Editorial

Citation

Abbott, C. (2011), "Editorial", Journal of Assistive Technologies, Vol. 5 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/jat.2011.55105baa.001

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: Journal of Assistive Technologies, Volume 5, Issue 2

I am struck by the extent to which assistive technologies have entered public consciousness recently through newspaper and magazine articles and other aspects of public culture. This is not an entirely new process of course, – Stephen Hawking was certainly the first AAC user to appear on The Simpsons – but the phenomenon appears to be gathering pace. Recent UK newspaper stories have included the tale of a man with motor neurone disease who is using a voice output device to read to his children, and there has also been much media coverage of work on developing robot assistance for social interaction among children on the autism spectrum. Most recently, I read in my Sunday newspaper about a car that can be controlled by the user’s thoughts. Brain control has been developing for many years of course, and the paper made clear that its use for driving cars is at present very limited. The proof of concept is there, however, and as the paper eventually mentioned in passing, brain control has vast potential for those whose motor and voice output functions are diminished or for those who have no possibility of using other interfaces, and work in this area is well-established.

The development of other interfaces is the topic that unites the two peer-reviewed papers in this issue, both of which report on detailed work with current and evolving input systems. Pradipta Biswas and Pat Langdon from the University of Cambridge update us on their current work. Several years ago (JAT 2.3 September 2008) we published an article by Pradipta Biswas in which he described his early work on scanning systems. In this paper, he describes the development of a single switch scanning system used alongside eye-gaze for input. The aim is to make this type of input both faster and more comfortable for users, particularly those who can move a limb as well as using eye-gaze. The paper includes a very useful review of current methodologies that underlie screen scanning, as well as a discussion of the issues that arise when using eye-gaze, including eye strain, accuracy and false positives when clicking by dwelling on one part of the screen or blinking. It was as a way of attempting to resolve these issues that the Cambridge team of engineers devised a system which brings together eye-gaze and single switch scanning to provide increased levels of accuracy and comfort.

This paper and the other peer-reviewed article in this issue both contain considerable technical and mathematical data related to the research methodology employed. In a journal such as Journal of Assistive Technologies (JAT) it is recognised that this level of technical detail may not be accessible to all readers, although both sets of authors have made considerable attempts to write for our multidisciplinary readership. It would, however, be quite wrong to remove the data for this reason, and we ask those readers who may find these aspects challenging to read selectively. Such a reading will be beneficial, surely, for it is important that users, carers, teachers and commissioners have at least some understanding of how these devices and devised and tested, and the methods by which their use is understood.

In their paper, Robert Lievesley, Martin Wozencroft and David Ewins describe the use of the EPOC neuroheadset, originally designed for gamers, as an input for assistive technology devices. The research, based at the Oxford Centre for Enablement which is part of the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre and the University of Surrey, considered in particular whether this device, which is relatively inexpensive, could be used through facial expression and thought. The first experiment focussed on the potential for control using facial expression, and the subjects involved also used head switches for comparison. The team found that, for these (non-impaired) users anyway, the headset was slower and unlikely to be of use to anyone who has even a small amount of head movement. The second experiment described in this paper involved another three (also non-impaired) users being trained to use the headset to control the computer by thought. Within a week, the team found that the accuracy results were greater than would be expected by chance and that the input methodology was very much worthy of further study.

It is likely that we will have many more papers on brain control in future, as a number of systems are now past their basic research stage and being readied for implementation and user testing, with others already on the market. This is a challenging area for a wide readership, and I am sure I am not the only reader to be thankful for the table of acronyms thoughtfully provided and which enabled me to recognise the difference between EMG, EOG and EEG, for example. The potential for input through residual movements is demonstrated here, but it is the work on thought interfaces that seems to be even more striking. This area of research has been developing for more than 20 years, and the headset in this paper is not the only device in the marketplace, but to date there have been more difficulties than affordances within the use of these inputs to operate assistive technologies. There is a helpful discussion in the paper of the reason for focussing on the EPOC headset rather than other proprietary systems. The researchers now intend to continue their investigations with disabled users, and in conjunction with other assistive technologies such as writing systems.

Following these two peer-reviewed papers, we have a report on the early stages of a project in Australia. Louise Greenstock, who recently completed her PhD focussing on graphic symbol use in schools in the UK, is now at the Australian Health Workforce Institute, which is based at the University of Melbourne. Writing with a representative of local general practitioners, Brendon Wickham and Louise Greenstock explains the aims of their project, which deals with people with little or no speech and how they communicate with their doctor. Starting from a basis that the target group are at risk of receiving less effective health care than others, the researchers have begun by establishing how communication currently takes place between these groups, and what barriers are evident. They have also completed a literature review of this area and their findings are summarised in the paper. They go on to describe the exploratory phase of the project, due to be completed as this issue of JAT is published. We look forward to hearing more about the findings of this project in due course.

Mobile technologies are fast becoming the host of choice for assistive technologies, especially in the eyes of young users. JAT Associate Editor, Kevin Doughty, addresses this issue in a helpful overview of the current opportunities around what are usually called smart phones. Locating his paper within a discussion of mobile health and mobile care, Kevin Doughty makes the important point that a simple software download can turn a standard smart phone into a mobile device. The paper contains a very useful discussion of the five main smart phone operating systems, and the various application stores associated with each. In addition to applications that display information differently, there are others that make use of the positioning capability of these phones, either to alert others to a fall or to use GPS to locate local assistance. Yet more applications focus on communication, diabetes support, mental health and well-being. New applications are appearing in the online marketplaces all the time and at a rate, which is very much faster than that of more traditionally hosted assistive technologies. It is clear that this is an area which will develop quickly and could offer enormous potential.

Finally, we are delighted to republish, to a wider audience, a thought-provoking paper written by JAT Editorial Board member Jane Seale for ESRC Society Now. It would be good to have more short opinion pieces like this in JAT; why not use this opportunity to make your views known to your peers? All contributions – or ideas for possible contributions should be sent to me.

Chris Abbott