MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002128016 · doi:10.3109/17483107.2011.557467

Development and evaluation of a dual-output vocal cord vibration switch for persons with multiple disabilities

2011· article· en· W2002128016 on OpenAlexaff
Melissa Lui, Tiago H. Falk, Tom Chau

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDual (grammatical number)VibrationCordAudiologyComputer sciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyMedicineAcousticsPhysicsSurgeryLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: A novel dual-output vocal cord vibration switch is described and evaluated for two individuals with severe motor disabilities and complex communication needs. An evaluative case series was performed to compare the new device to its previously proposed single-output counterpart in terms of accuracy, speed and user fatigue. METHOD: In an ABAB design, participants were followed for up to 16 days as they performed several image matching tasks. Custom-written software recorded the average time taken to match each item, as well as the total number of selection errors. Participants reported their fatigue levels using a modified five-point Borg scale. RESULTS: For one participant, the dual-output version significantly decreased task completion time and selection error (p > 0.05, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test), thus improving her communication ability. For the second participant, no significant differences were observed between the single- and dual-output systems. Fatigue associated with illness and self-reported stress with school exams were identified as limiting factors. CONCLUSIONS: The dual-output vocal cord vibration switch provides a promising new alternative for individuals with severe and multiple disabilities who are able to hum or produce vocalizations. Both participants expressed desire to continue using the device for educational and entertainment purposes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.113
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and Rehabilitation Assistive TechnologySame topicAssistive Technology in Communication and MobilityFrench-language works237,207