodological stages. The above-mentioned articles were categorized as qualitative research.…”

Section: Quality Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ozioko et al (2020) report a follow-up to Ozioko and Hersh (2015) showing the developmental process from stage 2 "concept" up to stage 4 "validation in a lab." Studies conducted by Cantin et al (2019), Emerson and Bishop (2012), and Evers et al (2012) are categorized in level 8 and 9, which indicated that the assistive technology was completed and implemented in field settings. In these studies, existing communication assistive technologies were adapted for use in daily communication with people with deafblindness.…”

Section: Technology Readiness Levelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The overarching themes included: 1 The communication assistive technologies were developed with a specific communication partner in mind. These partners included peer-to-peer communication (Emerson and Bishop, 2012;Russo et al, 2015;Ozioko et al, 2020) and unimpaired persons (Emerson and Bishop, 2012;Ozioko and Hersh, 2015;Carrera et al, 2017;Vasanth et al, 2018;Cantin et al, 2019). Some assistive communication technologies were able to provide communication with several types of communication partners (Emerson and Bishop, 2012;Evers et al, 2012).…”

Section: Main Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other papers described systems in which common devices and computers (such as microphones or displays) communicate with each other (for example using Bluetooth) and in this way can be used as communication systems for people with deafblindness. The devices mentioned in the articles include: tactile gloves (Ozioko and Hersh, 2015;Carrera et al, 2017;Ozioko et al, 2020); videophone technology (Emerson and Bishop, 2012); a robotic hand (Russo et al, 2015); a teletypewriter (Evers et al, 2012) and a braille display notetaker (Cantin et al, 2019). In Table 3 descriptions of the communication assistive technologies specified in the papers are summarized.…”

Section: New Communication Assistive Technology Design and Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The communication systems used in the different papers varied, and included braille, tactile sign language (of different countries/languages) and communication by concepts (see Table 2). Four included articles (Evers et al, 2012;Ozioko and Hersh, 2015;Cantin et al, 2019;Ozioko et al, 2020) described systems that were based on braille, which is less suitable for people who become blind with age (Carrera et al, 2017). Sign language (Damen and Worm, 2013;Russo et al, 2015), speechto-text (Vasanth et al, 2018) and communication by concepts (Russo et al, 2015) were the communication systems used by the assistive technologies specified in the four other included articles.…”

Section: Communication Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Assistive Technology to Promote Communication and Social Interaction for People With Deafblindness: A Systematic Review

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: People with deafblindness experience stigmatization, exclusion, and isolation. Due to complex communication challenges, feelings of isolation and exclusion can increase. However, assistive technology can change these negative outcomes. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize and analyze the research published in journal articles focused on the use of assistive technology to improve communication and social interaction for people with deafblindness. Methods: A qualitative review study, examining journal articles focusing on the use of assistive technology to support social interaction of people with deafblindness as found in the following databases: IEEE Xplore, ProQuest, Cochrane, Embase, CINANHL, PsychINFO, Web of Science, PubMed, and ProQuest, was conducted. An in-depth analysis of the selected articles was performed. Results: Nine articles were included in this systematic review. The Technology Readiness Levels indicated that the communication assistive technologies reported in the included journal articles span across readiness levels, but mostly remained in the prototype phase. The identified themes are: (1) the objective of the assistive technology, with as sub-themes two-way communication, and access to information; (2) design and development, with as sub-themes new communication assistive technology design, and development, usability and co-creators; (3) acquisition and implementation; and (4) the impact of the assistive technology, with as sub-themes social integration and expansion, autonomy and confidence, and well-being. Conclusions: This systematic review provides a roadmap for the way forward in the use of assistive technology in communication and social interaction for people with deafblindness. Co-creation should start during the design and development stages and continue into testing, evaluating and implementation. A greater understanding of the unique communication needs and challenges may contribute to the development of more advanced technologies which can be used in daily situations and contribute to support two-way communication and social inclusion of people with deafblindness. Furthermore, a challenge remains to focus on the development of assistive technology supporting Dyzel et al. Assistive Technology, Communication, and Interaction declarative communication, which includes giving comments, declarations, predictions, and reflections during a conversation. More research conducted over the long-term is needed to bring the communication assistive technologies into more advanced stages of readiness.

show abstract

Section: Quality Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Technology Readiness Levelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Main Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: New Communication Assistive Technology Design and Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Communication Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Assistive Technology to Promote Communication and Social Interaction for People With Deafblindness: A Systematic Review

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Assistive technology for people with deafblindness in Southern Africa: a Delphi study exploring dimensions of impact

Bell

Prain²,

Layton

2021

Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Device abandonment in deafblindness: a scoping review of the intersection of functionality and usability through the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health lens

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesAbandonment of vision, hearing or mobility aids suggests common barriers and facilitators to ongoing device use. However, the possible interactive effects of combined hearing and vision disabilities on device use by those living with deafblindness are unclear. Here we summarise existing knowledge on variables influencing assistive technology use from the perspective of persons living with deafblindness. We used the WHO’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework to contextualise the findings, asking ‘What is currently known about variables influencing the (non-)use of assistive devices recommended for persons with deafblindness?’DesignA scoping review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist.Data sourcesPubMed; ProQuest: ERIC; ProQuest Dissertation; ProQuest: Sociological Thesaurus; Web of Science; Scientific Electronic Library Online; Bielefeld Academic Search Engine; Pascal & Francis; APA PsycINFO and Ebsco for CINAHL were searched through 9 November 2020.Eligibility criteriaWe included peer-reviewed studies that reported on assistive technology, device abandonment/utilisation and provided data from persons living with deafblindness.Data extraction and synthesisFour team members independently scored 83 studies for eligibility.ResultsTen articles were chosen for data extraction. The emerging variables replicated established categories of barriers and facilitators: personal, device-related, environmental and intervention variables. The use of the ICF highlighted how an intermediate variable (eg, device acceptability) was necessary in order for a variable to become a barrier or a facilitator to device use.ConclusionsThe variables influencing device use by persons with deafblindness followed the same categories described for single impairments. Usability was challenged in devices that rely on the ‘other’ sense. Haptic and tactile aids are rarely studied. The limited available information and the dire need for assistive technologies for people with deafblindness emphasises the urgency of research and technology development for this marginalised population.

show abstract

Assessment of a Communication Assistive Technology for Individuals with Deafblindness: A Case Study

Cited by 6 publications

References 1 publication

Assistive Technology to Promote Communication and Social Interaction for People With Deafblindness: A Systematic Review

Assistive Technology to Promote Communication and Social Interaction for People With Deafblindness: A Systematic Review

Assistive technology for people with deafblindness in Southern Africa: a Delphi study exploring dimensions of impact

Device abandonment in deafblindness: a scoping review of the intersection of functionality and usability through the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health lens

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About