Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Biological surface electromyographic switch and necklace-type button switch control as an augmentative and alternative communication input device: a feasibility study

  • Technical Paper
  • Published:
Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) is an approach used to supplement, improve, and support the communication of those with speech or language impairments. We developed an AAC device for diverse approaches, using an electromyographic (EMG) switch and a necklace-type button switch. The EMG switch comprised an EMG signal processor and a switch interface processor. EMG signals were processed using an electrode through the stages of signal acquisition, amplification, filtering, rectification, and smoothing. In the switch interface processor, the microprocessor determined the switch as ON or OFF in response to an input EMG signal and then converted the EMG signal into a keyboard signal, which was transmitted to a smart device via Bluetooth communication. A similar transmission process was used for the necklace-type button switch, and switch signals were input and processed with general-purpose input/output. The first and second feasibility tests for the EMG switch and button switch were conducted in a total of three test sessions. The result of the feasibility test indicated that the major inconvenience and desired improvement associated with the EMG switch were the intricacy of the AAC device settings. The major inconveniences and desired improvements for the necklace-type button switch involved device shifting, volume and weight, and inconvenience in fixing the switch in various directions. Thus, based on the first and second feasibility tests, we developed an additional device. Finally, the EMG switch and necklace-type button switch developed to remedy the inconveniencies had high feasibility.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lewis RB (1993) Special education technology: classroom applications. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, Pacific Grove

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cler MJ, Nieto-Castañón A, Guenther FH, Fager SK, Stepp CE (2016) Surface electromyographic control of a novel phonemic interface for speech synthesis. Augment Altern Commun 32:120–130

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Beukelman D, Mirenda P (2005) Augmentative and alternative communication: supporting children and adults with complex communication needs. Paul H. Brookes, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  4. Williams MR, Kirsch RF (2008) Evaluation of head orientation and neck muscle EMG signals as command inputs to a human–computer interface for individuals with high tetraplegia. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 16:485–494

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Higginbotham DJ, Shane H, Russell S, Caves K (2007) Access to AAC: present, past, and future. Augment Altern Commun 23:243–257

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Orhan U, Hild KE, Erdogmus D, Roark B, Oken B, Fried-Oken M (2012) RSVP keyboard: an EEG based typing interface. In: Proc IEEE Int conf Acoust speech signal Process, pp 645–648

  7. Beukelman DR, Mirenda P (2013) Augmentative & alternative communication: supporting children & adults with complex communication needs, 4th edn. Paul H. Brookes Pub, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fager S, Bardach L, Russell S, Higginbotham J (2012) Access to augmentative and alternative communication: new technologies and clinical decision-making. J Pediatr Rehabil Med 5:53

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Majaranta P, MacKenzie IS, Aula A, Räihä KJ (2006) Effects of feedback and dwell time on eye typing speed and accuracy. Univers Access in Inform Soc 5:199–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Tonet O, Marinelli M, Citi L et al (2008) Defining brain–machine interface applications by matching interface performance with device requirements. J Neurosci Methods 167:91–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Stepp CE (2012) Surface electromyography for speech and swallowing systems: measurement, analysis, and interpretation. J Speech Lang Hear Res 55:1232–1246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Saxena S, Nikolic S, Popovic D (1995) An EMG-controlled grasping system for tetraplegics. J Rehabil Res Dev 32:17

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mobasheri MH, King D, Judge S et al (2016) Communication aid requirements of intensive care unit patients with transient speech loss. Augment Altern Commun 32:261–271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kong JY, Kim KY, Nam SH, An NY (2017) Survey on the use of Korean-type augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) for person with brain lesions. AAC Res Pract 5:25–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cook A, Hussesy S (2002) Assistive technology: preincilples and practive, 2nd edn. Mosby, St. Louis

    Google Scholar 

  16. Beukelman D, Mirenda P (2012) Augmentative and alternative communication, 4th edn. Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  17. McNaughton D, Light J (2013) The iPad and mobile technology revolution: benefits and challenges for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication. Augment Altern Commun 29:107–116

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Russo MJ, Prodan V, Meda NN et al (2017) High-technology augmentative communication for adults with post-stroke aphasia: a systematic review. Expert Rev Med Devices 14(5):355–370

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ten Hoorn S, Elbers PW, Girbes AR, Tuinman PR (2016) Communicating with conscious and mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: a systematic review. Crit Care 20(1):333

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Hodge S (2007) Why is the potential of augmentative and alternative communication not being realized? Exploring the experiences of people who use communication aids. Disabil Soc 22:457–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. McNaughton D, Rackensperger T, Benedek-Wood E, Krezman C, Williams MB, Light J (2008) A child needs to be given a chance to succeed”: parents of individuals who use AAC describe the benefits and challenges of learning AAC technologies. Augment Altern Commun 24:43–55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cooper L, Balandin S, Trembath D (2009) The loneliness experiences of young adults with cerebral palsy who use alternative and augmentative communication. Augment Altern Commun 25:154–164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bailey RL, Parette HP, Stoner JB, Angell ME, Carroll K (2006) Family members' perceptions of augmentative and alternative communication device use. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 37:50–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the R&D Grant (No. 2017006) on rehabilitation by Korea National Rehabilitation Center Research Institute, Ministry of Health & Welfare.

Funding

This research was supported by the R&D Grant (No. 2017006) on rehabilitation by Korea National Rehabilitation Center Research Institute, Ministry of Health & Welfare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physical Therapy, Graduate School of Kyungnam University, Changwon, Republic of Korea

    DongGeon Lee

  2. J.MARPLE Inc., R&D Team, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    SeungJun Lee

  3. Department of Rehabilitation & Assistive Technology, Korea National Rehabilitation Research Institute, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Kuem Ju Lee

  4. Department of Physical Therapy, Kyungnam University, 7 Kyungnamdaehak-ro, Masanhappo-gu, Changwon, Gyeongsangnam-do, 51767, Republic of Korea

    GyuChang Lee

Authors
  1. DongGeon Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. SeungJun Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kuem Ju Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. GyuChang Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to GyuChang Lee.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethics approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Kyungnam University Institutional Review Board and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, D., Lee, S., Lee, K. et al. Biological surface electromyographic switch and necklace-type button switch control as an augmentative and alternative communication input device: a feasibility study. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 42, 839–851 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-019-00766-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-019-00766-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation