- Email: [email protected]
Using an Extended Automatic Target Acquisition Program with Dual Cursor technology to assist people with developmental disabilities in improving their pointing efficiency
Research in Developmental Disabilities 32 (2011) 1506–1513
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Research in Developmental Disabilities
Using an Extended Automatic Target Acquisition Program with Dual Cursor technology to assist people with developmental disabilities in improving their pointing efficiency Ching-Hsiang Shih a,*, Ching-Tien Shih b, Pi-Hsiang Pi a a b
Department of Special Education, National Dong Hwa University, Hualien 970, Taiwan, ROC Department of Electronics Engineering and Computer Science, Tung Fang Design University, 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 20 January 2011 Accepted 20 January 2011 Available online 14 May 2011
The latest research adopting software technology to improve pointing performance is through an Automatic Target Acquisition Program (ATAP), where the user can click on the mouse button when a dashed line is aimed at the desired target, instead of moving the cursor to the target. However, ATAP has one limitation – it cannot benefit from Mouseover effects because they only work when the cursor is over the target. This study evaluated whether two children with developmental disabilities would be able to improve their pointing performance through a Dual Cursor Automatic Target Acquisition Program (DCATAP), which solves the limitation of ATAP. At the beginning, both participants had baseline sessions. Then the first participant began his intervention sessions. New intervention occurred with the second participant when the first participant’s performance was consolidated. Finally, both participants were exposed to the maintenance phase, in which their pointing performance improved significantly. With the assistance of DCATAP, participants can significantly improve their pointing performance, and can position targets quickly, easily, and accurately. ß 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Developmental disabilities Pointing DCATAP Mouse driver
1. Introduction For persons with disabilities, computer technologies play an essential role in their everyday life, and can provide a whole new realm of independence, such as assisting individuals with learning disabilities to more easily perform cognitive activities; speaking for non-verbal persons; reading for persons with blindness or low vision; allowing persons who are deaf to communicate by phone; activating environmental controls for persons with paralysis; and much more (Brodwin, Star, & Cardoso, 2004; Cook & Hussey, 2002; Resta & Laferriere, 2007; Salminen, Petrie, & Ryan, 2004; Somers et al., 2007; Stern, 2008). However, because most computer standard input devices (i.e., mouse, keyboard, trackball) are designed for the mainstream population, without taking into account that these devices might be used by people with disabilities who generally encounter computer operation problems, it is difficult or impossible for them to operate computers through standard input devices (Abascal & Nicolle, 2005; Brodwin et al., 2004; Cook & Hussey, 2002; Wong, Chan, Li-Tsang, & Lam, 2009).
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 3 8227106x1320; fax: +886 3 8228707. E-mail address: [email protected] (C.-H. Shih). 0891-4222/$ – see front matter ß 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2011.01.043
C.-H. Shih et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 32 (2011) 1506–1513
1507
Therefore, various special-purpose input devices, as well as modified or adapted computer standard input devices, have been proposed to assist and meet the needs of people with disabilities in order to help them to solve their computer operation problems (Brodwin et al., 2004; Hedrick, Pape, Heinemann, Ruddell, & Reis, 2006; Mann, Belchior, Tomita, & Kemp, 2005; Shih & Shih, 2009a, 2009b, 2010b; Shih, Shih, & Luo, 2007; Tu, Tao, & Huang, 2007). Pointing devices (such as mice and trackballs) are replacing traditional keyboards for many computer input tasks because of the extensive use of Windows and graphical user interfaces (GUIs) in computer operation systems (OSs). Pointing, as the basic operation in the use of pointing devices, is achieved by moving the pointing devices in order to move the cursor to desired targets (such as an icon, picture, or text), and clicking the pointing devices button to send functional commands to the computer (Donker & Reitsma, 2007a; Shimizu & McDonough, 2006). Persons with disabilities usually encounter difficulties in using a computer in pointing tasks, such as the difficulty of moving a pointing device in a straight line, inability to select small targets, or the difficulty of controlling the pointer’s buttons, etc. Many pointing assistive functions/programs (such as expanding targets, bubble cursors, and sticky icons) have been proposed, so as to help the persons with disabilities solve their pointing problems (Ahlstrom, Hitz, & Leitner, 2006; Grossman & Balakrishnan, 2005; Park, Han, & Yang, 2006). The advantages of providing useful functions in pointing may be greater for users who are either unfamiliar or have difficulty in positioning a mouse, for example, older users, children, or persons with disabilities (Park et al., 2006). Recent studies have adopted software driver technology to offer powerful solutions to make target positioning (i.e., pointing) easier and faster. These researches have redesigned the mouse driver to reset mouse default functions, and have enabled a standard mouse to be adapted to the needs of people with disabilities; therefore the user can reduce the number of pointing errors and the target positioning time: (a) Automatic Pointing Assistive Program (APAP) (Shih, Hsu, & Shih, 2009) and Extended APAP (EAPAP) (Shih, Li, Shih, Lin, & Lo, 2010) realize that users can click the mouse button when the cursor is near the target (i.e., inside the activation area), instead of accurately moving the cursor over the target; (b) Dual Cursor APAP (DCAPAP) (Shih, Chung, Chiang, & Shih, 2010) and Extended DCAPAP (EDCAPAP) (Shih, Shih, & Chiu, 2010) adopt the dual cursors (a system cursor and a virtual cursor) to offer users an operating environment with Mouseover effects, which is closer to the real conditions; (c) Multiple Cursor APAP (MCAPAP), enables co-located users to have their own virtual cursors with APAP function to collaborate through a single computer (Shih, Cheng, Li, Shih, & Chiang, 2010); (d) Automatic Drag-and-Drop Assistive Program (ADnDAP) replaces the complex dragging process (which is difficult or impossible for persons with disabilities to operate) by a simple clicking operation with APAP function (Shih, Huang, Liao, Shih, & Chiang, 2010); (e) Dynamic Pointing Assistive Program (DPAP) allows the user to poke his/her thumb/finger to rotate a mouse wheel to move a cursor to a target (Shih, Chang, & Shih, 2009), and Multiple Cursor DPAP (MCDPAP) enables each user to have his own virtual cursor with DPAP function through driver technology, and allows people with disabilities to collaboratively point (Shih, Shih, & Wang, 2010); (f) Extended DPAP (EDPAP) (Shih, Chiu, et al., 2010) and Adaptive DPAP (ADPAP) (Shih, Shih, & Wu, 2010) allows users to move a cursor to a target by swinging his hand on the desktop. The latest research, Automatic Target Acquisition Program (ATAP), adopted mouse driver technology to recommend a new operation method, where an automatic target-guided dashed line between the mouse cursor and the nearest target appears to indicate which target is the selected (nearest) target (Shih, Shih, & Peng, 2010). Mouse click action will be intercepted as soon as the mouse is clicked, the cursor jumps to the selected (nearest) target center automatically, and then the intercepted mouse click action will be sent out. For persons with disabilities, ATAP can help them to improve their computer operation ability and solve their pointing problems. However, ATAP has one limitation – it cannot benefit from Mouseover effects.Mouseover effects are practically a universal standard, and are commonly used in windows application software to clarify what is active. As shown in Fig. 1, Mouseovers, by which an element changes in response to the mouse cursor moving over it (Wikipedia, 2009b), are commonly used in modern graphical user interface (GUI) programming. In ATAP, the cursor jumps to the selected (nearest) target only when the mouse is clicked (the automatic target-guide dashed line points at the desired target). Therefore, users cannot be assisted by Mouseover effects before the user clicks on the mouse button, because Mouseover will only work when the cursor is over the target (Shih, Shih, & Peng, 2010). This limitation of ATAP can be solved through a new revised operation method, Dual Cursor ATAP (DCATAP), where Dual Cursor technology (Shih, Chung, et al., 2010; Shih, Shih, & Chiu, 2010) is adopted to implement the function of ATAP with Mouseover effects. As shown in Fig. 2, four pre-defined targets are noted as T1, T2, T3 and T4. The virtual cursor (solid pink cursor) appears to indicate the movement path of the system cursor. The program (DCATAP) continually monitors the virtual cursor position, and calculates the distance from the virtual cursor position to each target (T1–T4), and serves to determine which target is the nearest target (noted Td) amongst the four pre-defined targets (T1–T4); then the system cursor jumps to the nearest target (Td) center automatically and activates Mouseover effects; a dashed line between the virtual cursor and the nearest target (Td) appears to indicate the selected target. As shown in Fig. 2(a), the virtual cursor is at A1 (or A2, A3, A4) position; DCATAP finds out that T1 is the nearest target, so the system cursor jumps to T1, while the dashed line points to T1 to indicate that T1 is the selected target (Td). Once the virtual cursor has been moved to B1 (or B2, B3) position (as shown in Fig. 2(b)), DCATAP finds out that the nearest target has changed to T2; then the system cursor jumps to T2 and the dashed line points to T2 (the selected target Td is T2). The user can click the mouse button to send functional commands to the computer instead of moving the cursor to the desired target T2, when the dashed line points at the desired target (such as T2). This process was repeated until the end of mouse operation.
[()TD$FIG]
1508
C.-H. Shih et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 32 (2011) 1506–1513
Fig. 1. A fan simulation CAI software. There are four control buttons under the fan to control its actions, including on/off, high speed, low speed and rotation. (a) The externality of the four control buttons does not change before the cursor moves over them. (b) The four control buttons have their corresponding Mouseover effects (the red button, tooltips and sound feedback), when the cursor moves over them.
Compared to ATAP, DCATAP offers users an operating environment which is closer to the real conditions. The key technology of DCATAP is the mouse movement action interception/detection. Users can neither detect mouse movement nor lock the cursor over targets without this technology application. It is not easy to modify mouse functions (intercept/detect mouse movement action) to meet the needs of DCATAP, because once the mouse is connected to a computer, the windows operation system (OS) will install its driver automatically and define its function as moving, clicking and dragging. In order to be turned into a much more powerful tool, the mouse functions need to be reset, in other words, the mouse driver needs to be redesigned. This is rarely proposed by researchers because of the complexity of the technology required (Microsoft, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c, 2008d). Only a few recent researches have suggested redesigning the mouse driver through software technology (Shih, Chang, et al., 2009; Shih, Hsu, et al., 2009; Shih, Huang, Liao, Shih, & Chiang, 2010; Shih & Shih,
[()TD$FIG]
C.-H. Shih et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 32 (2011) 1506–1513
1509
Fig. 2. Four pre-defined targets are noted as T1, T2, T3 and T4 in the Dual Cursor Automatic Target Acquisition Program (DCATAP). The virtual cursor (solid pink cursor) appears to indicate the movement path of the system cursor, and the system cursor jumps to the target center to activate the Mouseover effects. (a) The virtual cursor is at A1 (or A2, A3, A4) position; DCATAP finds out that T1 is the nearest target, so the system cursor jumps to T1 and the dashed line points to T1 to indicate that T1 is the selected target. (b) Once the virtual cursor is moved to B1 (or B2, B3) position, DCATAP finds out that the nearest target has changed to T2; then the system cursor jumps to T2 and the dashed line points to T2 (the selected target is T2). The user can click the mouse button to send functional commands to the computer instead of moving the cursor to the desired target T2, when the dashed line points at the desired target (such as T2). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of the article.)
2009c, 2010a; Shih, Shih, Lin, & Chiang, 2009), visualizing the mouse as a useful tool for many applications dedicated to persons with disabilities (such as hand movement detector, finger/thumb poke detector and pointing/drag-and-drop assistive function, etc.), and providing them with additional choices in assistive technology. This work adopts Shih’s new revised mouse driver (i.e. a new mouse driver replaces the standard mouse driver) to intercept/detect mouse movement action, in order to help people with disabilities improve their pointing efficiency with Mouseover effects, and to understand the difference between pointing performance before and after for people with developmental disabilities using DCATAP, in order to determine whether the DCATAP implementation can enhance their pointing performance. 2. Method 2.1. Participants The participants (Huang and Ping) were 10 and 9 years old, respectively. Huang’s level of function was estimated to be in the profound range of multiple disabilities. He could not walk independently, but could stand and briefly walk in a laborious manner with extensive physical support and the assistance of a caregiver. He usually sat in a wheelchair most of the day. He could use the common mouse with his left hand, but the cursor often deviated from the target when he clicked the mouse due to his poor hand–eye coordination, and resulted in poor mouse operation ability. In addition, he could not use a mouse for an extended amount of time of 5 min. Ping’s level of function was estimated to be in the mild range of intellectual disability. He had poor hand–eye coordination due to strabismus. Normally, he could use his left hand to operate a mouse for about 5 min. He could click, but his mouse operation performance was worse than people of the same age when completing pointing tasks. Both participants were interested in computer operation, and had learned to move the system cursor to the targets and perform the click, with the guidance of a research assistant. Their parents had given formal consent for their involvement in this experiment. 2.2. Apparatus and setting A separate room at the special education school for the mentally retarded was offered to carry out the experiment. Computers were placed on a computer table, and the screen was at a distance of about 30 cm from their chairs. Both participants were given the mouse when the experiment began.
1510
C.-H. Shih et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 32 (2011) 1506–1513
2.2.1. DCATAP setting, computer pointing evaluation software (CPES) Two Logitech wireless mice, which were installed with DCATAP to intercept/detect mouse movement action, were placed under Huang’s and Ping’s left hands. This study adopted computer pointing evaluation software (CPES) with two modes (namely practice mode and test mode) to provide mouse pointing practice for participants, and to record their test results (Shih, Shih, & Peng, 2010; Shih, Shih, & Wu, 2010). Both participants received repeated pointing practice in practice mode, and reached their successful pointing numbers within a certain period of time in test mode. Fig. 3 indicates the flow diagram of the CPES. Eight circular destination targets (noted as T1–T8), each with a radius of 0.25 cm, were set every 458 on a circle with a radius of 6 cm. When the participants moved the virtual cursor, the system cursor jumped to the nearest target (Td) center and activated the Mouseover effects. In practice mode, the CPES first displayed target T1, and the mouse cursor was set to the central point (noted as Tc, the center of the circumference). The participants had to move the mouse cursor from Tc (the center point) to destination target T1, and then click to complete a successful pointing. When the task was completed, the target (T1) disappeared and the destination target T2 appeared. Participants would then move the mouse cursor from T1 to target T2, and click on it. This process was repeated until the end of practice time. Test mode was under the same conditions as the practice mode, but the targets appeared randomly. CPES recorded the number of successful points within 3 min automatically. 2.3. Experimental conditions This study used multiple probe design across participants (Richards, Taylor, Ramasamy, & Richards, 1999). Both participants typically received 3 training sessions per week, each with about 30 min use of DCATAP, for a period of about 6–7 weeks. Huang initially received three pre-probe sessions during baseline, and intervention began when his performance was consolidated. Ping received discontinuous pre-probe, and began his intervention when Huang’s performance was consolidated during intervention. The experiment consists of three phases: (a) during the baseline phase, at least three pre-probe sessions were performed to collect participants’ baseline data; (b) during the intervention phase, DCATAP was adopted to obtain the performance data of DCATAP practice for assessment; and (c) during the maintenance phase, performed one week after intervention finished, participants’ follow-up performance was assessed three times. CPES was adopted during the experiment to record the successful points within 3 min of each phase (i.e., baseline, intervention, and maintenance).
[()TD$FIG]
2.3.1. Baseline In this phase, the DCATAP function was turned off, and both participants had to move the cursor to the targets (T1–T8) to click. Huang’s data was collected three times per week during this phase, while Ping’s baseline data was obtained twice per week discontinuously.
Fig. 3. The flow diagram of the computer pointing evaluation software (CPES). Eight circular destination targets (noted as T1–T8) each with radius of 0.25 cm, were set every 458 on a circle with a radius of 6 cm.
C.-H. Shih et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 32 (2011) 1506–1513
1511
2.3.2. Intervention At the beginning of this phase, Huang first received training for DCATAP use, and Ping was still being probed discontinuously to collect his baseline data. Ping received DCATAP training once Huang’s performance was consolidated. In principle, eleven 30-min practice sessions were performed on each participant during intervention. The arrangement of this 30-min session was as follows: (a) Pointing practice (20 min) The DCATAP function was activated in this phase. Therefore, the participants could perform click near targets instead of moving the cursor to targets (T1–T8). Destination targets (T1–T8) appeared in order, and participants moved the mouse cursor close to each target (T1–T8) and clicked. During the practice session, computer vocal prompting was available. A research assistant provided guidance to help the participants use DCATAP to complete pointing. (b) Rest (7 min) Participants rested for 7 min after practice. (c) Assessment (3 min) The targets appeared randomly during this phase. Neither instructions from the research assistant nor computer vocal prompting were available. The number of each participant’s successfully pointing within 3 min was recorded as input for assessment, and then adopted to determine whether DCATAP improved their pointing efficiency. This phase continued until each participant’s performance was consolidated. 2.3.3. Maintenance This phase began 1 week after the intervention phase to determine whether the participants maintained the skills that they had acquired. During this phase, neither of the participants had DCATAP practice, but participated directly in the pointing test. 3. Results
[()TD$FIG]
Fig. 4 shows the pointing speed of both participants after the implementation of DCATAP. The curve indicates that both participants improved their pointing efficiency, and maintained their acquired skills during the maintenance phase.
Fig. 4. The pointing speeds of the two participants after the implementation of DCATAP. Both participants improved their pointing efficiency, as indicated by the curve, and maintained their acquired skills during the maintenance phase.
1512
C.-H. Shih et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 32 (2011) 1506–1513
3.1. Huang 3.1.1. Baseline Huang could hold and control a common mouse with his left hand. Detailed observation of his mouse operation indicated that, owing to his poor hand–eye coordination, he could not point accurately. The cursor often deviated from the target when he clicked the mouse button, and Huang only achieved a mean of 0.44 correct points per minute during this phase. 3.1.2. Intervention At first, Huang was unfamiliar with the DCATAP function in his earlier intervention phase, and had a poor pointing efficiency/performance. His correct pointing per minute, however, still increased compared to baseline. With the help of DCATAP, the system cursor was locked to the nearest target center automatically, when the virtual cursor was close to the target. It solved the deviation problem when clicking, because the user did not need to move the cursor on the target. He gradually mastered the use of DCATAP, increased his pointing efficiency as the practice time accumulated, and became able to use DCATAP to facilitate the target positioning tasks. Fig. 4 showed that Huang’s pointing speed increased quickly, which reveals that DCATAP operation could be mastered easily within a short period of practice. He achieved 6.00–19.33 correct points per min, with an overall mean of 11.69 per min. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (Siegel & Castellan, 1988) showed that the increase from baseline to intervention was statistically significant (p < .01). 3.1.3. Maintenance The maintenance phase began with Huang one week after intervention finished. According to Fig. 4, his pointing speed in this phase was close to that during the intervention phase. His correct pointing within 3 min in 3 sessions during this phase were 56, 52 and 57, respectively, with an overall mean of 55, and he retained the skills that he had acquired during the intervention phase. 3.2. Ping 3.2.1. Baseline Ping could control the mouse, but had few successful points due to the small size of targets. His successful points within 3 min were 0, 6 and 6, respectively. He also had difficulty in controlling the movement of the mouse cursor while simultaneously clicking, due to poor hand–eye coordination. Ping achieved a mean of 1.33 correct points per minute during the baseline phase. 3.2.2. Intervention Ping mastered the use of DCATAP at the beginning, but could not concentrate on using the mouse for a long time (less than 5 min). He became gradually concentrated, and his pointing speed rose quickly, according to Fig. 4. He achieved 8.34–19.00 correct points per min during this phase, with an overall mean of 13.40. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (Siegel & Castellan, 1988) showed that the increase from baseline to intervention was statistically significant (p < .01). 3.2.3. Maintenance Ping began this phase 1 week after intervention. During this phase (including 3 sessions), Ping’s performance data (correct points within 3 min) were 45, 61 and 60, respectively, and he achieved 15.00–20.34 correct points per min. These results indicate that he retained the skills that he had acquired during the intervention phase. 4. Discussion As shown in this study, with the implementation of DCATAP, which combines the advantages of dual cursor (i.e. to activate the Mouseover effects) and ATAP functions (Shih, Shih, & Peng, 2010) to give effective assistance, both participants rapidly improved their pointing efficiency, and retained their acquisition skills in the maintenance phase. DCATAP is a software-based solution, (a) it does not need extra hardware design or modification, and can be widely spread and popularized by internet; (b) it is compatible with all standard commercial pointing devices (i.e., mouse and trackball) and USB, wireless, and Bluetooth (Wikipedia, 2009a) interfaces; and (c) it is also compatible with all currently available software, so existing software solutions, without being modified or rewritten, can be applied to improve the pointing efficiency of people with disabilities. This study only considers pointing; it cannot be applied to other mouse controls which need higher physical abilities, such as double-clicking, dragging, scrolling, and so on. Even though pointing is sufficient for the growing number of well-designed educational programs (Donker & Reitsma, 2007a, 2007b; Shimizu & McDonough, 2006), further studies are still necessary to develop additional mouse applications, as well as corresponding training and test software to satisfy the needs of different levels of disabilities. Hopefully, DCATAP implementation can cover all complex mouse movements and provide individuals with developmental disabilities with additional choices in assistive technology.
C.-H. Shih et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 32 (2011) 1506–1513
1513
References Abascal, J., & Nicolle, C. (2005). Moving towards inclusive design guidelines for socially and ethically aware HCI. Interacting with Computers, 17, 484–505. Ahlstrom, D., Hitz, M., & Leitner, G. (2006). An evaluation of sticky and force enhanced targets in multi target situations. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 4th nordic conference on human–computer interaction: changing roles. Brodwin, M. G., Star, T., & Cardoso, E. (2004). Computer assistive technology for people who have disabilities: Computer adaptations and modifications. Journal of Rehabilitation, 70, 28–33. Cook, A. M., & Hussey, S. M. (2002). Assistive technologies: Principles and practice. St. Louis, MO Mosby, Inc.. Donker, A., & Reitsma, P. (2007a). Aiming and clicking in young children’s use of the computer mouse. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2863–2874. Donker, A., & Reitsma, P. (2007b). Young children’s ability to use a computer mouse. Computers and Education, 48, 602–617. Grossman, T., & Balakrishnan, R. (2005). The bubble cursor: Enhancing target acquisition by dynamically resizing of the cursor’s activation area. Paper presented at the proceedings of CHI’05 conference on human factors in computing systems. Hedrick, B., Pape, T. L., Heinemann, A. W., Ruddell, J. L., & Reis, J. (2006). Employment issues and assistive technology use for persons with spinal cord injury. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 43, 185. Mann, W. C., Belchior, P., Tomita, M. R., & Kemp, B. J. (2005). Computer use by middle-aged and older adults with disabilities. Technology and Disability, 17, 1–9. Microsoft (2008a). WDM: Introduction to Windows Driver Model. Available from: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/archive/wdm.mspx#EJE Accessed 18.06.08. Microsoft (2008b). Windows Driver Kit: Human Input Devices. Available from: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms794089.aspx Accessed 30.05.08. Microsoft (2008c). Windows Management Instrumentation. Available from: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa394582(VS.85).aspx Accessed 18.06.08. Microsoft (2008d). Windows Server 2003 DDK. Available from: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/devtools/ddk/default.mspx Accessed 18.06.08. Park, J., Han, S. H., & Yang, H. (2006). Evaluation of cursor capturing functions in a target positioning task. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 36, 721– 730. Resta, P., & Laferriere, T. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 65–83. Richards, S. B., Taylor, R. L., Ramasamy, R., & Richards, R. Y. (1999). Single subject research: Applications in educational and clinical settings. New York: Wadsworth. Salminen, A. L., Petrie, H., & Ryan, S. (2004). Impact of computer augmented communication on the daily lives of speech-impaired children. Part I: Daily communication and activities. Technology and Disability, 16, 157–167. 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). 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. (2010a). 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. (2010b). Development of an integrated pointing device driver for the disabled. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 5, 351–358. Shih, C.-H., Shih, C.-T., & Luo, C.-H. (2007). Design of a fast switch-control computer input device using two-grade movement method for people with physical disabilities. WSEAS Transactions on Computers, 6, 1140–1146. 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., 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., 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. 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., 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., & 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., & Peng, C.-L. (2010). Assisting people with multiple disabilities by improving their computer pointing efficiency with an Automatic Target Acquisition Program. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32, 194–200. Shih, C.-H., Shih, C.-T., & Wang, S.-K. (2010). Assisting people with disabilities improves their collaborative pointing efficiency with a Multiple Cursor Dynamic Pointing Assistive Program. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31, 1251–1257. Shih, C.-H., Shih, C.-T., & Wu, H.-L. (2010). An adaptive dynamic pointing assistance program to help people with multiple disabilities improve their computer pointing efficiency with hand swing through a standard mouse. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31, 1515–1524. Shimizu, H., & McDonough, C. S. (2006). Programmed instruction to teach pointing with a computer mouse in preschoolers with developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 27, 175–189. Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences:. New York: McGraw-HiU Book Company. Somers, H. L., Caress, A. L., Evans, D. G., Johnson, M. J., Lovel, H. J., & Mohamed, Z. (2007). A computer-based aid for communication between patients with limited English and their clinicians, using symbols and digitised speech. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 77, 507–517. Stern, S. E. (2008). Computer-synthesized speech and perceptions of the social influence of disabled users. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 254. Tu, J., Tao, H., & Huang, T. (2007). Face as mouse through visual face tracking. Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 108, 35–40. Wikipedia (2009a). Bluetooth. Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth Accessed 20.08.09. Wikipedia (2009b). Mouseover. Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouseover Accessed 10.03.09. Wong, A. W. K., Chan, C. C. H., Li-Tsang, C. W. P., & Lam, C. S. (2009). Competence of people with intellectual disabilities on using human–computer interface. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30, 107–123.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Research in Developmental Disabilities
Using an Extended Automatic Target Acquisition Program with Dual Cursor technology to assist people with developmental disabilities in improving their pointing efficiency Ching-Hsiang Shih a,*, Ching-Tien Shih b, Pi-Hsiang Pi a a b
Department of Special Education, National Dong Hwa University, Hualien 970, Taiwan, ROC Department of Electronics Engineering and Computer Science, Tung Fang Design University, 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 20 January 2011 Accepted 20 January 2011 Available online 14 May 2011
The latest research adopting software technology to improve pointing performance is through an Automatic Target Acquisition Program (ATAP), where the user can click on the mouse button when a dashed line is aimed at the desired target, instead of moving the cursor to the target. However, ATAP has one limitation – it cannot benefit from Mouseover effects because they only work when the cursor is over the target. This study evaluated whether two children with developmental disabilities would be able to improve their pointing performance through a Dual Cursor Automatic Target Acquisition Program (DCATAP), which solves the limitation of ATAP. At the beginning, both participants had baseline sessions. Then the first participant began his intervention sessions. New intervention occurred with the second participant when the first participant’s performance was consolidated. Finally, both participants were exposed to the maintenance phase, in which their pointing performance improved significantly. With the assistance of DCATAP, participants can significantly improve their pointing performance, and can position targets quickly, easily, and accurately. ß 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Developmental disabilities Pointing DCATAP Mouse driver
1. Introduction For persons with disabilities, computer technologies play an essential role in their everyday life, and can provide a whole new realm of independence, such as assisting individuals with learning disabilities to more easily perform cognitive activities; speaking for non-verbal persons; reading for persons with blindness or low vision; allowing persons who are deaf to communicate by phone; activating environmental controls for persons with paralysis; and much more (Brodwin, Star, & Cardoso, 2004; Cook & Hussey, 2002; Resta & Laferriere, 2007; Salminen, Petrie, & Ryan, 2004; Somers et al., 2007; Stern, 2008). However, because most computer standard input devices (i.e., mouse, keyboard, trackball) are designed for the mainstream population, without taking into account that these devices might be used by people with disabilities who generally encounter computer operation problems, it is difficult or impossible for them to operate computers through standard input devices (Abascal & Nicolle, 2005; Brodwin et al., 2004; Cook & Hussey, 2002; Wong, Chan, Li-Tsang, & Lam, 2009).
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 3 8227106x1320; fax: +886 3 8228707. E-mail address: [email protected] (C.-H. Shih). 0891-4222/$ – see front matter ß 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2011.01.043
C.-H. Shih et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 32 (2011) 1506–1513
1507
Therefore, various special-purpose input devices, as well as modified or adapted computer standard input devices, have been proposed to assist and meet the needs of people with disabilities in order to help them to solve their computer operation problems (Brodwin et al., 2004; Hedrick, Pape, Heinemann, Ruddell, & Reis, 2006; Mann, Belchior, Tomita, & Kemp, 2005; Shih & Shih, 2009a, 2009b, 2010b; Shih, Shih, & Luo, 2007; Tu, Tao, & Huang, 2007). Pointing devices (such as mice and trackballs) are replacing traditional keyboards for many computer input tasks because of the extensive use of Windows and graphical user interfaces (GUIs) in computer operation systems (OSs). Pointing, as the basic operation in the use of pointing devices, is achieved by moving the pointing devices in order to move the cursor to desired targets (such as an icon, picture, or text), and clicking the pointing devices button to send functional commands to the computer (Donker & Reitsma, 2007a; Shimizu & McDonough, 2006). Persons with disabilities usually encounter difficulties in using a computer in pointing tasks, such as the difficulty of moving a pointing device in a straight line, inability to select small targets, or the difficulty of controlling the pointer’s buttons, etc. Many pointing assistive functions/programs (such as expanding targets, bubble cursors, and sticky icons) have been proposed, so as to help the persons with disabilities solve their pointing problems (Ahlstrom, Hitz, & Leitner, 2006; Grossman & Balakrishnan, 2005; Park, Han, & Yang, 2006). The advantages of providing useful functions in pointing may be greater for users who are either unfamiliar or have difficulty in positioning a mouse, for example, older users, children, or persons with disabilities (Park et al., 2006). Recent studies have adopted software driver technology to offer powerful solutions to make target positioning (i.e., pointing) easier and faster. These researches have redesigned the mouse driver to reset mouse default functions, and have enabled a standard mouse to be adapted to the needs of people with disabilities; therefore the user can reduce the number of pointing errors and the target positioning time: (a) Automatic Pointing Assistive Program (APAP) (Shih, Hsu, & Shih, 2009) and Extended APAP (EAPAP) (Shih, Li, Shih, Lin, & Lo, 2010) realize that users can click the mouse button when the cursor is near the target (i.e., inside the activation area), instead of accurately moving the cursor over the target; (b) Dual Cursor APAP (DCAPAP) (Shih, Chung, Chiang, & Shih, 2010) and Extended DCAPAP (EDCAPAP) (Shih, Shih, & Chiu, 2010) adopt the dual cursors (a system cursor and a virtual cursor) to offer users an operating environment with Mouseover effects, which is closer to the real conditions; (c) Multiple Cursor APAP (MCAPAP), enables co-located users to have their own virtual cursors with APAP function to collaborate through a single computer (Shih, Cheng, Li, Shih, & Chiang, 2010); (d) Automatic Drag-and-Drop Assistive Program (ADnDAP) replaces the complex dragging process (which is difficult or impossible for persons with disabilities to operate) by a simple clicking operation with APAP function (Shih, Huang, Liao, Shih, & Chiang, 2010); (e) Dynamic Pointing Assistive Program (DPAP) allows the user to poke his/her thumb/finger to rotate a mouse wheel to move a cursor to a target (Shih, Chang, & Shih, 2009), and Multiple Cursor DPAP (MCDPAP) enables each user to have his own virtual cursor with DPAP function through driver technology, and allows people with disabilities to collaboratively point (Shih, Shih, & Wang, 2010); (f) Extended DPAP (EDPAP) (Shih, Chiu, et al., 2010) and Adaptive DPAP (ADPAP) (Shih, Shih, & Wu, 2010) allows users to move a cursor to a target by swinging his hand on the desktop. The latest research, Automatic Target Acquisition Program (ATAP), adopted mouse driver technology to recommend a new operation method, where an automatic target-guided dashed line between the mouse cursor and the nearest target appears to indicate which target is the selected (nearest) target (Shih, Shih, & Peng, 2010). Mouse click action will be intercepted as soon as the mouse is clicked, the cursor jumps to the selected (nearest) target center automatically, and then the intercepted mouse click action will be sent out. For persons with disabilities, ATAP can help them to improve their computer operation ability and solve their pointing problems. However, ATAP has one limitation – it cannot benefit from Mouseover effects.Mouseover effects are practically a universal standard, and are commonly used in windows application software to clarify what is active. As shown in Fig. 1, Mouseovers, by which an element changes in response to the mouse cursor moving over it (Wikipedia, 2009b), are commonly used in modern graphical user interface (GUI) programming. In ATAP, the cursor jumps to the selected (nearest) target only when the mouse is clicked (the automatic target-guide dashed line points at the desired target). Therefore, users cannot be assisted by Mouseover effects before the user clicks on the mouse button, because Mouseover will only work when the cursor is over the target (Shih, Shih, & Peng, 2010). This limitation of ATAP can be solved through a new revised operation method, Dual Cursor ATAP (DCATAP), where Dual Cursor technology (Shih, Chung, et al., 2010; Shih, Shih, & Chiu, 2010) is adopted to implement the function of ATAP with Mouseover effects. As shown in Fig. 2, four pre-defined targets are noted as T1, T2, T3 and T4. The virtual cursor (solid pink cursor) appears to indicate the movement path of the system cursor. The program (DCATAP) continually monitors the virtual cursor position, and calculates the distance from the virtual cursor position to each target (T1–T4), and serves to determine which target is the nearest target (noted Td) amongst the four pre-defined targets (T1–T4); then the system cursor jumps to the nearest target (Td) center automatically and activates Mouseover effects; a dashed line between the virtual cursor and the nearest target (Td) appears to indicate the selected target. As shown in Fig. 2(a), the virtual cursor is at A1 (or A2, A3, A4) position; DCATAP finds out that T1 is the nearest target, so the system cursor jumps to T1, while the dashed line points to T1 to indicate that T1 is the selected target (Td). Once the virtual cursor has been moved to B1 (or B2, B3) position (as shown in Fig. 2(b)), DCATAP finds out that the nearest target has changed to T2; then the system cursor jumps to T2 and the dashed line points to T2 (the selected target Td is T2). The user can click the mouse button to send functional commands to the computer instead of moving the cursor to the desired target T2, when the dashed line points at the desired target (such as T2). This process was repeated until the end of mouse operation.
[()TD$FIG]
1508
C.-H. Shih et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 32 (2011) 1506–1513
Fig. 1. A fan simulation CAI software. There are four control buttons under the fan to control its actions, including on/off, high speed, low speed and rotation. (a) The externality of the four control buttons does not change before the cursor moves over them. (b) The four control buttons have their corresponding Mouseover effects (the red button, tooltips and sound feedback), when the cursor moves over them.
Compared to ATAP, DCATAP offers users an operating environment which is closer to the real conditions. The key technology of DCATAP is the mouse movement action interception/detection. Users can neither detect mouse movement nor lock the cursor over targets without this technology application. It is not easy to modify mouse functions (intercept/detect mouse movement action) to meet the needs of DCATAP, because once the mouse is connected to a computer, the windows operation system (OS) will install its driver automatically and define its function as moving, clicking and dragging. In order to be turned into a much more powerful tool, the mouse functions need to be reset, in other words, the mouse driver needs to be redesigned. This is rarely proposed by researchers because of the complexity of the technology required (Microsoft, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c, 2008d). Only a few recent researches have suggested redesigning the mouse driver through software technology (Shih, Chang, et al., 2009; Shih, Hsu, et al., 2009; Shih, Huang, Liao, Shih, & Chiang, 2010; Shih & Shih,
[()TD$FIG]
C.-H. Shih et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 32 (2011) 1506–1513
1509
Fig. 2. Four pre-defined targets are noted as T1, T2, T3 and T4 in the Dual Cursor Automatic Target Acquisition Program (DCATAP). The virtual cursor (solid pink cursor) appears to indicate the movement path of the system cursor, and the system cursor jumps to the target center to activate the Mouseover effects. (a) The virtual cursor is at A1 (or A2, A3, A4) position; DCATAP finds out that T1 is the nearest target, so the system cursor jumps to T1 and the dashed line points to T1 to indicate that T1 is the selected target. (b) Once the virtual cursor is moved to B1 (or B2, B3) position, DCATAP finds out that the nearest target has changed to T2; then the system cursor jumps to T2 and the dashed line points to T2 (the selected target is T2). The user can click the mouse button to send functional commands to the computer instead of moving the cursor to the desired target T2, when the dashed line points at the desired target (such as T2). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of the article.)
2009c, 2010a; Shih, Shih, Lin, & Chiang, 2009), visualizing the mouse as a useful tool for many applications dedicated to persons with disabilities (such as hand movement detector, finger/thumb poke detector and pointing/drag-and-drop assistive function, etc.), and providing them with additional choices in assistive technology. This work adopts Shih’s new revised mouse driver (i.e. a new mouse driver replaces the standard mouse driver) to intercept/detect mouse movement action, in order to help people with disabilities improve their pointing efficiency with Mouseover effects, and to understand the difference between pointing performance before and after for people with developmental disabilities using DCATAP, in order to determine whether the DCATAP implementation can enhance their pointing performance. 2. Method 2.1. Participants The participants (Huang and Ping) were 10 and 9 years old, respectively. Huang’s level of function was estimated to be in the profound range of multiple disabilities. He could not walk independently, but could stand and briefly walk in a laborious manner with extensive physical support and the assistance of a caregiver. He usually sat in a wheelchair most of the day. He could use the common mouse with his left hand, but the cursor often deviated from the target when he clicked the mouse due to his poor hand–eye coordination, and resulted in poor mouse operation ability. In addition, he could not use a mouse for an extended amount of time of 5 min. Ping’s level of function was estimated to be in the mild range of intellectual disability. He had poor hand–eye coordination due to strabismus. Normally, he could use his left hand to operate a mouse for about 5 min. He could click, but his mouse operation performance was worse than people of the same age when completing pointing tasks. Both participants were interested in computer operation, and had learned to move the system cursor to the targets and perform the click, with the guidance of a research assistant. Their parents had given formal consent for their involvement in this experiment. 2.2. Apparatus and setting A separate room at the special education school for the mentally retarded was offered to carry out the experiment. Computers were placed on a computer table, and the screen was at a distance of about 30 cm from their chairs. Both participants were given the mouse when the experiment began.
1510
C.-H. Shih et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 32 (2011) 1506–1513
2.2.1. DCATAP setting, computer pointing evaluation software (CPES) Two Logitech wireless mice, which were installed with DCATAP to intercept/detect mouse movement action, were placed under Huang’s and Ping’s left hands. This study adopted computer pointing evaluation software (CPES) with two modes (namely practice mode and test mode) to provide mouse pointing practice for participants, and to record their test results (Shih, Shih, & Peng, 2010; Shih, Shih, & Wu, 2010). Both participants received repeated pointing practice in practice mode, and reached their successful pointing numbers within a certain period of time in test mode. Fig. 3 indicates the flow diagram of the CPES. Eight circular destination targets (noted as T1–T8), each with a radius of 0.25 cm, were set every 458 on a circle with a radius of 6 cm. When the participants moved the virtual cursor, the system cursor jumped to the nearest target (Td) center and activated the Mouseover effects. In practice mode, the CPES first displayed target T1, and the mouse cursor was set to the central point (noted as Tc, the center of the circumference). The participants had to move the mouse cursor from Tc (the center point) to destination target T1, and then click to complete a successful pointing. When the task was completed, the target (T1) disappeared and the destination target T2 appeared. Participants would then move the mouse cursor from T1 to target T2, and click on it. This process was repeated until the end of practice time. Test mode was under the same conditions as the practice mode, but the targets appeared randomly. CPES recorded the number of successful points within 3 min automatically. 2.3. Experimental conditions This study used multiple probe design across participants (Richards, Taylor, Ramasamy, & Richards, 1999). Both participants typically received 3 training sessions per week, each with about 30 min use of DCATAP, for a period of about 6–7 weeks. Huang initially received three pre-probe sessions during baseline, and intervention began when his performance was consolidated. Ping received discontinuous pre-probe, and began his intervention when Huang’s performance was consolidated during intervention. The experiment consists of three phases: (a) during the baseline phase, at least three pre-probe sessions were performed to collect participants’ baseline data; (b) during the intervention phase, DCATAP was adopted to obtain the performance data of DCATAP practice for assessment; and (c) during the maintenance phase, performed one week after intervention finished, participants’ follow-up performance was assessed three times. CPES was adopted during the experiment to record the successful points within 3 min of each phase (i.e., baseline, intervention, and maintenance).
[()TD$FIG]
2.3.1. Baseline In this phase, the DCATAP function was turned off, and both participants had to move the cursor to the targets (T1–T8) to click. Huang’s data was collected three times per week during this phase, while Ping’s baseline data was obtained twice per week discontinuously.
Fig. 3. The flow diagram of the computer pointing evaluation software (CPES). Eight circular destination targets (noted as T1–T8) each with radius of 0.25 cm, were set every 458 on a circle with a radius of 6 cm.
C.-H. Shih et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 32 (2011) 1506–1513
1511
2.3.2. Intervention At the beginning of this phase, Huang first received training for DCATAP use, and Ping was still being probed discontinuously to collect his baseline data. Ping received DCATAP training once Huang’s performance was consolidated. In principle, eleven 30-min practice sessions were performed on each participant during intervention. The arrangement of this 30-min session was as follows: (a) Pointing practice (20 min) The DCATAP function was activated in this phase. Therefore, the participants could perform click near targets instead of moving the cursor to targets (T1–T8). Destination targets (T1–T8) appeared in order, and participants moved the mouse cursor close to each target (T1–T8) and clicked. During the practice session, computer vocal prompting was available. A research assistant provided guidance to help the participants use DCATAP to complete pointing. (b) Rest (7 min) Participants rested for 7 min after practice. (c) Assessment (3 min) The targets appeared randomly during this phase. Neither instructions from the research assistant nor computer vocal prompting were available. The number of each participant’s successfully pointing within 3 min was recorded as input for assessment, and then adopted to determine whether DCATAP improved their pointing efficiency. This phase continued until each participant’s performance was consolidated. 2.3.3. Maintenance This phase began 1 week after the intervention phase to determine whether the participants maintained the skills that they had acquired. During this phase, neither of the participants had DCATAP practice, but participated directly in the pointing test. 3. Results
[()TD$FIG]
Fig. 4 shows the pointing speed of both participants after the implementation of DCATAP. The curve indicates that both participants improved their pointing efficiency, and maintained their acquired skills during the maintenance phase.
Fig. 4. The pointing speeds of the two participants after the implementation of DCATAP. Both participants improved their pointing efficiency, as indicated by the curve, and maintained their acquired skills during the maintenance phase.
1512
C.-H. Shih et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 32 (2011) 1506–1513
3.1. Huang 3.1.1. Baseline Huang could hold and control a common mouse with his left hand. Detailed observation of his mouse operation indicated that, owing to his poor hand–eye coordination, he could not point accurately. The cursor often deviated from the target when he clicked the mouse button, and Huang only achieved a mean of 0.44 correct points per minute during this phase. 3.1.2. Intervention At first, Huang was unfamiliar with the DCATAP function in his earlier intervention phase, and had a poor pointing efficiency/performance. His correct pointing per minute, however, still increased compared to baseline. With the help of DCATAP, the system cursor was locked to the nearest target center automatically, when the virtual cursor was close to the target. It solved the deviation problem when clicking, because the user did not need to move the cursor on the target. He gradually mastered the use of DCATAP, increased his pointing efficiency as the practice time accumulated, and became able to use DCATAP to facilitate the target positioning tasks. Fig. 4 showed that Huang’s pointing speed increased quickly, which reveals that DCATAP operation could be mastered easily within a short period of practice. He achieved 6.00–19.33 correct points per min, with an overall mean of 11.69 per min. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (Siegel & Castellan, 1988) showed that the increase from baseline to intervention was statistically significant (p < .01). 3.1.3. Maintenance The maintenance phase began with Huang one week after intervention finished. According to Fig. 4, his pointing speed in this phase was close to that during the intervention phase. His correct pointing within 3 min in 3 sessions during this phase were 56, 52 and 57, respectively, with an overall mean of 55, and he retained the skills that he had acquired during the intervention phase. 3.2. Ping 3.2.1. Baseline Ping could control the mouse, but had few successful points due to the small size of targets. His successful points within 3 min were 0, 6 and 6, respectively. He also had difficulty in controlling the movement of the mouse cursor while simultaneously clicking, due to poor hand–eye coordination. Ping achieved a mean of 1.33 correct points per minute during the baseline phase. 3.2.2. Intervention Ping mastered the use of DCATAP at the beginning, but could not concentrate on using the mouse for a long time (less than 5 min). He became gradually concentrated, and his pointing speed rose quickly, according to Fig. 4. He achieved 8.34–19.00 correct points per min during this phase, with an overall mean of 13.40. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (Siegel & Castellan, 1988) showed that the increase from baseline to intervention was statistically significant (p < .01). 3.2.3. Maintenance Ping began this phase 1 week after intervention. During this phase (including 3 sessions), Ping’s performance data (correct points within 3 min) were 45, 61 and 60, respectively, and he achieved 15.00–20.34 correct points per min. These results indicate that he retained the skills that he had acquired during the intervention phase. 4. Discussion As shown in this study, with the implementation of DCATAP, which combines the advantages of dual cursor (i.e. to activate the Mouseover effects) and ATAP functions (Shih, Shih, & Peng, 2010) to give effective assistance, both participants rapidly improved their pointing efficiency, and retained their acquisition skills in the maintenance phase. DCATAP is a software-based solution, (a) it does not need extra hardware design or modification, and can be widely spread and popularized by internet; (b) it is compatible with all standard commercial pointing devices (i.e., mouse and trackball) and USB, wireless, and Bluetooth (Wikipedia, 2009a) interfaces; and (c) it is also compatible with all currently available software, so existing software solutions, without being modified or rewritten, can be applied to improve the pointing efficiency of people with disabilities. This study only considers pointing; it cannot be applied to other mouse controls which need higher physical abilities, such as double-clicking, dragging, scrolling, and so on. Even though pointing is sufficient for the growing number of well-designed educational programs (Donker & Reitsma, 2007a, 2007b; Shimizu & McDonough, 2006), further studies are still necessary to develop additional mouse applications, as well as corresponding training and test software to satisfy the needs of different levels of disabilities. Hopefully, DCATAP implementation can cover all complex mouse movements and provide individuals with developmental disabilities with additional choices in assistive technology.
C.-H. Shih et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 32 (2011) 1506–1513
1513
References Abascal, J., & Nicolle, C. (2005). Moving towards inclusive design guidelines for socially and ethically aware HCI. Interacting with Computers, 17, 484–505. Ahlstrom, D., Hitz, M., & Leitner, G. (2006). An evaluation of sticky and force enhanced targets in multi target situations. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 4th nordic conference on human–computer interaction: changing roles. Brodwin, M. G., Star, T., & Cardoso, E. (2004). Computer assistive technology for people who have disabilities: Computer adaptations and modifications. Journal of Rehabilitation, 70, 28–33. Cook, A. M., & Hussey, S. M. (2002). Assistive technologies: Principles and practice. St. Louis, MO Mosby, Inc.. Donker, A., & Reitsma, P. (2007a). Aiming and clicking in young children’s use of the computer mouse. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2863–2874. Donker, A., & Reitsma, P. (2007b). Young children’s ability to use a computer mouse. Computers and Education, 48, 602–617. Grossman, T., & Balakrishnan, R. (2005). The bubble cursor: Enhancing target acquisition by dynamically resizing of the cursor’s activation area. Paper presented at the proceedings of CHI’05 conference on human factors in computing systems. Hedrick, B., Pape, T. L., Heinemann, A. W., Ruddell, J. L., & Reis, J. (2006). Employment issues and assistive technology use for persons with spinal cord injury. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 43, 185. Mann, W. C., Belchior, P., Tomita, M. R., & Kemp, B. J. (2005). Computer use by middle-aged and older adults with disabilities. Technology and Disability, 17, 1–9. Microsoft (2008a). WDM: Introduction to Windows Driver Model. Available from: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/archive/wdm.mspx#EJE Accessed 18.06.08. Microsoft (2008b). Windows Driver Kit: Human Input Devices. Available from: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms794089.aspx Accessed 30.05.08. Microsoft (2008c). Windows Management Instrumentation. Available from: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa394582(VS.85).aspx Accessed 18.06.08. Microsoft (2008d). Windows Server 2003 DDK. Available from: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/devtools/ddk/default.mspx Accessed 18.06.08. Park, J., Han, S. H., & Yang, H. (2006). Evaluation of cursor capturing functions in a target positioning task. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 36, 721– 730. Resta, P., & Laferriere, T. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 65–83. Richards, S. B., Taylor, R. L., Ramasamy, R., & Richards, R. Y. (1999). Single subject research: Applications in educational and clinical settings. New York: Wadsworth. Salminen, A. L., Petrie, H., & Ryan, S. (2004). Impact of computer augmented communication on the daily lives of speech-impaired children. Part I: Daily communication and activities. Technology and Disability, 16, 157–167. 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). 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. (2010a). 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. (2010b). Development of an integrated pointing device driver for the disabled. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 5, 351–358. Shih, C.-H., Shih, C.-T., & Luo, C.-H. (2007). Design of a fast switch-control computer input device using two-grade movement method for people with physical disabilities. WSEAS Transactions on Computers, 6, 1140–1146. 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., 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., 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. 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., 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., & 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., & Peng, C.-L. (2010). Assisting people with multiple disabilities by improving their computer pointing efficiency with an Automatic Target Acquisition Program. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32, 194–200. Shih, C.-H., Shih, C.-T., & Wang, S.-K. (2010). Assisting people with disabilities improves their collaborative pointing efficiency with a Multiple Cursor Dynamic Pointing Assistive Program. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31, 1251–1257. Shih, C.-H., Shih, C.-T., & Wu, H.-L. (2010). An adaptive dynamic pointing assistance program to help people with multiple disabilities improve their computer pointing efficiency with hand swing through a standard mouse. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31, 1515–1524. Shimizu, H., & McDonough, C. S. (2006). Programmed instruction to teach pointing with a computer mouse in preschoolers with developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 27, 175–189. Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences:. New York: McGraw-HiU Book Company. Somers, H. L., Caress, A. L., Evans, D. G., Johnson, M. J., Lovel, H. J., & Mohamed, Z. (2007). A computer-based aid for communication between patients with limited English and their clinicians, using symbols and digitised speech. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 77, 507–517. Stern, S. E. (2008). Computer-synthesized speech and perceptions of the social influence of disabled users. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 254. Tu, J., Tao, H., & Huang, T. (2007). Face as mouse through visual face tracking. Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 108, 35–40. Wikipedia (2009a). Bluetooth. Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth Accessed 20.08.09. Wikipedia (2009b). Mouseover. Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouseover Accessed 10.03.09. Wong, A. W. K., Chan, C. C. H., Li-Tsang, C. W. P., & Lam, C. S. (2009). Competence of people with intellectual disabilities on using human–computer interface. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30, 107–123.