Making electronic mail accessible: Perspectives of people with acquired cognitive impairments, caregivers and professionals

Brain Injury

Volumn 19, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 389-401

  Todis, Bonnie ^a   Sohlberg, M M ^b   Hood, D ^a   Fickas, S ^b  

^a WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

Author keywords

Cognitive impairement; Computer use; Email; Social opportunities

Indexed keywords

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; ADULT; AGE; ARTICLE; BRAIN INJURY; CAREGIVER; COGNITIVE DEFECT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE SEVERITY; E-MAIL; EDUCATION; EXPERIENCE; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE NEED; HEALTH PRACTITIONER; HUMAN; HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; HYPOTHESIS; INDEPENDENCE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; INTERVIEW; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; POSTAL MAIL; PREDICTION; SOCIAL ISOLATION; TECHNOLOGY; TELEPHONE;

EID: 20444431895     PISSN: 02699052     EISSN: 1362301X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02699050400003957     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Dawson D, Chipman M. The disablement experienced by traumatically brain-injured adults living in the community. Brain Injury 1995;9:339-53.
2. Sohlberg MM, Mateer, CA. Cognitive Rehabilitation: An integrative neuropsychological approach. New York: Guilford Press; 2001.
3. Wilson B, Moffett N. Clinical management of memory problems. London: Chapman and Hall; 1992.
4. Cole E, Dehdashti P, Petti L, Angert M. Design and outcomes of computer-based cognitive prosthetics for brain injury: A field study of three subjects. Neurorehabiliatation 1994;4:174-86.
5. Hart T, Hawkey K, Whyte J. Use of a portable voice organizer to remember therapy goals in traumatic brain injury rehabilitation: A within-subjects trial. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation 2002;17:556-70.
6. Sohlberg M, Ehlhardt I, Fickas S, Sutcliffe A. A pilot study exploring electronic mail in users with cognitive-linguistic impairments. Brain Injury 2003;17:609-29.
7. Wilson BA, Emslie HC, Quirk K, Evans JJ. Reducing everyday memory and planning problems by means of a paging system: A randomized control crossover study. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry 2001;70:477-82.
8. Wright P, Rogers N, Hall C, Wilson BA, Evans JJ, Emslie H, Bartram C. Comparison of pocket-computer memory aids for people with brain injury. Brain Injury 2001;15:787-800.
9. Tackett SL, Rice DA, Rice JC, Butterbaugh GJ. Using a palmtop PDA for reminding in prospective memory deficit. Proceedings of the Rehabilitation Engineering Society of North America (RESNA). Arlington, VA; 2001. pp 23-25.
10. Hersch NA, Treadgold LG. NeuroPage: The rehabilitation of memory dysfunction by prosthetic memory and cueing. NeuroRehabilitation 1994;4:187-97.
11. Alm N, Ellis M, Astell A, Dye R, Gowans G, Campbell J. A cognitive prosthesis and communication support for people with dementia. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation; 2004, in press.
12. Dorsa E. An introduction to universal design: A hand tool project. The Technology Teacher 2002;61:27-9.
13. Fichten CS, Asuncion JV, Barile M, Généreux C, Fossey M, Judd D, Robillard C, De Simone C, Wells D. Technology integration for students with disabilities: Empirically based recommendations for faculty. Educational Research and Evaluation 2001;7:185-21.
14. Frangini M. Tools for IBM PS/2 are helpful for overcoming disabilities. Computing Canada 1989;15:4.
15. Nicolaisen N. Universal access. Computer Shopper 1997;17:600-4.
16. Axelson M. Designing pages for people with disabilities. Newmedia 1998;8:22.
17. Minkel W. Become enabled. Library Journal 2001;126:30-32.
18. Oravec JA. Virtually accessible: Empowering students to advocate for accessibility and support universal design. Library Hi Tech 2002;20:452-461.
19. Barnacle KA. Evaluation of the interaction between participants of screen reading technology and graphical participants interface elements. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Graduate School of Arts and Science. New York: Columbia University; 1999.
20. National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research (NCDDR) Survey 2000: The Research Exchange, 6, 2001.
21. Zencius AH, Wesolowski MD. Is the social network analysis necessary in the rehabilitation of individuals with head injury? Brain Injury 1999;13:723-27.
22. Kraut RE, Patterson M, Lundmark V, Kiesler S, Mukhopadhyai T, Scherlis W. Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well being? American Psychologist 1998; 53:1017-32.
23. Scherer MJ. Assistive Technology: Matching device and consumer for successful rehabilitation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2002.