ArticleFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2023
Enabling people with intellectual and other disabilities to make verbal requests using cardboard chips with mini objects or pictures and a smartphone.
Article in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 2023. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Technology-Aided Program to Help People With Intellectual and Multiple Disabilities Access Leisure Stimuli and Engage in Cognitive and Physical Activity: Development and Usability Study.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2025Article
- A Technology Aid to Help People with Blindness and Moderate Intellectual Disability Retrieve Common Objects from Storage Units: A Proof-of-Concept Study.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to help six participants with intellectual disability combined with sensory and motor impairments to make verbal requests through the use of a technology system involving cardboard chips and a smartphone. Method: The participants were divided into two groups of three based on whether they did or did not have visual skills. Each group was exposed to the intervention with the technology system according to a non-concurrent multiple baseline across participants design. During the 20 min intervention sessions, the participants were provided with a smartphone and nine cardboard chips each of which had a picture or object (i.e., a mini object replica or raised object contour) and several radio frequency identification tags attached to it. To make a request, the participants were to bring a cardboard chip in contact with the smartphone. This read the tags attached to the cardboard and verbalized the request related to that cardboard. Results: During the baseline (without cardboard chips and smartphone), the participants' mean frequency of independent requests (all non-verbal requests) varied between zero and near 1.5 per session. During the intervention (with cardboard chips and smartphone), the participants' mean frequency of independent requests (all verbal requests) varied between over 4.5 and about 10 per session. Conclusion: The results suggest that the system might be useful to help participants like the ones included in this study to make verbal requests with simple responses.
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.