ArticleAssistive technology : the official journal of RESNA2022
Preference and visual cognitive processing demands of alphabetic and QWERTY keyboards of individuals with and without brain injury.
Article in Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and preliminary evaluation of a grid design application for adults and children using scanning and bci-based augmentative and alternative communication.Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA · 2024Article
- Personalization of Patient-Provider Communication Across the Lifespan.Topics in language disorders · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Following a severe brain injury (BI), some literate individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) strategies to support communication may benefit from the use of onscreen keyboards to generate text. A range of layouts are available to these individuals within specialized communication software. However, a paucity of information is available to describe user preferences, user perceptions, as well as the visual-cognitive processing demands of such layouts. Such information is critical to guide clinical decision-making for keyboard selection and to provide patient-centered services. This study: (a) described the preferences and perceptions of two onscreen keyboard layouts (QWERTY and alphabetic) and (b) used eye-tracking analysis to investigate the visual-cognitive processing demands between these onscreen keyboards for individuals with and without BI. Results indicated participants in both groups held a strong preference for QWERTY keyboard interfaces and had extensive prior experience using the QWERTY keyboard layout on mobile devices. Eye-tracking analysis revealed less visual-cognitive processing demands using a QWERTY keyboard layout for both groups but were only statistically significant for those without BI. Results suggest that use of a keyboard layout that aligns with client preferences and prior experiences (i.e., the QWERTY keyboard for these participants) may lead to increased satisfaction with the communication experience and increased communication efficiency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.