Speech recognition software as an assistive device: A pilot study of user satisfaction and psychosocial impact

Work

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 125-134

  DeRosier, Robert ^a   Farber, Ruth S ^b  

^a POLISHER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b TEMPLE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Computer; Physical disability; Psychosocial impact; Quality of life; Satisfaction; Speech recognition

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; INDEPENDENCE; MALE; PHYSICAL DISABILITY; PILOT STUDY; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RATING SCALE; SATISFACTION; SELF ESTEEM; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; STANDARDIZATION; TECHNOLOGY; TRAINING;

ADULT; AGED; COMMUNICATION AIDS FOR DISABLED; DISABLED PERSONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PILOT PROJECTS; QUALITY OF LIFE; SPEECH RECOGNITION SOFTWARE;

EID: 23944464735     PISSN: 10519815     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. A. Cantor, Speech recognition: An accommodation planning perspective, in Proceedings of CSUN 2001, Retrieved March 24, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://home.interlog.com/~acantor/csun2001speech-rec-paper.htm.
2. L.A. Cushman and M.J. Scherer, Measuring the relationship of assistive technology use, functional status over time, and consumer therapist perceptions of ATs, Assistive Technology 8 (1996), 103-109.
3. H.I. Day and J. Jutai, PIADS: The psychosocial impact of assistive devices scale, Toronto: Authors (Available from Jeffrey Jutai, Ph.D., C. Psych., Associate Professor, University of Western Ontario, School of Occupational therapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Elborn College, London, Ontario Canada N6G 1H1), 1996.
4. L. Demers, R.W. Lambrou and B. Ska, Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology: Version 2, (Available from Marcia J. Scherer, Matching Person and Technology, Inc., 486 Lake Rd., Webster, NY 14580), 2000.
5. L. Demers, R.W. Lambrou and B. Ska, Item analysis of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST), Assistive Technology 12(2) (2000), 96-105.
6. M.J. Furey, Do affordable microphones equal better speech input? Retrieved April 8, 2001, from the World wide Web: www.byte.com/feature/1999/07, 1999.
7. M.J. Furey, Soundcard choice imparts speech recognition, part II. Retrieved April 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web: www.byte.com/feature/1999/11, 1999.
8. C.A. Halverson, D.B. Horn, C. Karat and J. Karat, The beauty of errors: Patterns of error correction in desktop speech systems, in Proceedings of Human Computer Interaction - INTERACT '99, IOS Press, 1999, pp. 133-140.
9. E.L. Higgins and M.H. Raskind, Speaking to read: The effectiveness of continuous vs. discrete speech recognition systems on the reading and spelling of children with learning disabilities, Journal of Special Education Technology 15(1) (2000), 19-30.
10. C. Karat, C.A. Halverson, D.B. Horn and J. Karat, Patterns of entry and correction in large vocabulary speech recognition systems, in Proceedings of the CHI '99 Conference, Association for Computing Machinery, Botson, MA, 1999, pp. 568-574.
11. H.H. Koester and S.P. Levine, User performance with continuous speech recognition systems, Proceedings of RESNA 2000, 2000, pp. 549-554.
12. M. Law, S. Baptiste, A. Carswell, M. McColl, H. Polatajko and N. Pollock, Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, (3rd ed.), CAOT, Ottawa, Ontario, 1998.
13. S. Miastowski, How it works: Speech recognition. Retrieved April 18, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.pcworld.com/resource/printable/ article/0,aid,16276,clk,pfv,00.asp, 2000.
14. W.C. Mann and J.P. Lane, Assistive Technology for Persons with Disabilities, American Occupational Therapy Association, Inc., Bethesda, MD, 1995.
15. D. Newman, The Dragon Naturally Speaking Guide: Speech Recognition Made Fast and Simple, Waveside, Berkeley, CA, 2000.
16. B. Phillips and H. Zhao, Predictors of assistive technology abandonment, Assistive Technology 5 (1993), 36-45.
17. M.H. Raskind and E.L. Higgins, Speaking to read. The effects of speech recognition technology on the reading and spelling performance of children with learning disabilities, Annals of Dyslexia 49 (1999), 251-281.
18. M.L. Riemer-Reiss and R.R. Wacker, Factors associated with assistive technology discontinuance among individuals with disabilities, Journal of Rehabilitation 66(3) (2000), 44-50.
19. M.J. Scherer, Matching person and technology: A series of assessments for selecting and evaluating technologies used in rehabilitation, education, the workplace, and other settings, (Available from Marcia J. Scherer, Matching Person and Technology, Inc., 486 Lake Rd., Webster, NY 14580), 1994.
20. P. Schwartz and J. Johnson, The effectiveness of speech recognition technology, in Proceedings of RESNA '99 Conference, RESNA, Washington, DC, 1999, pp. 77-79.
21. R.O. Smith, OT Fact, version 2.0 and version 2.03, [Computer software & manual]. Rockville, MD: American Occupational Therapy Association, Inc., 1994, 1995.
22. R.O. Smith, Measuring the outcomes of assistive technology: Challenge and innovation, Assistive Technology 6 (1996), 25-41.