- Email: [email protected]
Assisting people with disabilities improves their collaborative pointing efficiency with a Multiple Cursor Dynamic Pointing Assistive Program
Research in Developmental Disabilities 31 (2010) 1251–1257
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Research in Developmental Disabilities
Assisting people with disabilities improves their collaborative pointing efficiency with a Multiple Cursor Dynamic Pointing Assistive Program Ching-Hsiang Shih a,*, Ching-Tien Shih b, Shun-Kuang Wang a a b
Department of Special Education, National Dong Hwa University, Hualien, Taiwan, ROC Department of Electronics Engineering and Computer Science, Tung-Fang Institute of Technology, Kaohsiung Country 82941, Taiwan, ROC
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history: Received 13 July 2010 Accepted 20 July 2010
This study evaluated whether four persons (two groups) with multiple disabilities and minimal motor behavior would be able to improve their collaborative pointing performance using finger poke ability with a mouse wheel through a Multiple Cursor Dynamic Pointing Assistive Program (MCDPAP) with a newly developed mouse driver (i.e., a new mouse driver that replaces the standard mouse driver, changes a mouse wheel into a thumb/finger poke detector, and intercepts/simulates mouse action). The study was performed according to an ABAB design, in which A represented the baseline and B represented intervention phases. Data showed that both groups of participants improved their collaborative pointing ability through the use of MCDPAP during the intervention phase. Practical and developmental implications of the findings are discussed. ß 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Disabilities Collaborative pointing MCDPAP Mouse driver
In many social environments (such as school), people are often required to communicate and work collaboratively. Colocated collaboration allows people to conduct direct face-to-face interactions, to see each other’s expressions and gestures, and therefore communicate more effectively (Bricker, Tanimoto, Rothenberg, Hutama, & Wong, 1995). Some research has illustrated that multi-users could conduct co-located collaboration through a single computer with multiple input devices (Pal, Pawar, Brewer, & Toyama, 2006; Pawar, Pal, Gupta, & Toyama, 2007; Pawar, Pal, & Toyama, 2006; Stanton & Neale, 2003), with each individual using their own input device (such as Pocket PC, and mouse) to improve motivation, effectiveness of task completion (through cooperative work), equity of activity, and reduction of time spent on any particular task (Stanton & Neale, 2003; Stanton, Neale, & Bayon, 2002). Stewart, Bederson, and Druin (1999) proposed the collaborative interaction model Single Display Groupware (SDG), in which a small group of co-located users are provided with their individual input device (can be simultaneously used), to enable them to collaborate, play, work, and share one computer with a single display (Stewart et al., 1999; Tse & Greenberg, 2004). This notion of supporting multi-user co-located interaction through a shared display has been explored in many papers (Scott, Mandryk, & Inkpen, 2003; Stewart et al., 1999). These SDG systems have been used quite successfully for children’s collaboration; besides this, many researches have been conducted on the advantages of SDG in school learning (Abnett, Stanton, Neale, & O’Malley, 2001; Pawar et al., 2007; Pawar et al., 2006; Stanton & Neale, 2003; Stanton et al., 2002; Tse & Greenberg, 2004). However, the co-located collaborative technologies (SDG) mentioned above are focused on persons without disabilities. Concerning people with disabilities, this technology may not be suitable for them, and they cannot benefit from the SDG function, because (a) most of them usually encounter difficulties using a computer in a pointing operation (Cook & Hussey,
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 3 8227106x1320; fax: +886 3 8228707. E-mail address: [email protected] (C.-H. Shih). 0891-4222/$ – see front matter ß 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2010.07.020
1252
C.-H. Shih et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 31 (2010) 1251–1257
2002), and (b) SDG applications are targeted at the mainstream population, without providing the type of accommodation that meets the needs or desires of people with disabilities (Stewart et al., 1999; Tse & Greenberg, 2004). Some recent studies have adopted software technology to redesign the mouse driver in order to improve computer operation performance of persons with disabilities: (a) multi-mice configuration; this research enabled physically disabled people to export the remaining ability of each limb with several mice to complete the mouse operation (Shih & Shih, 2009a, 2009c), (b) Automatic Pointing Assistive Program (APAP) and Extended Automatic Pointing Assistive Program (EAPAP), where the user can click the mouse button when the cursor is near the target (inside the activation area), instead of moving the cursor over the target (Shih, Hsu, & Shih, 2009; Shih, Li, Shih, Lin, & Lo, 2010), (c) Dual Cursor Automatic Pointing Assistive Program (DCAPAP) and Extended Dual Cursor Automatic Pointing Assistive Program (EDCAPAP), where the dual cursors (a virtual cursor and a system cursor) are adopted to offer users an operating environment with Mouseover effects, which is closer to the real conditions (Shih, Chung, Chiang, & Shih, 2010; Shih, Shih, & Chiu, 2010), and (d) Automatic Drag-and-Drop Assistive Program (ADnDAP), in which the complex dragging process (which is difficult or impossible for persons with disabilities to operate) is replaced by a simple clicking operation with APAP function (Shih, Huang, Liao, Shih, & Chiang, 2010). Shih, Cheng, Li, Shih, and Chiang (2010) extended the APAP function to SDG application, presented a Multiple Cursor Automatic Pointing Assistive Program (MCAPAP), to enable two people with disabilities to cooperate in pointing (Shih, Cheng, & et al., 2010). Each user has his own virtual cursor with APAP function (i.e., each user can click their mouse button when the virtual cursor is near the target). All the researches mentioned above use software technology to improve pointing performance, focus on persons with disabilities who can operate a mouse to move a computer cursor, but had very low mouse operation efficiency. Concerning persons with disabilities who cannot easily or possibly use a computer through a standard mouse (such as people who have extensive paralysis of their body and who can effectively control a computer only through very limited movements), these researches may not be suitable for them. Therefore, Shih, Chang, and Shih (2009) used a mouse wheel as a pointing assistive device to improve the pointing performance of people with multiple disabilities, who have minimal motor behavior, through a new operation method, the Dynamic Pointing Assistive Program (DPAP), where the user can poke his/her thumb/finger to rotate a mouse wheel to move a cursor to a target (Shih, Chang, & et al., 2009). This study extending the DPAP research, combined with Dual Cursor technology (Shih, Chung, & et al., 2010) to implement the function of DPAP with SDG technology, proposed a new operation method, the Multiple Cursor Dynamic Pointing Assistive Program (MCDPAP), where driver technology is adopted to enable each user to have his own virtual cursor with DPAP function (i.e., each user can rotate a mouse wheel by poking it with their thumb/finger, to move a cursor to a target), to enable people with disabilities to collaboratively point, as shown in Fig. 1. Fig. 1(a) shows a system cursor, two virtual cursors in different colors (blue and pink) with name prompts (Mark and Jenny), and five pre-defined targets noted as P1, P2, P3, P4 and P5. Each user has a mouse, and each mouse controls a virtual cursor (such as Mark). The users poking the mouse wheel will quickly move the virtual cursor among the five targets. The system cursor is over P4 (Pa position), and does not move with mouse movement. As soon as the mouse wheel is rotated, its action will be intercepted by MCDPAP, and the virtual cursor will automatically jump to a series of pre-defined target positions (i.e., P1–P5) in order, according to the amount of wheel rotation and direction. Each forward poke will jump the virtual cursor from one to the next target in the order of P1 ! P2 ! P3 ! P4 ! P5 ! P1 ! . . ., whereas, a backward poke jumps the virtual cursor in the order of P5 ! P4 ! P3 ! P2 ! P1 ! P5 ! . . .. The more the poke amount is, the more the virtual cursor jumps. All of the mouse (controlling virtual cursor) can be used simultaneously without interference. As shown in Fig. 1(b), when Jenny clicks (at P2 position), the system cursor will jump from its previous location (Pa) to Jenny’s virtual cursor position (P2) automatically (its movement path is shown by the red dashes) and perform the click to send functional commands to the computer. If Mark clicks (at P4 position), the system cursor will jump from its newest previous location (P2) to the location of Mark’s virtual cursor (P4) and perform the click (Fig. 1(c)). In this study, because any slight and undesired mouse movement could be detected by the precise mouse optical sensor, deviating the cursor from the target, the mouse movement function is cancelled in order to avoid positioning interference. In this way, the traditional pointing software, which only supports a single cursor for a single user to operate, can support people with disabilities with SDG function and pointing assistance (DPAP) without being modified or rewritten. Though the computer techniques can support more than one mouse, windows operation system (OS) only supports one user (one cursor) to operate with the system. Once multiple mice are connected to a computer, the Windows OS will install its driver automatically, defining its function as a moving cursor. The cursor movement is the sum of all the operations of the mice connected. As a result, it is not easy to modify the mouse default functions and simulate multiple virtual cursors to meet the needs of MCDPAP. Normally, the device driver (such as mouse and keyboard) is provided by Windows OS or the hardware manufacturer to ensure that the connected device can function properly (Wikipedia, 2009). Redesigning a mouse driver can reset the mouse functions, turning it into a much more powerful tool, but it is rarely proposed by researchers because of the complexity of the technology required and in-depth understanding of how the hardware and the software of a given platform function. Only a few recent researches have adopted software technology to redesign the mouse driver, visualizing the mouse as a useful tool for many applications dedicated to persons with disabilities (Shih, Chiu, & et al., 2010; Shih & Shih, 2009b, 2009c, 2009d, 2010; Shih, Shih, Lin, & Chiang, 2009), providing them with additional choices in assistive technology. This work adopts new mouse driver design (i.e., a new mouse driver replaces a standard mouse driver, and is able to reset mouse default functions, change a mouse wheel into a thumb/finger poke detector, and intercepts/simulates mouse action)
[(Fig._1)TD$IG]
C.-H. Shih et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 31 (2010) 1251–1257
1253
Fig. 1. The operation flow of Multiple Cursor Dynamic Pointing Assistive Program (MCDPAP). (a) A system cursor, two virtual cursors in different colors (blue, pink) with name prompts (Mark, Jenny), and five pre-defined targets (P1–P5). Each user (Mark, Jenny) has a mouse, and each mouse controls a virtual cursor. The system cursor is over P4 (Pa position), and does not move with mouse movement. As soon as the mouse wheel is rotated, its action will be intercepted by MCDPAP, and the virtual cursor (such as Mark) will automatically jump to a series of pre-defined target positions (i.e., P1–P5) in order, according to the wheel rotation amount and direction. Each forward poke will jump the virtual cursor from one target to the next in order of P1 ! P2 ! P3 ! P4 ! P5 ! P1 ! . . ., whereas, a backward poke jumps the virtual cursor in order of P5 ! P4 ! P3 ! P2 ! P1 ! P5 ! . . .. All of the mouse (controlling virtual cursor) can be used simultaneously without interference. (b) When Jenny clicks (at P2 position), the system cursor will jump from its previous location (Pa) to Jenny’s virtual cursor position (P2) automatically (its movement path is shown by the red dashes) and perform the click. (c) If Mark clicks (at P4 position), the system cursor will jump from its newest previous location (P2) to the location of Mark’s virtual cursor (P4) and perform the click. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of the article.)
1254
C.-H. Shih et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 31 (2010) 1251–1257
to help two groups of persons with disabilities who cannot easily or possibly use a standard mouse improve their collaborative pointing efficiency, and to compare the difference of their collaborative pointing performance before and after for their use of MCDPAP, in order to determine whether the MCDPAP implementation can enhance their pointing performance. 1. Methods 1.1. Participants The participants (Tsai, Chen, Li, and Hwang) were 18, 13, 17 and 16 years of age, respectively. All of them have multiple disabilities. Tsai and Chen were the first group. Tsai’s level of function was rated as middle-level intellectual disability and presented with profound muscle atrophy. Chen was rated in middle-level intellectual disability and had congenital cerebropathy. Li and Hwang were the second group. Both of their levels of function were estimated to be in the middle range of intellectual disability, and had congenital cerebropathy. All participants had limited hand physical control ability, but could still use a standard mouse with their right hands (Li used the left hand) in a laborious manner, and could not use a mouse for a long time. They had very low mouse operation efficiency due to poor hand–eye coordination, lack of fine motor skills and low motivation induced by frustration. They were interested in computer operation, and hoped that they could use the mouse more easily, quickly and accurately. Neither one had visual disabilities that could hinder them from using a mouse, and could understand simple orders and perform the corresponding tasks. With the guidance of the research assistant, all of them learned to poke their thumb/finger on the mouse wheel to move the virtual cursor to targets and perform the click. Their parents had given formal consent for their involvement in this experiment. 1.2. Apparatus and setting The study was carried out in an activity room of the special education school for the mentally retarded. Computers were placed on a computer table, and the screen was at a distance of about 30 cm from their chairs. Logitech wireless mice were provided to the participants when the experiment began. 1.3. MCDPAP setting, computer pointing test software Four Logitech wireless mice which were installed with MCDPAP to detect the thumb/finger poke were placed under Tsai’s, Chen’s and Hwang’s right hand, and Li’s left hand. Movement function of all mice was cancelled, in order to avoid interference. A pointing test software with two modes (namely practice mode and record mode), which only supports a single user was designed in this study to provide mouse pointing practice for participants (practice mode), and to record their pointing test results (record mode, record participants’ successful pointing number within a certain period of time). Fig. 2 presents the flow diagram of the computer pointing test software. Eight circular destination targets (noted T1–T8) with radii of 0.25 cm, were set every 458 on a circle with a radius of 6 cm. In practice mode, the computer first displayed all destination targets (T1–T8), and set the mouse cursor to the central point (Tc, the centre of the circumference). The participants had to move the system cursor from the centre point (Tc) to each target, and then click to complete a successful pointing. When a task (a successful pointing) was completed, the corresponding target disappeared, and the computer automatically set the system cursor back to the centre point (Tc). Participants would then move the system cursor to another target, and click on it. The eight targets reappeared until all the targets were successfully pointed to and had disappeared. This process was repeated until the end of the practice time. Test mode was run under the same conditions as the practice mode, but the successful pointing number within 3 min was recorded automatically by this program. 1.4. Experimental conditions Initially, both groups of participants received an ABAB sequence (Richards, Taylor, Ramasamy, & Richards, 1999), in which A represented the baseline phase (without MCDPAP technology) and B represented the intervention phase (with MCDPAP technology). Three to five sessions per day occurred within those study periods. Sessions lasted 18 min and were conducted at the participants’ school. The arrangement of this 18-min session was as follows: (a) Pointing practice (10 min) All destination targets (T1–T8) appeared, and participants (group 1, group 2) move the system cursor to the targets and clicked. A research assistant provided vocal prompting and guidance during the practice session to help the participants to complete pointing tasks.
[(Fig._2)TD$IG]
C.-H. Shih et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 31 (2010) 1251–1257
1255
Fig. 2. The flow diagram of the computer pointing test software. Eight circular destination targets (noted T1–T8) with radii of 0.25 cm, were set every 458 on a circle with a radius of 6 cm. The computer first displayed all destination targets (T1–T8), and set the mouse cursor to the central point (Tc, the centre of the circumference). The participants had to move the system cursor from the centre point (Tc) to each target, and then click to complete a successful pointing. When a task (a successful pointing) was completed, the corresponding target disappeared, and the computer automatically set the system cursor back to the centre point (Tc). Participants would then move the system cursor to another target, and click on it. The eight targets reappeared until all the targets were successfully pointed to and had disappeared.
(b) Rest (5 min) Participants were given 5-min rest after practice. (c) Assessment (3 min)
Same conditions as the practice mode, but neither vocal prompting nor instructions from the research assistant were available. The number of times that each group of participants successfully pointed within 3 min was recorded as input for assessment. 1.4.1. Baseline phases The baseline phase included 15 and 24 sessions, respectively. In this phase, the MCDPAP function was turned off, so the participants had to move the cursor from the central point (Tc) to the targets (T1–T8) to click. The movement of the system cursor was the sum of the movement of both mice, which made it difficult for the two participants to avoid interference and complete the pointing test. 1.4.2. Intervention phases This phase included 60 and 57 sessions, respectively. Procedural conditions were as during baseline except that the MCDPAP function was turned on. With the assistance of MCDPAP, both participants could move their own virtual cursor (through mouse wheel poking) together and click the mouse button when the virtual cursor was aimed at the target, instead of moving the system cursor to the target. Both groups’ successful pointing number within 3 min were recorded as input for assessment, and then used to determine whether MCDPAP had improved their collaborative pointing abilities.
[(Fig._3)TD$IG]
1256
C.-H. Shih et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 31 (2010) 1251–1257
Fig. 3. The pointing speed data of the first group (Tsai and Chen). Data points represent the mean of successful points per minute per session over blocks of three sessions. Only the final points of a phase represent a block of two sessions.
[(Fig._4)TD$IG]
Fig. 4. The pointing speed data of the second group (Li and Hwang). Data points represent the mean of successful points per minute per session over blocks of three sessions. Only the final points of a phase can represent a block of two sessions.
2. Results Figs. 3 and 4 indicated the pointing speed of both groups in different phases. The curve showed that both groups improved their pointing efficiency after the implementation of MCDPAP. 2.1. First group (Tsai and Chen) The data of the first group was shown in Fig. 3. In the baseline phase, due to (a) they cannot easily operate a standard mouse (only having minimal motor skills), and (b) both mice will interfere with each other (the cursor movement is the sum of all the operations of the two mice). Therefore, they had very poor pointing performance during the first baseline phase (15 sessions), only had a mean of about 2.2 pointing speed per minute. In the intervention phase, MCDPAP function worked, and participants could cooperate to point to targets (using thumb/finger poking mouse wheel) easily, and accurately. This mean pointing speed largely increased to 17.53 during the first intervention phase (60 sessions) and dropped to 3.83 during the second baseline phase (24 sessions). This mean pointing speed fully restored and eventually increased during the second intervention phase (57 sessions). The differences of pointing speed between the baseline and the intervention were significant (p < .01) on the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (Siegel & Castellan, 1988). 2.2. Second group (Li and Hwang) The data of the second group was shown in Fig. 4. During the first baseline phase (15 sessions), poor pointing performance with a mean of about 0.73 was raised because of interference and physical limitations. The mean largely increased to 18.55 during the first intervention phase (60 sessions). This mean pointing speed dropped to 0.50 during the second baseline phase (24 sessions) to be fully restored and eventually increased during the second intervention phase (57 sessions). The differences of pointing speed between the baseline and the intervention were significant (p < .01) on the Kolmogorov– Smirnov test (Siegel & Castellan, 1988).
3. Discussion As the demand for collaborative applications grows, cooperative learning is a priority in many classrooms and has been emphasized by current curriculum standards (NCTM, 1989). Concerning people with disabilities, it is very important for them to have a collaborative working/learning chance in computer operation. The study presented in this paper addressed
C.-H. Shih et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 31 (2010) 1251–1257
1257
this problem, and presents an effective way (using mouse wheel poking) to allow two people with multiple disabilities to collaborate using a shared computer display. As shown in this study, with the assistance of MCDPAP technology, which combines the advantages of virtual cursor and DPAP functions to give effective assistance, people with disabilities who generally encounter mouse operation problems increase significantly in their pointing level, and can cooperate to point to targets quickly, easily, and accurately. This MCDPAP software-based solution can support all standard interfaces of commercial input devices (such as mouse and trackball) that are compatible with the computer, including USB, wireless, and Bluetooth interfaces. It is also compatible with all currently available software, so existing software can be utilized to support multiple people with disabilities face-to-face interacting in a co-located environment, to improve the collaborative pointing efficiency, without being modified or rewritten. Both groups of participants rapidly improved their collaborative pointing efficiencies after receiving MCDPAP. The results of this study demonstrate that people with disabilities can easily master MCDPAP without long-period practice. These participants could cooperate in using many educational/CAI software, which only support a single cursor for a single user to operate through MCDPAP after the experiment. This study only considers collaborative pointing, focusing on individuals with disabilities, who can neither use a standard mouse to point nor perform collaborative pointing efficiently. Further studies are necessary to develop additional mouse applications to extend current functionality (such as collaborative dragging) and satisfy the needs of different levels of disabilities. Hopefully, the implementation of MCDPAP can realize collaboration in all complex mouse operations and provide persons with disabilities with additional choices in computer assistive technology. References Abnett, C., Stanton, D., Neale, H., & O’Malley, C. (2001). The effect of multiple input devices on collaboration and gender issues. Paper presented at the European Perspectives on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (EuroCSCL) 2001. Bricker, L. J., Tanimoto, S. L., Rothenberg, A. I., Hutama, D. C., & Wong, T. H. (1995). Multiplayer activities that develop mathematical coordination. Paper presented at the CSCL 95 conference proceedings. Cook, A. M., & Hussey, S. M. (2002). Assistive technologies: Principles and practice. St. Louis, MO Mosby, Inc.. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: The Council. Pal, J., Pawar, U. S., Brewer, E. A., & Toyama, K. (2006). The case for multi-user design for computer aided learning in developing regions. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 15th international conference on World Wide Web. Pawar, U. S., Pal, J., Gupta, R., & Toyama, K. (2007). Multiple mice for retention tasks in disadvantaged schools. Paper presented at the proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. Pawar, U. S., Pal, J., & Toyama, K. (2006). Multiple mice for computers in education in developing countries. Paper presented at the international conference on information technologies and development. Richards, S. B., Taylor, R. L., Ramasamy, R., & Richards, R. Y. (1999). Single subject research: Applications in educational and clinical settings. New York: Wadsworth. Scott, S., Mandryk, R., & Inkpen, K. (2003). Understanding children’s collaborative interactions in shared environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 220–228. Shih, C.-H., Chang, M.-L., & Shih, C.-T. (2009). Assisting people with multiple disabilities and minimal motor behavior to improve computer pointing efficiency through a mouse wheel. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30, 1378–1387. Shih, C.-H., Cheng, H.-F., Li, C.-C., Shih, C.-T., & Chiang, M.-S. (2010). Assisting people with developmental disabilities improve their collaborative pointing efficiency with a Multiple Cursor Automatic Pointing Assistive Program. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31, 600–607. Shih, C.-H., Chiu, S.-K., Chu, C.-L., Shih, C.-T., Liao, Y.-K., & Lin, C.-C. (2010). Assisting people with multiple disabilities improve their computer pointing efficiency with hand swing through a standard mouse. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31, 517–524. Shih, C.-H., Chung, C.-C., Chiang, M.-S., & Shih, C.-T. (2010). Assisting people with developmental disabilities to improve pointing efficiency with a Dual Cursor Automatic Pointing Assistive Program. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31, 151–159. Shih, C.-H., Hsu, N.-Y., & Shih, C.-T. (2009). Assisting people with developmental disabilities to improve pointing efficiency with an Automatic Pointing Assistive Program. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30, 1212–1220. Shih, C.-H., Huang, H.-C., Liao, Y.-K., Shih, C.-T., & Chiang, M.-S. (2010). An Automatic Drag-and-Drop Assistive Program developed to assistive people with developmental disabilities to improve drag-and-drop efficiency. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31, 416–425. Shih, C.-H., Li, C.-C., Shih, C.-T., Lin, K.-T., & Lo, C.-S. (2010). Extended Automatic Pointing Assistive Program—A pointing assistance program to help people with developmental disabilities improve their pointing efficiency. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31, 672–679. Shih, C.-H., & Shih, C.-T. (2009a). Assisting people with multiple disabilities to use computers with multiple mice. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30, 746– 754. Shih, C.-H., & Shih, C.-T. (2009b). Development of a computer input system for persons with disabilities using a commercial mouse and switches. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 4, 414–421. Shih, C.-H., & Shih, C.-T. (2009c). Development of an integrated pointing device driver for the disabled. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology doi:10.1080/17483100903105599. Shih, C.-H., & Shih, C.-T. (2009d). A new movement detector to enable people with multiple disabilities to control environmental stimulation with hand swing through a commercial mouse. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30, 1196–1202. Shih, C.-H., & Shih, C.-T. (2010). Assisting two children with multiple disabilities and minimal motor behavior to control environmental stimulation with thumb poke through a trackball. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 38, 211–219. Shih, C.-H., Shih, C.-T., & Chiu, H.-C. (2010). Using an Extended Automatic Target Acquisition Program with dual cursor technology to assist people with developmental disabilities improve their pointing efficiency. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31, 1091–1101. Shih, C.-H., Shih, C.-T., Lin, K.-T., & Chiang, M.-S. (2009). Assisting people with multiple disabilities and minimal motor behavior to control environmental stimulation through a mouse wheel. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30, 1413–1419. Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences:. New York: McGraw-HiU Book Company. Stanton, D., & Neale, H. R. (2003). The effects of multiple mice on children’s talk and interaction. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 229–238. Stanton, D., Neale, H., & Bayon, V. (2002). Interfaces to support children’s co-present collaboration: Multiple mice and tangible technologies. Paper presented at the proceedings of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL). Stewart, J., Bederson, B. B., & Druin, A. (1999). Single display groupware: A model for co-present collaboration. Paper presented at the proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems: The CHI is the limit. Tse, E., & Greenberg, S. (2004). Rapidly prototyping single display groupware through the SDGToolkit. Paper presented at the proceedings of the fifth conference on Australasian user interface, Vol. 28. Wikipedia. (2009). Device driver Retrieved August 20, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Device_driver.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Research in Developmental Disabilities
Assisting people with disabilities improves their collaborative pointing efficiency with a Multiple Cursor Dynamic Pointing Assistive Program Ching-Hsiang Shih a,*, Ching-Tien Shih b, Shun-Kuang Wang a a b
Department of Special Education, National Dong Hwa University, Hualien, Taiwan, ROC Department of Electronics Engineering and Computer Science, Tung-Fang Institute of Technology, Kaohsiung Country 82941, Taiwan, ROC
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history: Received 13 July 2010 Accepted 20 July 2010
This study evaluated whether four persons (two groups) with multiple disabilities and minimal motor behavior would be able to improve their collaborative pointing performance using finger poke ability with a mouse wheel through a Multiple Cursor Dynamic Pointing Assistive Program (MCDPAP) with a newly developed mouse driver (i.e., a new mouse driver that replaces the standard mouse driver, changes a mouse wheel into a thumb/finger poke detector, and intercepts/simulates mouse action). The study was performed according to an ABAB design, in which A represented the baseline and B represented intervention phases. Data showed that both groups of participants improved their collaborative pointing ability through the use of MCDPAP during the intervention phase. Practical and developmental implications of the findings are discussed. ß 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Disabilities Collaborative pointing MCDPAP Mouse driver
In many social environments (such as school), people are often required to communicate and work collaboratively. Colocated collaboration allows people to conduct direct face-to-face interactions, to see each other’s expressions and gestures, and therefore communicate more effectively (Bricker, Tanimoto, Rothenberg, Hutama, & Wong, 1995). Some research has illustrated that multi-users could conduct co-located collaboration through a single computer with multiple input devices (Pal, Pawar, Brewer, & Toyama, 2006; Pawar, Pal, Gupta, & Toyama, 2007; Pawar, Pal, & Toyama, 2006; Stanton & Neale, 2003), with each individual using their own input device (such as Pocket PC, and mouse) to improve motivation, effectiveness of task completion (through cooperative work), equity of activity, and reduction of time spent on any particular task (Stanton & Neale, 2003; Stanton, Neale, & Bayon, 2002). Stewart, Bederson, and Druin (1999) proposed the collaborative interaction model Single Display Groupware (SDG), in which a small group of co-located users are provided with their individual input device (can be simultaneously used), to enable them to collaborate, play, work, and share one computer with a single display (Stewart et al., 1999; Tse & Greenberg, 2004). This notion of supporting multi-user co-located interaction through a shared display has been explored in many papers (Scott, Mandryk, & Inkpen, 2003; Stewart et al., 1999). These SDG systems have been used quite successfully for children’s collaboration; besides this, many researches have been conducted on the advantages of SDG in school learning (Abnett, Stanton, Neale, & O’Malley, 2001; Pawar et al., 2007; Pawar et al., 2006; Stanton & Neale, 2003; Stanton et al., 2002; Tse & Greenberg, 2004). However, the co-located collaborative technologies (SDG) mentioned above are focused on persons without disabilities. Concerning people with disabilities, this technology may not be suitable for them, and they cannot benefit from the SDG function, because (a) most of them usually encounter difficulties using a computer in a pointing operation (Cook & Hussey,
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 3 8227106x1320; fax: +886 3 8228707. E-mail address: [email protected] (C.-H. Shih). 0891-4222/$ – see front matter ß 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2010.07.020
1252
C.-H. Shih et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 31 (2010) 1251–1257
2002), and (b) SDG applications are targeted at the mainstream population, without providing the type of accommodation that meets the needs or desires of people with disabilities (Stewart et al., 1999; Tse & Greenberg, 2004). Some recent studies have adopted software technology to redesign the mouse driver in order to improve computer operation performance of persons with disabilities: (a) multi-mice configuration; this research enabled physically disabled people to export the remaining ability of each limb with several mice to complete the mouse operation (Shih & Shih, 2009a, 2009c), (b) Automatic Pointing Assistive Program (APAP) and Extended Automatic Pointing Assistive Program (EAPAP), where the user can click the mouse button when the cursor is near the target (inside the activation area), instead of moving the cursor over the target (Shih, Hsu, & Shih, 2009; Shih, Li, Shih, Lin, & Lo, 2010), (c) Dual Cursor Automatic Pointing Assistive Program (DCAPAP) and Extended Dual Cursor Automatic Pointing Assistive Program (EDCAPAP), where the dual cursors (a virtual cursor and a system cursor) are adopted to offer users an operating environment with Mouseover effects, which is closer to the real conditions (Shih, Chung, Chiang, & Shih, 2010; Shih, Shih, & Chiu, 2010), and (d) Automatic Drag-and-Drop Assistive Program (ADnDAP), in which the complex dragging process (which is difficult or impossible for persons with disabilities to operate) is replaced by a simple clicking operation with APAP function (Shih, Huang, Liao, Shih, & Chiang, 2010). Shih, Cheng, Li, Shih, and Chiang (2010) extended the APAP function to SDG application, presented a Multiple Cursor Automatic Pointing Assistive Program (MCAPAP), to enable two people with disabilities to cooperate in pointing (Shih, Cheng, & et al., 2010). Each user has his own virtual cursor with APAP function (i.e., each user can click their mouse button when the virtual cursor is near the target). All the researches mentioned above use software technology to improve pointing performance, focus on persons with disabilities who can operate a mouse to move a computer cursor, but had very low mouse operation efficiency. Concerning persons with disabilities who cannot easily or possibly use a computer through a standard mouse (such as people who have extensive paralysis of their body and who can effectively control a computer only through very limited movements), these researches may not be suitable for them. Therefore, Shih, Chang, and Shih (2009) used a mouse wheel as a pointing assistive device to improve the pointing performance of people with multiple disabilities, who have minimal motor behavior, through a new operation method, the Dynamic Pointing Assistive Program (DPAP), where the user can poke his/her thumb/finger to rotate a mouse wheel to move a cursor to a target (Shih, Chang, & et al., 2009). This study extending the DPAP research, combined with Dual Cursor technology (Shih, Chung, & et al., 2010) to implement the function of DPAP with SDG technology, proposed a new operation method, the Multiple Cursor Dynamic Pointing Assistive Program (MCDPAP), where driver technology is adopted to enable each user to have his own virtual cursor with DPAP function (i.e., each user can rotate a mouse wheel by poking it with their thumb/finger, to move a cursor to a target), to enable people with disabilities to collaboratively point, as shown in Fig. 1. Fig. 1(a) shows a system cursor, two virtual cursors in different colors (blue and pink) with name prompts (Mark and Jenny), and five pre-defined targets noted as P1, P2, P3, P4 and P5. Each user has a mouse, and each mouse controls a virtual cursor (such as Mark). The users poking the mouse wheel will quickly move the virtual cursor among the five targets. The system cursor is over P4 (Pa position), and does not move with mouse movement. As soon as the mouse wheel is rotated, its action will be intercepted by MCDPAP, and the virtual cursor will automatically jump to a series of pre-defined target positions (i.e., P1–P5) in order, according to the amount of wheel rotation and direction. Each forward poke will jump the virtual cursor from one to the next target in the order of P1 ! P2 ! P3 ! P4 ! P5 ! P1 ! . . ., whereas, a backward poke jumps the virtual cursor in the order of P5 ! P4 ! P3 ! P2 ! P1 ! P5 ! . . .. The more the poke amount is, the more the virtual cursor jumps. All of the mouse (controlling virtual cursor) can be used simultaneously without interference. As shown in Fig. 1(b), when Jenny clicks (at P2 position), the system cursor will jump from its previous location (Pa) to Jenny’s virtual cursor position (P2) automatically (its movement path is shown by the red dashes) and perform the click to send functional commands to the computer. If Mark clicks (at P4 position), the system cursor will jump from its newest previous location (P2) to the location of Mark’s virtual cursor (P4) and perform the click (Fig. 1(c)). In this study, because any slight and undesired mouse movement could be detected by the precise mouse optical sensor, deviating the cursor from the target, the mouse movement function is cancelled in order to avoid positioning interference. In this way, the traditional pointing software, which only supports a single cursor for a single user to operate, can support people with disabilities with SDG function and pointing assistance (DPAP) without being modified or rewritten. Though the computer techniques can support more than one mouse, windows operation system (OS) only supports one user (one cursor) to operate with the system. Once multiple mice are connected to a computer, the Windows OS will install its driver automatically, defining its function as a moving cursor. The cursor movement is the sum of all the operations of the mice connected. As a result, it is not easy to modify the mouse default functions and simulate multiple virtual cursors to meet the needs of MCDPAP. Normally, the device driver (such as mouse and keyboard) is provided by Windows OS or the hardware manufacturer to ensure that the connected device can function properly (Wikipedia, 2009). Redesigning a mouse driver can reset the mouse functions, turning it into a much more powerful tool, but it is rarely proposed by researchers because of the complexity of the technology required and in-depth understanding of how the hardware and the software of a given platform function. Only a few recent researches have adopted software technology to redesign the mouse driver, visualizing the mouse as a useful tool for many applications dedicated to persons with disabilities (Shih, Chiu, & et al., 2010; Shih & Shih, 2009b, 2009c, 2009d, 2010; Shih, Shih, Lin, & Chiang, 2009), providing them with additional choices in assistive technology. This work adopts new mouse driver design (i.e., a new mouse driver replaces a standard mouse driver, and is able to reset mouse default functions, change a mouse wheel into a thumb/finger poke detector, and intercepts/simulates mouse action)
[(Fig._1)TD$IG]
C.-H. Shih et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 31 (2010) 1251–1257
1253
Fig. 1. The operation flow of Multiple Cursor Dynamic Pointing Assistive Program (MCDPAP). (a) A system cursor, two virtual cursors in different colors (blue, pink) with name prompts (Mark, Jenny), and five pre-defined targets (P1–P5). Each user (Mark, Jenny) has a mouse, and each mouse controls a virtual cursor. The system cursor is over P4 (Pa position), and does not move with mouse movement. As soon as the mouse wheel is rotated, its action will be intercepted by MCDPAP, and the virtual cursor (such as Mark) will automatically jump to a series of pre-defined target positions (i.e., P1–P5) in order, according to the wheel rotation amount and direction. Each forward poke will jump the virtual cursor from one target to the next in order of P1 ! P2 ! P3 ! P4 ! P5 ! P1 ! . . ., whereas, a backward poke jumps the virtual cursor in order of P5 ! P4 ! P3 ! P2 ! P1 ! P5 ! . . .. All of the mouse (controlling virtual cursor) can be used simultaneously without interference. (b) When Jenny clicks (at P2 position), the system cursor will jump from its previous location (Pa) to Jenny’s virtual cursor position (P2) automatically (its movement path is shown by the red dashes) and perform the click. (c) If Mark clicks (at P4 position), the system cursor will jump from its newest previous location (P2) to the location of Mark’s virtual cursor (P4) and perform the click. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of the article.)
1254
C.-H. Shih et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 31 (2010) 1251–1257
to help two groups of persons with disabilities who cannot easily or possibly use a standard mouse improve their collaborative pointing efficiency, and to compare the difference of their collaborative pointing performance before and after for their use of MCDPAP, in order to determine whether the MCDPAP implementation can enhance their pointing performance. 1. Methods 1.1. Participants The participants (Tsai, Chen, Li, and Hwang) were 18, 13, 17 and 16 years of age, respectively. All of them have multiple disabilities. Tsai and Chen were the first group. Tsai’s level of function was rated as middle-level intellectual disability and presented with profound muscle atrophy. Chen was rated in middle-level intellectual disability and had congenital cerebropathy. Li and Hwang were the second group. Both of their levels of function were estimated to be in the middle range of intellectual disability, and had congenital cerebropathy. All participants had limited hand physical control ability, but could still use a standard mouse with their right hands (Li used the left hand) in a laborious manner, and could not use a mouse for a long time. They had very low mouse operation efficiency due to poor hand–eye coordination, lack of fine motor skills and low motivation induced by frustration. They were interested in computer operation, and hoped that they could use the mouse more easily, quickly and accurately. Neither one had visual disabilities that could hinder them from using a mouse, and could understand simple orders and perform the corresponding tasks. With the guidance of the research assistant, all of them learned to poke their thumb/finger on the mouse wheel to move the virtual cursor to targets and perform the click. Their parents had given formal consent for their involvement in this experiment. 1.2. Apparatus and setting The study was carried out in an activity room of the special education school for the mentally retarded. Computers were placed on a computer table, and the screen was at a distance of about 30 cm from their chairs. Logitech wireless mice were provided to the participants when the experiment began. 1.3. MCDPAP setting, computer pointing test software Four Logitech wireless mice which were installed with MCDPAP to detect the thumb/finger poke were placed under Tsai’s, Chen’s and Hwang’s right hand, and Li’s left hand. Movement function of all mice was cancelled, in order to avoid interference. A pointing test software with two modes (namely practice mode and record mode), which only supports a single user was designed in this study to provide mouse pointing practice for participants (practice mode), and to record their pointing test results (record mode, record participants’ successful pointing number within a certain period of time). Fig. 2 presents the flow diagram of the computer pointing test software. Eight circular destination targets (noted T1–T8) with radii of 0.25 cm, were set every 458 on a circle with a radius of 6 cm. In practice mode, the computer first displayed all destination targets (T1–T8), and set the mouse cursor to the central point (Tc, the centre of the circumference). The participants had to move the system cursor from the centre point (Tc) to each target, and then click to complete a successful pointing. When a task (a successful pointing) was completed, the corresponding target disappeared, and the computer automatically set the system cursor back to the centre point (Tc). Participants would then move the system cursor to another target, and click on it. The eight targets reappeared until all the targets were successfully pointed to and had disappeared. This process was repeated until the end of the practice time. Test mode was run under the same conditions as the practice mode, but the successful pointing number within 3 min was recorded automatically by this program. 1.4. Experimental conditions Initially, both groups of participants received an ABAB sequence (Richards, Taylor, Ramasamy, & Richards, 1999), in which A represented the baseline phase (without MCDPAP technology) and B represented the intervention phase (with MCDPAP technology). Three to five sessions per day occurred within those study periods. Sessions lasted 18 min and were conducted at the participants’ school. The arrangement of this 18-min session was as follows: (a) Pointing practice (10 min) All destination targets (T1–T8) appeared, and participants (group 1, group 2) move the system cursor to the targets and clicked. A research assistant provided vocal prompting and guidance during the practice session to help the participants to complete pointing tasks.
[(Fig._2)TD$IG]
C.-H. Shih et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 31 (2010) 1251–1257
1255
Fig. 2. The flow diagram of the computer pointing test software. Eight circular destination targets (noted T1–T8) with radii of 0.25 cm, were set every 458 on a circle with a radius of 6 cm. The computer first displayed all destination targets (T1–T8), and set the mouse cursor to the central point (Tc, the centre of the circumference). The participants had to move the system cursor from the centre point (Tc) to each target, and then click to complete a successful pointing. When a task (a successful pointing) was completed, the corresponding target disappeared, and the computer automatically set the system cursor back to the centre point (Tc). Participants would then move the system cursor to another target, and click on it. The eight targets reappeared until all the targets were successfully pointed to and had disappeared.
(b) Rest (5 min) Participants were given 5-min rest after practice. (c) Assessment (3 min)
Same conditions as the practice mode, but neither vocal prompting nor instructions from the research assistant were available. The number of times that each group of participants successfully pointed within 3 min was recorded as input for assessment. 1.4.1. Baseline phases The baseline phase included 15 and 24 sessions, respectively. In this phase, the MCDPAP function was turned off, so the participants had to move the cursor from the central point (Tc) to the targets (T1–T8) to click. The movement of the system cursor was the sum of the movement of both mice, which made it difficult for the two participants to avoid interference and complete the pointing test. 1.4.2. Intervention phases This phase included 60 and 57 sessions, respectively. Procedural conditions were as during baseline except that the MCDPAP function was turned on. With the assistance of MCDPAP, both participants could move their own virtual cursor (through mouse wheel poking) together and click the mouse button when the virtual cursor was aimed at the target, instead of moving the system cursor to the target. Both groups’ successful pointing number within 3 min were recorded as input for assessment, and then used to determine whether MCDPAP had improved their collaborative pointing abilities.
[(Fig._3)TD$IG]
1256
C.-H. Shih et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 31 (2010) 1251–1257
Fig. 3. The pointing speed data of the first group (Tsai and Chen). Data points represent the mean of successful points per minute per session over blocks of three sessions. Only the final points of a phase represent a block of two sessions.
[(Fig._4)TD$IG]
Fig. 4. The pointing speed data of the second group (Li and Hwang). Data points represent the mean of successful points per minute per session over blocks of three sessions. Only the final points of a phase can represent a block of two sessions.
2. Results Figs. 3 and 4 indicated the pointing speed of both groups in different phases. The curve showed that both groups improved their pointing efficiency after the implementation of MCDPAP. 2.1. First group (Tsai and Chen) The data of the first group was shown in Fig. 3. In the baseline phase, due to (a) they cannot easily operate a standard mouse (only having minimal motor skills), and (b) both mice will interfere with each other (the cursor movement is the sum of all the operations of the two mice). Therefore, they had very poor pointing performance during the first baseline phase (15 sessions), only had a mean of about 2.2 pointing speed per minute. In the intervention phase, MCDPAP function worked, and participants could cooperate to point to targets (using thumb/finger poking mouse wheel) easily, and accurately. This mean pointing speed largely increased to 17.53 during the first intervention phase (60 sessions) and dropped to 3.83 during the second baseline phase (24 sessions). This mean pointing speed fully restored and eventually increased during the second intervention phase (57 sessions). The differences of pointing speed between the baseline and the intervention were significant (p < .01) on the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (Siegel & Castellan, 1988). 2.2. Second group (Li and Hwang) The data of the second group was shown in Fig. 4. During the first baseline phase (15 sessions), poor pointing performance with a mean of about 0.73 was raised because of interference and physical limitations. The mean largely increased to 18.55 during the first intervention phase (60 sessions). This mean pointing speed dropped to 0.50 during the second baseline phase (24 sessions) to be fully restored and eventually increased during the second intervention phase (57 sessions). The differences of pointing speed between the baseline and the intervention were significant (p < .01) on the Kolmogorov– Smirnov test (Siegel & Castellan, 1988).
3. Discussion As the demand for collaborative applications grows, cooperative learning is a priority in many classrooms and has been emphasized by current curriculum standards (NCTM, 1989). Concerning people with disabilities, it is very important for them to have a collaborative working/learning chance in computer operation. The study presented in this paper addressed
C.-H. Shih et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 31 (2010) 1251–1257
1257
this problem, and presents an effective way (using mouse wheel poking) to allow two people with multiple disabilities to collaborate using a shared computer display. As shown in this study, with the assistance of MCDPAP technology, which combines the advantages of virtual cursor and DPAP functions to give effective assistance, people with disabilities who generally encounter mouse operation problems increase significantly in their pointing level, and can cooperate to point to targets quickly, easily, and accurately. This MCDPAP software-based solution can support all standard interfaces of commercial input devices (such as mouse and trackball) that are compatible with the computer, including USB, wireless, and Bluetooth interfaces. It is also compatible with all currently available software, so existing software can be utilized to support multiple people with disabilities face-to-face interacting in a co-located environment, to improve the collaborative pointing efficiency, without being modified or rewritten. Both groups of participants rapidly improved their collaborative pointing efficiencies after receiving MCDPAP. The results of this study demonstrate that people with disabilities can easily master MCDPAP without long-period practice. These participants could cooperate in using many educational/CAI software, which only support a single cursor for a single user to operate through MCDPAP after the experiment. This study only considers collaborative pointing, focusing on individuals with disabilities, who can neither use a standard mouse to point nor perform collaborative pointing efficiently. Further studies are necessary to develop additional mouse applications to extend current functionality (such as collaborative dragging) and satisfy the needs of different levels of disabilities. Hopefully, the implementation of MCDPAP can realize collaboration in all complex mouse operations and provide persons with disabilities with additional choices in computer assistive technology. References Abnett, C., Stanton, D., Neale, H., & O’Malley, C. (2001). The effect of multiple input devices on collaboration and gender issues. Paper presented at the European Perspectives on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (EuroCSCL) 2001. Bricker, L. J., Tanimoto, S. L., Rothenberg, A. I., Hutama, D. C., & Wong, T. H. (1995). Multiplayer activities that develop mathematical coordination. Paper presented at the CSCL 95 conference proceedings. Cook, A. M., & Hussey, S. M. (2002). Assistive technologies: Principles and practice. St. Louis, MO Mosby, Inc.. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: The Council. Pal, J., Pawar, U. S., Brewer, E. A., & Toyama, K. (2006). The case for multi-user design for computer aided learning in developing regions. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 15th international conference on World Wide Web. Pawar, U. S., Pal, J., Gupta, R., & Toyama, K. (2007). Multiple mice for retention tasks in disadvantaged schools. Paper presented at the proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. Pawar, U. S., Pal, J., & Toyama, K. (2006). Multiple mice for computers in education in developing countries. Paper presented at the international conference on information technologies and development. Richards, S. B., Taylor, R. L., Ramasamy, R., & Richards, R. Y. (1999). Single subject research: Applications in educational and clinical settings. New York: Wadsworth. Scott, S., Mandryk, R., & Inkpen, K. (2003). Understanding children’s collaborative interactions in shared environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 220–228. Shih, C.-H., Chang, M.-L., & Shih, C.-T. (2009). Assisting people with multiple disabilities and minimal motor behavior to improve computer pointing efficiency through a mouse wheel. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30, 1378–1387. Shih, C.-H., Cheng, H.-F., Li, C.-C., Shih, C.-T., & Chiang, M.-S. (2010). Assisting people with developmental disabilities improve their collaborative pointing efficiency with a Multiple Cursor Automatic Pointing Assistive Program. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31, 600–607. Shih, C.-H., Chiu, S.-K., Chu, C.-L., Shih, C.-T., Liao, Y.-K., & Lin, C.-C. (2010). Assisting people with multiple disabilities improve their computer pointing efficiency with hand swing through a standard mouse. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31, 517–524. Shih, C.-H., Chung, C.-C., Chiang, M.-S., & Shih, C.-T. (2010). Assisting people with developmental disabilities to improve pointing efficiency with a Dual Cursor Automatic Pointing Assistive Program. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31, 151–159. Shih, C.-H., Hsu, N.-Y., & Shih, C.-T. (2009). Assisting people with developmental disabilities to improve pointing efficiency with an Automatic Pointing Assistive Program. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30, 1212–1220. Shih, C.-H., Huang, H.-C., Liao, Y.-K., Shih, C.-T., & Chiang, M.-S. (2010). An Automatic Drag-and-Drop Assistive Program developed to assistive people with developmental disabilities to improve drag-and-drop efficiency. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31, 416–425. Shih, C.-H., Li, C.-C., Shih, C.-T., Lin, K.-T., & Lo, C.-S. (2010). Extended Automatic Pointing Assistive Program—A pointing assistance program to help people with developmental disabilities improve their pointing efficiency. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31, 672–679. Shih, C.-H., & Shih, C.-T. (2009a). Assisting people with multiple disabilities to use computers with multiple mice. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30, 746– 754. Shih, C.-H., & Shih, C.-T. (2009b). Development of a computer input system for persons with disabilities using a commercial mouse and switches. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 4, 414–421. Shih, C.-H., & Shih, C.-T. (2009c). Development of an integrated pointing device driver for the disabled. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology doi:10.1080/17483100903105599. Shih, C.-H., & Shih, C.-T. (2009d). A new movement detector to enable people with multiple disabilities to control environmental stimulation with hand swing through a commercial mouse. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30, 1196–1202. Shih, C.-H., & Shih, C.-T. (2010). Assisting two children with multiple disabilities and minimal motor behavior to control environmental stimulation with thumb poke through a trackball. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 38, 211–219. Shih, C.-H., Shih, C.-T., & Chiu, H.-C. (2010). Using an Extended Automatic Target Acquisition Program with dual cursor technology to assist people with developmental disabilities improve their pointing efficiency. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31, 1091–1101. Shih, C.-H., Shih, C.-T., Lin, K.-T., & Chiang, M.-S. (2009). Assisting people with multiple disabilities and minimal motor behavior to control environmental stimulation through a mouse wheel. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30, 1413–1419. Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences:. New York: McGraw-HiU Book Company. Stanton, D., & Neale, H. R. (2003). The effects of multiple mice on children’s talk and interaction. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 229–238. Stanton, D., Neale, H., & Bayon, V. (2002). Interfaces to support children’s co-present collaboration: Multiple mice and tangible technologies. Paper presented at the proceedings of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL). Stewart, J., Bederson, B. B., & Druin, A. (1999). Single display groupware: A model for co-present collaboration. Paper presented at the proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems: The CHI is the limit. Tse, E., & Greenberg, S. (2004). Rapidly prototyping single display groupware through the SDGToolkit. Paper presented at the proceedings of the fifth conference on Australasian user interface, Vol. 28. Wikipedia. (2009). Device driver Retrieved August 20, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Device_driver.