Advertisement

Patient-Centered Design: Interface Personalization for Individuals with Brain Injury

  • Elliot Cole
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6766)

Abstract

This paper explores patient-centered design (PCD) as a methodology for personalization of software used in rehabilitation of cognitive disabilities. This methodology serves scenarios where clinical priorities, expertise, and services can be factored into socio-technical software design decisions and clinicians explicitly included in the process. The clinical context anticipates the patient’s progress toward at least partial recovery and justifies clinical services. PCD builds on and integrates user-centered design (UCD) and participatory design (PD). Case studies come from work in traumatic brain injury rehabilitation.

Keywords

user interface user-centered design participatory design patient-centered design cognitive disabilities cognitive assistive technology assistive technology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baecker, R.: Designing Technology to Aid Cognition. In: ASSETS 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brain Injury Assn of America, http://www.biausa.org/bia-media-center.htm
  3. 3.
    Brookes, N.: Closed Head Injury. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1984)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carmien, S., Fischer, G.: Design, Adoption, and Assessment of a Socio-Technical Environment Supporting Independence for Persons with Cogni-tive Disabilities. In: CHI 2008, pp. 598–606 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carmien, S., Koene, R.: Distributed Intelligence and Scaffolding in Sup-port of Cognitive Health. In: HCII 2009 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Card, S.K., Moran, T.P., Newell, A.: The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1983)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carroll, J., Carrithers, C.: Training wheels in a user interface. CACM 27, 800–806 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/traumaticbraininjury/statistics.html
  9. 9.
    Cole, E.: Cognitive Prosthetics: Overview of a Method of Treatment. NeuroRehabilitation 12, 39–51 (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cole, E., Dehdashti, P.: Interface design as a prosthesis for an individual with a brain injury. SIGCHI Bulletin 22(1), 28–32 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cole, E., Petti, L., Matthews, M., Dehdashti, P.: Rapid functional im-provement and generalization in a young stroke patient following com-puter-based cognitive prosthetic intervention. In: NIH Neural Prosthesis Workshop, pp. 19–21 (1994), http://www.brain-rehab.com/pdf/NIH_Neural_ProsthesisWKSHP.pdf
  12. 12.
    Cole, E., Dehdashti, P.: Computer-Based Cognitive Prosthetics: Assistive Technology for the treatment of traumatic brain injury. In: ASSETS 1998, pp. 11–18 (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Engelbart, D.: Augmenting Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework. In: SRI (October 1962), http://www.dougengelbart.org/pubs/augment-3906.html
  14. 14.
    Fischer, G.: End-user development and meta-design: Foundations for cul-tures of participation. J. Organizational and End User Computing 22, 52–82 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fischer, G.: End-user development and meta-design: Foundations for cultures of participation. J. Organizational and End User Computing 22, 52–82 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leung, R., Findlatper, L., McGrenere, J., Graf, P.: Multi-layered interfaces to improve older adults’ initial learnability of mobile applications. ACM Tran. Access Comp., 3, 1–30Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Madsen, M., el Kaliouby, R., Eckhardt, M., Hoque, M., Goodwin, Picard, R.: Lessons from participatory design with adolescents on the autism spectrum. In: CHI 2009, pp. 3835–3840 (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Merzenich, M., Jenkins, W., Johnson, P., Schreiner, C., Miller, S., Tallal, P.: Temporal processing deficits of language-learning impaired children ameliorated by training. Science 271, 77–81 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moffaat, K., Davies, R.: The Aphasia Project: Designing technology for and with individusals who have aphasia. Accessibility and Computing 80, 11–17 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Morris, R., Kirschbaum, C., Picard, R.: Broadening accessibility through special inter-ests: A new approach for software customization. In: ASSETS 2010, pp. 171–178 (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    World Health Organization, http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/
  22. 22.
    Wu, M., Baecker, R., Richards, B.: Field Evaluation of a collaborative memory aid for persons with amnesia and their families. In: ASSETS 2010, Orlando, October 25-27, pp. 51–58 (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wu, M., Birnholtz, J., Baecker, R.M., Richards, B., Massimi, M.: Collaborating to remem-ber: A distributed cognition account of families coping with memory impairments. In: CHI 2008, pp. 825–834 (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zasler, N.D., Katz, D.I., Zafonte, R.D.: Brain Injury Medicine. Damos Medical Publishing, New York (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elliot Cole
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Cognitive ProstheticsBala CynwydUSA

Personalised recommendations