Computer and EADL access for individuals with spinal cord injury

Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 42-

  Anson, Denis ^a  

^a University of New York   (United States)

Author keywords

Alternative access; Assistive technology; Computers; EADL; ECU

Indexed keywords

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; COMPUTER SYSTEM; DEVICE; ELECTRONICS; HUMAN; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; MOTOR CONTROL; REVIEW; SPINAL CORD INJURY;

EID: 33645034305     PISSN: 10820744     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1310/D4FF-K9X9-YKUD-ANFA     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. US Census Bureau. Computer and internet use in the United States: Census data on computer use. September 2001. Available at: http://www.census.gov/ population/www/socdemo/computer/ppl-175.html. Accessed April 17, 2005.
2. WebSiteOptimization.com. US broadband penetration jumps to 45.2% - US internet penetration nearly 75%. March 2004 Bandwidth Report. June 19, 2004. Available at: http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0403/. Accessed October 10, 2005.
3. National Retail Federation. Statistics: E-business trends. Available at: http://www.shop. org/learn/stats_ebizz_ca.asp. Accessed Ocober 10, 2005.
4. Assistive Technology Partners. Direct access electronic aids. March 27, 2002. Available at: http://www.uchsc.edu/atp/library/fastfacts/ Direct%20Access%20Electronic%20Aids.htm. Accessed July 26, 2004.
5. MacNeil V. Electronic aids to daily living. Team Rehabil Rept. 1998;9(3):53-56.
6. Center for Assistive Technology. Environmental control units. July 26, 2004. Available at: http://cat.buffalo.edu/newsletters/ecu.php. Accessed July 26, 2004.
7. Cook AM, Hussey SM. Assistive Technologies: Principles and Practice. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Mosby International; 2002.
8. Chubon RA, Hester MR. An enhanced standard computer keyboard system for single-finger and typing-stick typing. Rehabil Res Develop. 1988;25:17.
9. Anson D, George S, Galup R, Shea B, Vetter R. Efficiency of the Chubon vs. the QWERTY keyboard. Assistive Technol. 2001;13:40-45.
10. Kanny EM, Anson DK. A pilot study comparing mouse and mouse-emulating interface devices for graphic input. Assistive Technol. 1991;3(1):50-58.
11. Koester HH. Abandonment of speech recognition by new users. Paper presented at: RESNA 26th International Annual Conference; 2003; Atlanta, Georgia.
12. Data Computer Center. Dragon naturally speaking voice recognition software. Available at: http://www.dragontalk.com/index.html. Accessed October 17, 2005.
13. Koester HH. Performance of experienced speech recognition users. Paper presented at: RESNA 26th International Annual Conference; 2003; Atlanta, Georgia.
14. McDonald JB, Schwejda P, Marriner NA, Wison WR, Ross AM. Advantages of Morse code as a computer input for school aged children with physical disabilities. In: Computers and the Handicapped. Ottawa: National Research Council of Canada; 1982.
15. Anson D, Ames C, Fulton L, Margolis M, Miller M. Patterns for life: a study of young children's ability to use patterned switch closures for environmental control. Available at: http://atri.misericordia.edu/Papers/ Patterns.php. Accessed October 4, 2004.
16. National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center. Facts and Figures at a Glance - June 2005. Available at: http://www.spinalcord.uab.edu/show.asp?durki= 21446. Accessed October 24, 2005.
17. Quartet Technology. Frequently asked questions. Available at: http//www.qtiusa.com/faq.asp. Accessed October 24, 2005.
18. Cook AM. Keynote address: CSUN Conference. 2005.
19. Mason SG, Birch GE. The brain-computer interface project. Available at: http://www.ece.ubc.ca/~garyb/BCI.htm. Accessed October 24, 2005.