Evaluation of Tooth-Click Triggering and Speech Recognition in Assistive Technology for Computer Access
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Computer access can play an important role in employment and leisure activities following spinal cord injury. The authors' prior work has shown that a tooth-click detecting device, when paired with an optical head mouse, may be used by people with tetraplegia for controlling cursor movement and mouse button clicks. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of tooth clicks to speech recognition and that of an optical head mouse to a gyrometer head mouse for cursor and mouse button control of a computer. METHODS: Six able-bodied and 3 tetraplegic subjects used the devices listed above to produce cursor movements and mouse clicks in response to a series of prompts displayed on a computer. The time taken to move to and click on each target was recorded. RESULTS: The use of tooth clicks in combination with either an optical head mouse or a gyrometer head mouse can provide hands-free cursor movement and mouse button control at a speed of up to 22% of that of a standard mouse. Tooth clicks were significantly faster at generating mouse button clicks than speech recognition when paired with either type of head mouse device. CONCLUSIONS: Tooth-click detection performed better than speech recognition when paired with both the optical head mouse and the gyrometer head mouse. Such a system may improve computer access for people with tetraplegia.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".