ArticleJMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies2022
Smart Assistive Technology for Cooking for People With Cognitive Impairments Following a Traumatic Brain Injury: User Experience Study.
Article in JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- How does it feel to be helped using minimal cognitive assistance following a traumatic brain injury?Australian occupational therapy journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUser experience (UX), including usability, should be formally assessed multiple times throughout the development process to optimize the acceptability and integration of a new technology before implementing it within the home environment of people living with cognitive impairments.
objectiveThe aim of this study is to identify UX issues, notably usability issues, and factors to consider for the future implementation of the COOK (Cognitive Orthosis for Cooking) within the home of individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI) to identify modifications to improve the technology.
methodsThis study comprised two rounds of UX evaluations, including extensive usability testing, which were completed in a laboratory context: 3 sessions with 5 experts and, after improvement of COOK, 2 sessions with 10 participants with TBI. Each session included the use of scenarios and questionnaires on UX and usability.
resultsBoth rounds demonstrated good usability outcomes and hedonic qualities. Various usability issues were identified by participants, such as navigation inconsistencies, technical bugs, and the need for more feedback. Factors to consider in the future implementation of COOK were also mentioned by participants with TBI, including environmental (eg, space available and presence of pets) and personal factors (eg, level of comfort with technology, presence of visual deficits, and preferences).
conclusionsBy evaluating UX, including usability, various times throughout the development process and including experts and end users, our research team was able to develop a technology that was perceived as usable, pleasant, and well-designed. This research is an example of how and when people with cognitive impairments (ie, people with TBI) can be involved in evaluating the UX of new technology.
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.