Search

AbstractPurposeResultsConclusions\nIMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONLittle is known about how children learn to control eye-gaze technology, and clinicians lack information to guide decision-making. This paper examines whether typically developing 2–3 year olds can infer for themselves the causal mechanisms by which eye-gaze technology is controlled, whether a teaching intervention based on causal language improves performance and how their performance compares to the same task accessed via a touchscreen.Methods and materials: Typically developing children’s (n = 9, Mean Age 28.7 months) performance on a cause and effect game presented on eye-gaze and touchscreen devices was compared. The game was presented first with no specific instruction on how to control the devices. This was followed by a subsequent presentation with explicit instruction about how the access methods worked, using a causal language approach. A final presentation examined whether children had retained any learning.Performance in the eye-gaze condition without instruction (42.5% successful trials) was significantly below performance in the corresponding touchscreen condition (75%). However, when causal language instruction was added, performance with both access methods rose to comparable levels (90.7% eye-gaze and 94.6% touchscreen success). Performance gains were not retained post-intervention.Although 2–3 years in the study could make use of eye-gaze technology with support, this study found no evidence that these children could infer the causal mechanisms of control independently or intuitively. The lack of spatial contiguity and the comparative lack of feedback from eye-gaze devices are discussed as possible contributory factors.There are challenges in young children inferring for themselves the causal link between eye movements and control of an eye-gaze device.Explicit instruction may improve children’s performance in a specific task, but it is debatable whether this translates to the establishment of causal mechanisms for control of the device.Clinicians should be cautious of making assumptions about what children are learning from activities claiming to teach cause and effect or other foundational eye-gaze control skills.There are challenges in young children inferring for themselves the causal link between eye movements and control of an eye-gaze device.Explicit instruction may improve children’s performance in a specific task, but it is debatable whether this translates to the establishment of causal mechanisms for control of the device.Clinicians should be cautious of making assumptions about what children are learning from activities claiming to teach cause and effect or other foundational eye-gaze control skills. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: We investigated the feasibility of using computer-assisted arm rehabilitation (CAAR) computer games in schools. Outcomes were children's preference for single player or dual player mode, and changes in arm activity and kinematics.Method: Nine boys and two girls with cerebral palsy (6–12 years, mean 9 years) played assistive technology computer games in single-user mode or with school friends in an AB–BA design. Preference was determined by recording the time spent playing each mode and by qualitative feedback. We used the ABILHAND-kids and Canadian Occupational Performance Measure to evaluate activity limitation, and a portable laptop-based device to capture arm kinematics.Results: No difference was recorded between single-user and dual-user modes (median daily use 9.27 versus 11.2 min,p = 0.214). Children reported dual-user mode was preferable. There were no changes in activity limitation (ABILHAND-kids,p = 0.424; COPM,p = 0.484) but we found significant improvements in hand speed (p = 0.028), smoothness (p = 0.005) and accuracy (p = 0.007).Conclusion: School timetables prohibit extensive use of rehabilitation technology but there is potential for its short-term use to supplement a rehabilitation program. The restricted access to the rehabilitation games was sufficient to improve arm kinematics but not arm activity.Implications for RehabilitationSchool premises and teaching staff present no obstacles to the installation of rehabilitation gaming technology.Twelve minutes per day is the average amount of time that the school time table permits children to use rehabilitation gaming equipment (without disruption to academic attendance).The use of rehabilitation gaming technology for an average of 12 minutes daily does not appear to benefit children's functional performance, but there are improvements in the kinematics of children's upper limb. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]