[misc.handicap] movement impairment file

tzippy@dasys1.uucp (Tzipporah BenAvraham) (05/31/90)

Index Number: 8528

Here is yet another file.. movement impairment
 
Movement Impairment Focus Area
 
There is a wide range of causes for movement impairments.
These different causes result in different types and degrees
of impairment.  Head injury, spinal cord injury, loss of or
dysfunctional limbs, cerebral palsy, poliomyelitis, muscular
dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, and severe arthritis are
some of the causes.  In general, an individual's impairment
could be characterized by one or more of the following
categories:
 
Reduced control:  the individual's motor control or range of
movements has been reduced.  Arthritis, poliomyelitis, and
mid-level spinal cord injuries commonly result in this type
of impairment.
 
Restricted control:  the individual has normal motor control
but only over part of their body.  High spinal cord injuries
(normal control of head but no control below the neck) and
loss of limbs could cause this type of impairment.
 
Interference with control:   other uncontrolled movements
interfere with the individual's motor control.  Cerebral
Palsy and Parkinsonism are two causes of this type of
impairment.
 
Weakness:  the individual has fine motor control but has no
strength or endurance.  The individual may also be unable to
move major limbs easily or at all.  Multiple sclerosis,
muscular dystrophy, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and
poliomyelitis are causes.
 
For individuals with movement disabilities, it is the input
mechanisms (keyboards, mice, touchpads, etc.) that present
the greatest problems.  Other controls (such as on/off
switches, contrast knob on monitor, buttons to eject floppy
diskettes) may also prove difficult.  Many disabled
individuals can use a standard keyboard but have difficulty
with multiple-key operations.  Others are unable to use the
standard keyboard, and must rely on special mechanisms for
connecting alternate input systems to the computer.  Many
such specialized +interfaces+ have been developed for the
popular computers, as well as adaptations to facilitate
handling of disks, adjustment of screen control, etc.
 
However, advancing computer technologies are creating new
and more difficult problems.  Individuals who are able to
use standard or adapted keyboards are often unable to use
newer mouse-, touchpad-, or touchscreen-based systems.
Furthermore, attachment points (both physical and software-
based) that have been used to connect these specialized
interfaces in the past are not necessarily present in the
newer generations of computers.  In fact, for various
technical reasons unrelated to the disability market, many
new computer designs have carefully restricted or blocked
the connection points which are currently used by disability
access aids.  Thus, existing solution strategies no longer
work, and new adaptations have not yet been developed.
Computer companies are now aware of the problem, but the
technical reasons for the changes remain.  Steps that need
to be taken include:
 
@@@  Better design of the standard input devices to allow
their use by a wider variety of individuals;
 
@@@  Identification and development of connection strategies
to allow the use of special adaptive input systems with the
newer generation computers; and
 
@@@  Development of control strategies to allow the
multidimensional and graded control by more severely
involved individuals, which is needed to simulate newer
input systems (e.g., mouse, touchscreen).
 
Finally, many of the existing access strategies are so slow
that their users are unable to participate meaningfully in
regular education or employment settings.  More efficient
interface techniques are needed to allow physically impaired
individuals to function on a competitive level.
 
Program plan
 
The major program thrusts for the Movement Impairment Area
are:
 
1)   Quantification and comparison testing of alternate
input techniques and devices.  Since input devices such as
the mouse have become standard on many computers, a number
of alternative input devices for users with physical
impairments have been developed.  However, no evaluative
methodologies or data are currently available for use in
research or clinical analysis. Quantification methods such
as keys pressed per minute become less meaningful for
graphics-based operating systems.
 
2)   Development of extensions for standard computers and
operating systems to allow access by motor impaired users.
Important features providing access for many users with
movement impairments can often be implemented in standard
products.  This program thrust seeks to develop
demonstration versions of such features, and to encourage
their implementation by computer companies.
 
3)   Development of alternate input techniques for severely
motor impaired individuals.  In addition to the research and
design issues addressed above, the Trace Center is involved
in development of designs for special access hardware and
software for individuals with severe motor impairments.
 
The center's efforts in the Motor Impairment Area are also
directed toward a number of the projects included in the the
Cross-Impairment Focus Area, including the development of
design guidelines for computers, consumer electronic
equipment, and standard and special software; technical
support to manufacturers; and the development of
interconnection standards.
 
Development of an Instrument for Studying Efficiency of
Standard and Alternative Input Devices
 
Project Team:  Robert G. Radwin, Ph.D; Yi Hu, B.S.; Mei Li
Lin,B.S.
 
Background
 
Pointing-based input devices such as the mouse have become
standard components of major new computer systems over the
past several years, necessitating the development of
alternatives for people with movement impairments.  In order
to provide quantitative data by which particular alternative
input devices or strategies can be evaluated, a
microcomputer-based research instrument has been developed.
The next stage in this process has been to determine
effective evaluative and normative procedures for the
instrument.  Once the instrument has been tested and its
capabilities to effectively measure pointing performance
determined, it will be used for headpointing comparison and
other  studies.
 
Approach
 
The objective of this investigation was to determine if a
Fitts' Law discrete target acquisition task could be used
for evaluating and comparing alternative computer input
devices.  Performances using a conventional mouse and an
ultrasonic head-pointing device intended for individuals
lacking normal movement ability were studied using a Fitts'
Law paradigm.  The discrete movement task consisted of
moving a cursor, starting at the center of a computer
display screen to a target located at radial distances of
24.4 mm and 110.9 mm, and at angles of 0!, 45!, 90!, 135!,
180!, 225!, 270!, and 315! with respect to the horizontal.
The circular targets were 2.7 mm, 8.1 mm, and 24.2 mm in
diameter.  These conditions provided Fitts indexes of
difficulty of 1.0 bits, 2.6 bits, 3.2 bits, 4.2 bits, 4.8
bits, and 6.4 bits.  Performance measures for the pointing
task included movement time, cursor path distance, and root-
mean-square cursor displacement from the straight-line path
between the movement origin and the target.
 
Progress
 
Ten normal subjects performed this task using both devices.
Average movement time was 306 ms greater (63%) using the
headpointer than when using the mouse.  The effect of
direction on movement time using the mouse was relatively
small compared to the headpointer, which was lowest at 90!
and 270!, corresponding to head extension and head flexion,
respectively.  Average path distance and root-mean-square
displacement was lowest at the off-diagonal directions (0!,
90!, 180!, and 270!).  Fitts' Law adequately described
movement behavior for both types of pointing devices.  The
instrument was also tested with one subject with cerebral
palsy.  In this test, the task was performed both with and
without thoracic support.  The instrument was able to
measure significant differences between both the disabled
and able-bodied subjects, as well as between the supported
and unsupported condition for the cerebral palsied subject.
 
Marked improvements in performance were observed in the
subject with cerebral palsy after lateral trunk support was
provided.  This demonstrated that the task would be useful
as an evaluative instrument for selection and comparison of
alternative pointing devices for individuals with movement
impairments, as well as for evaluating modifications in the
workplace for such individuals.
 
A paper on the design and testing of the instrument has been
submitted for publication.  The instrument is currently
being used for headpointing comparison studies at the Trace
Center.
 
Headpointing Study Series
 
Project Team:  Robert G. Radwin, Ph.D; Gregg C.
Vanderheiden, Ph.D.; Mei Li Lin, B.S.
 
Background
 
One of the most powerful new techniques for accessing
computers is the use of optical headpointers.  These
headpointers can be a replacement for the mouthstick for
persons with spinal cord injuries, and, as a new input
technique for some individuals with cerebral palsy or
neuromuscular conditions, can provide rapid, low-fatigue
interface methods for computers.  Because of their
relatively simple hardware designs, these headpointers can
also be efficiently and economically manufactured.  As a
result, a number of different headpointing systems have come
out or are under development at this time.
 
Each of these headpointing techniques uses a different
technology, has different functioning characteristics, and
requires different skills on the part of the user.  Several
of these techniques, such as the Long-Range Optical Pointer
and the LightTalker Headpointer, are actually head pointing
devices.  Others, such as the HeadMaster, use an ultrasonic
technique which provides a function very close to
headpointing, but with a moderate amount of slippage and
hysteresis.  Still others, like the FreeWheel from Pointer
Systems, Inc., actually use head positioning rather than
headpointing.
 
To date, there have been no cross-comparisons of these
various techniques.  In addition, many individuals who can
use a headpointer can also use other pointing systems.  A
comparative evaluation between headpointing techniques and
other approaches is therefore also required.
 
Approach
 
Because of the many dimensions and skills involved in
headpointing, a simple comparison of the techniques would
not accurately assess their variability, nor would it be
clinically sufficient.  A series of studies is therefore
planned.  These will be based upon the research instrument
already developed and tested, including extensions to be
added to it as needed.
 
The first test will be the Fitts' Tapping Task.  In this
task, the individuals will use the headpointers to acquire
targets of varying size and in varying locations on the test
screen.  This will be followed by a Selection Task, where
the individuals must both acquire the target and then
provide some sort of a confirmation signal.  This will be
either the activation of a switch (e.g., a puff switch) or
the use of a delay confirmation.
 
With some of the headpointing techniques, it is possible to
vary the gain (the amount that the cursor moves on the
screen for a given amount of head movement).  A study is
being conducted on the effects of input device gain
characteristics.  Here, a head motion based computer input
device will be used in order to determine optimal gain
characteristics for individuals.  Of interest here will be
the ability to measure the differences in performance and
whether the optimal gain varies significantly from subject
to subject and between device technologies.
 
Progress
 
Study design is currently under way for the first of the
headpointing studies.  Subjects will be run during the next
two years.  Modifications to the research instrument will be
made as necessary to accommodate future research needs.
 
Development of Extensions for Standard Computers  and
Operating Systems to Allow Access by Motor Impaired Users
 
Project Team:  Charles C. Lee, M.S.; Gregg C. Vanderheiden,
Ph.D.; Mark Novak, M.S.
 
Background
 
The most effective technique for providing access to
computers for persons with disabilities is to have the
computer designed in such a way that it is already
accessible when manufactured.  When accessibility features
can be built in directly to the design of the computer, the
cost for these modifications drops to zero or close to zero,
and their availability to persons with disabilities is
universal.  Of particular interest is the need for
individuals with disabilities to access computers in
libraries and other settings where they would have
difficulty modifying the computer to make it accessible if
it were not already so.
 
Not all adaptations for persons with disabilities can be
done in this fashion.  However, the Trace Center has been
able to demonstrate that a wide variety of these strategies
can be incorporated directly into the computer design.
There are four common adaptations for people with motor
impairments which can reasonably be incorporated into
operating systems or simple operating system utilities:
 
1)   "Sticky Keys":  One-finger operation of +modifier+ keys
such as Shift and Control, allowing users to type them
before the key to be modified, rather than at the same time.
 
2)   "Key Repeat Control":  Control over auto-repeat of
keys.  The user should be able to control the rate at which
the key repeats, as well as the duration for which a key
must be pressed before the repeat begins.
3)   "Mouse Keys":  Ability to use keys on the keyboard to
accomplish all mouse functions.  These functions include
mouse movements and pressing of mouse buttons.  The standard
numeric or cursor keypads would typically be used.
 
4)   "Slow Keys":  Ability to increase the amount of time a
key must be pressed in order for a keystroke to be
registered.
 
Approach
 
The purpose of this program is to develop simulations,
demonstrations, or actual functioning extensions to
operating systems which can be used to demonstrate to
computer and operating system manufacturers how their
systems could be modified to make them more accessible.
 
At the present time there are four major operating systems
or operating system extensions that need to be addressed in
order to cover most of the microcomputer market:
 
1)   PC-DOS/MS-DOS:  Versions of these systems are used by
IBM Personal Computers and compatibles.
 
2)   Windows (an extension for MS-DOS):  This system is
being employed by an increasing number of application
programs.
 
3)   Macintosh operating system:  System used by all Apple
Macintosh computers.
 
4)   Operating System/2 (OS/2):  A new operating system
developed for the IBM PS/2 line of computers.
 
Progress
 
PC-DOS/MS-DOS Environment:  The Trace Center has developed a
utility software program called +One Finger,+ to allow one-
finger operation of modifier keys and adjustment of auto-
repeat rate.  Keyboard performance of mouse functions is not
included, since the mouse is not a standard input device for
MS-DOS.  One Finger Version 5.04 has recently been
programmed, debugged and released.  It is available from the
Trace Center Reprint Service for $10.00.  This program is
also being distributed by IBM, and is available through
bulletin board services.  There are no copy restrictions, so
owners of the software can distribute it freely to anyone
who needs it.  The program will be revised as necessary to
accommodate future changes in PC-DOS and MS-DOS.  The
program has served as a model for other operating system
modifications and utilities.
Windows Environment:  The One Finger program for MS-DOS will
not work with the Windows extension, so similar
modifications have been developed for this environment.
Since the mouse is integral to Windows, a +Mousekeys+
feature has also been developed.  The purpose of this
project is to implement demonstration versions of these
features as utility software, with the goal of getting them
permanently integrated into future versions of Windows.  The
four key features listed above have all been implemented in
Windows Version 2.0.  In addition, a +ToggleKeys+ feature
has been added which indicates with a beep the status of
keys ordinarily indicated with lights.  The capability for
input/output routines to comply with the General Input
Device Emulating Interface Standard is also being explored.
The beta version of these features, designed for Windows
Version 2.0, is currently being ported to Windows Version
3.0, once again with an eye to encouraging Microsoft to
adopt these features as standard.
 
Macintosh Environment:  The Trace Center has been working
with Apple Computer to assist in their efforts in
implementing computer accessibility.  These efforts have
resulted in the incorporation of several changes and
additions to the Macintosh to increase its accessibility by
persons with disabilities.  These modifications include
three of the four key accommodations for users with physical
impairments (all but Slow Keys).  Since these features are
incorporated into the standard operating system software,
they are not +add-ons,+ but are available to any user as
built-in options.
 
OS/2 Environment:  At the present time, the OS/2 operating
system is just beginning to be implemented.  Trace Center
staff are working with IBM and Microsoft Corporation
regarding implementation of integral motor access features
for this environment.  The DOS and Windows implementations
described above are being used as models.
 
Publications
 
Lee, C.C.  (1989, June).  Access to Microsoft Windows 2.0
for users with physical disabilities.  In  Proceedings of
the 12th Annual Conference of the Association for the
Advancement of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technology
(RESNA).  New Orleans, LA.
 
Lee, C. C., & Vanderheiden, G. C.  (1988, June).
Accessibility of OS/2 for individuals with movement
impairments:  Strategies for the implementation of 1-Finger,
Mousekeys, and Software Keyboard Emulating Interfaces using
device drivers and monitors.  Proceedings of the
International Conference of the Association for the
Advancement of Rehabilitation Technology (ICAART).  Canada:
Montreal.
 
Trace Transparent Access Module (T-TAM) for Apple and IBM
Computers
 
Project Team:  Charles C. Lee, M.S.; Joseph M. Schauer,
B.S.; Gregg C. Vanderheiden, Ph.D.; David P. Kelso, M.S.;
Mark Novak, M.S.
 
Background
 
Certain people with physical disabilities cannot operate
standard input devices for commercially available computers.
Many of these individuals can, however, operate a special
communication or computer access aid, using a control system
such as an optical headpointer or single switch.  The aid in
turn can be interfaced to the computer and used as an input
device.
 
In the past, Keyboard Emulating Interfaces (KEIs) have been
used to provide this access to computers.  However, newer
models of computer require the use of other standard input
devices, in particular the +mouse+ type of pointing device.
Thus the computer user must be able to use the mouse (or an
equivalent) to operate the computer.  This requires a
General Input Device Emulating Interface (GIDEI), not just a
KEI.
 
Approach
 
The goal of this development effort is to create a
commercially viable design for a GIDEI for Apple Macintosh,
Apple IIGS and IBM PS/2 computers-all of which use a mouse
as a standard input device.  This particular GIDEI has been
named the Trace Transparent Access Module (T-TAM), since it
provides +transparent+ access to standard commercially
available computer systems.
 
The T-TAM is a hardware module that translates standard
serial ASCII code output from a communication or computer
access aid into the keyboard and mouse input signals
required by the computer.  Serial ASCII code was selected as
the form of output from the aid, since it is by far the most
common output interface on computer-independent aids.
Serial ASCII is also the interface used in existing KEIs.
 
In order to accomplish the function of a key or a mouse
movement, the user sends a single ASCII character or string
of characters to the T-TAM.  According to the definitions
set down in the GIDEI standard, the T-TAM converts the ASCII
string to the correct keyboard or mouse input signal.  Since
most aids also provide the capability to store strings of
characters under a single selection, the user can program
longer command strings (such as moving the mouse 20 pixels
or pressing the +Print Screen+ key) to correspond to single
selections.  This effectively allows the user the most
direct access possible to a particular action.
 
The T-TAM provides connections for all of the compatible
computers-that is, the same unit can be connected to an
Apple Macintosh SE and to an IBM PS/2 Model 50 (though not
at the same time).
 
Progress
 
Hardware design for the T-TAM is being completed.  Circuit
boards have been manufactured for use in prototypes, and
several have been assembled for testing and for seeding to
interested manufacturers.
 
Final adjustments are currently being made in software.
Development of the software is going hand-in-hand with the
development of the GIDEI standard, since the device needs to
comply with this standard.
 
A beta test version of the manual has been developed.
Preliminary testing of the device and manual has been
completed.  Although the T-TAM was found to work
successfully, the manual proved to be too complex for users
and clinicians.  A new manual is being designed and is
scheduled for field testing in January through February of
1990.
 
Three manufacturers have so far expressed interest in the T-
TAM; one has been sent a unit for production costing.
 
Development of Improved Headpointing Computer Access System
 
Project Team:  Jon R. Gunderson, M.S.; Joseph M. Schauer,
B.S.; Gregg C.      Vanderheiden, Ph.D.
 
Background
 
In 1981, the Trace Center began development of an optical
headpointing input system for computers.  The system was
designed for use by persons who can easily aim at a target
by moving their head, but who cannot effectively or quickly
type keys using a finger, headstick or mouthstick.  The user
would point a small, light-weight optical detector towards
an image of a keyboard displayed on a computer monitor.
Pointing at the keys on the image would be equivalent to
typing them on the standard keyboard.  In this way the user
could operate standard commercially available software on
the computer.
 
The prototype system used one microcomputer and monitor for
the input system and another for the application program
(the word processor, spreadsheet, etc. that the user wanted
to operate).  Before transfer to a manufacturer for
production and distribution, the Long Range Optical Pointer
(LROP) system was modified so that only one computer was
required.  However, two monitor screens were still required:
one to display the keyboard image and one to display the
application program.
 
Feedback from users and from the manufacturer indicated that
some people could operate the system better if it was
implemented on one screen instead of two.  Such an
implementation would also be necessary if the program was to
be used with portable computers, using headpointers other
than the LROP.  For these reasons, a +One Screen+ version of
the original LROP software was developed.
 
Approach
 
The One Screen version of the LROP is compatible with IBM
Personal Computers, using standard CGA graphics.  Standard
software is run on the computer (word processing,
spreadsheet, etc.).  To type keys, the user points the
optical headpointer at the screen.  The application program
is then temporarily interrupted while an image of the
keyboard appears on the screen.   The user can type a string
of text or other characters on the keyboard screen, and edit
this string before sending it to the application program
(this feature also was not present on the two-monitor
system).  From the keyboard screen, the user can:  (1)
switch to the application program for viewing, without
sending the characters currently typed on the keyboard
screen; (2) switch to the application program and send the
typed characters to the program; or (3) move the pointer off
the screen while retaining the keyboard image (in order to
rest or think).
 
The One Screen version of the LROP also provides a typing
acceleration system.  In the ordinary keyboard image, a list
of common words appears at the top of the screen.  The user
can type any of these words by selecting it with the optical
pointer.  If the desired word is not on the list, the user
can enter the initial letters of the desired word.  As
letters are entered the word list changes, displaying words
that begin with the letters typed so far.  The user can type
any of these words at any time by selecting it from the list
with the optical pointer.  The word lists are drawn from a
4000-word vocabulary.
 
Progress
 
Three versions of the One Screen software have been created:
one driven by the LROP (sold by Words', Inc. of Lancaster
California), one for a mouse pointer, and one for the
FreeWheel infrared-based pointer  (sold by Pointer Systems,
Inc. of Burlington, Vermont).  Commercial transfer is
currently in process.
 
A manual for the One Screen program has been developed,
using the structured documentation approach also used in the
documentation for the Trine communication system, developed
at the Trace Center in 1984-85.
 
Publications
 
Gunderson, J. R. & Vanderheiden, G. C.  (1988, June).  One
screen multiplexed keyboard for transparent access to
standard IBM PC software.  In Proceedings of the
International Conference of the Association for the
Advancement of Rehabilitation Technology (ICAART).  Canada:
Montreal.