Advertisement

Study on Usefulness of Smartphone Applications for the People with Parkinson’s

  • Mujahid RafiqEmail author
  • Ibrar Hussain
  • C. M. Nadeem Faisal
  • Hamid Turab Mirza
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11592)

Abstract

The population of developed countries is becoming older and likely more chances of elderly people to face problems due to Parkinson. Mobile applications play a vital role in the lives of people having Parkinson. They use mobile applications for communication, social media network, surfing websites, medication, online shopping, and for many other purposes. However, the developers normally consider the youngster while designing the mobile Apps, consequently, the people with Parkinson (PwP) face numerous usability related issues while interacting with applications. This study elaborates the detailed limitations of PwP regarding the use of mobile applications and also determined the impact of related factors such as ease of use, information quality, and aesthetic quality on the usefulness of mobile applications. The objective is to purpose a theoretical model or framework for the usefulness of mobile applications in case of PwP. An empirical study is conducted on 25 PwP to test this model. A Structure equation modeling with other reliability tests are applied to verify and validate the proposed model. The results illustrate that ease of use and information quality strongly influence the usefulness whereas, aesthetic quality has a weak but indirect effect on usefulness. This study will provide the guidelines to the developers of the mobile application to understand the limitations of PwP and also to improve the usefulness of mobile applications by employing the appropriate design features.

Keywords

Usefulness User experience Structure equation modelling Ease of Use Information Quality Aesthetic Quality Parkinson Disease People with Parkinson 

References

  1. 1.
    A Strategy for Quality Assurance’. National Academies Press (1980)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dorsey, E., et al.: Projected number of people with Parkinson disease in the most populous nations, 2005 through 2030. Neurology 68(5), 384–386 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Canning, C.G., et al.: Exercise therapy for prevention of falls in people with Parkinson’s disease: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation. BMC Neurol. 9(1), 4 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bloem, B., Stocchi, F.: Move for change part I: a European survey evaluating the impact of the EPDA charter for people with Parkinson’s disease. Eur. J. Neurol. 19(3), 402–410 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McNaney, R., et al.: Exploring the acceptability of Google glass as an everyday assistive device for people with parkinson’s. In: Exploring the Acceptability of Google Glass as an Everyday Assistive Device for People with Parkinson’s, pp. 2551–2554. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zickuhr, K., Madden, M.: Older adults and internet use. Pew Internet & American Life Project, p. 6 (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    de Barros, A.C., Cevada, J., Bayés, À., Alcaine, S., Mestre, B.: User-centred design of a mobile self-management solution for Parkinson’s disease. In: User-Centred Design of a Mobile Self-management Solution for Parkinson’s Disease, p. 23. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sharma, V., et al.: SPARK: personalized parkinson disease interventions through synergy between a smartphone and a smartwatch. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2014. LNCS, vol. 8519, pp. 103–114. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07635-5_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nes Begnum, M.E.: Challenges for Norwegian PC-users with Parkinson’s disease – a survey. In: Miesenberger, K., Klaus, J., Zagler, W., Karshmer, A. (eds.) ICCHP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6179, pp. 292–299. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14097-6_47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Begnum, M.E.N., Begnum, K.M.: On the usefulness of off-the-shelf computer peripherals for people with Parkinson’s Disease. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 11(4), 347–357 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nunes, F., Silva, P.A., Cevada, J., Barros, A.C., Teixeira, L.: User interface design guidelines for smartphone applications for people with Parkinson’s disease. Univ. Access Inf. Soc., 1–21 (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Massano, J., Bhatia, K.P.: Clinical approach to Parkinson’s disease: features, diagnosis, and principles of management. Cold Spring Harbor Perspect. Med. 2(6), a008870 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hoffmann, N.C.: Using art therapy to address cognitive symptoms of Parkinson’s disease. Int. J. User-Driven Healthc. (IJUDH) 3(3), 74–95 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jankovic, J.: Parkinson’s disease: clinical features and diagnosis. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 79(4), 368–376 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Berardelli, A., Rothwell, J., Thompson, P., Hallett, M.: Pathophysiology of bradykinesia in Parkinson’s disease. Brain 124(11), 2131–2146 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reynard, J., Turner, K., Mark, S., Feneley, M., Armenakas, N., Sullivan, M.: Urological surgery. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fernandez, H., Odin, P.: Levodopa–carbidopa intestinal gel for treatment of advanced Parkinson’s disease. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 27(5), 907–919 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bonnet, A.M., Jutras, M.F., Czernecki, V., Corvol, J.C., Vidailhet, M.: Nonmotor symptoms in Parkinson’s disease in 2012: relevant clinical aspects. Parkinson’s disease (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Djaldetti, R., Shifrin, A., Rogowski, Z., Sprecher, E., Melamed, E., Yarnitsky, D.: Quantitative measurement of pain sensation in patients with Parkinson disease. Neurology 62(12), 2171–2175 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Foltynie, T., Brayne, C.E., Robbins, T.W., Barker, R.A.: The cognitive ability of an incident cohort of Parkinson’s patients in the UK. The CamPaIGN study. Brain 127(3), 550–560 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dubois, B., Pillon, B.: Cognitive deficits in Parkinson’s disease. J. Neurol. 244(1), 2–8 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Norman, D.A.: Cognitive artifacts. In: Designing Interaction: Psychology at the Human-Computer Interface, vol. 1, pp. 17–38 (1991)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hartikainen, M., Ovaska, S.: People with Parkinson’s Disease Using Computers. In: People with Parkinson’s Disease Using Computers, pp. 407–408. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nunes, F., Silva, P.A., Cevada, J., Barros, A.C., Teixeira, L.: User interface design guidelines for smartphone applications for people with Parkinson’s disease. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 15(4), 659–679 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Charmaz, K.: Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. Introducing Qualitative Methods Series (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhan, W., et al.: Regional alterations of brain microstructure in Parkinson’s disease using diffusion tensor imaging. Mov. Disord. 27(1), 90–97 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Montague, K., Nicolau, H., Hanson, V.L.: Motor-impaired touchscreen interactions in the wild. In: Motor-Impaired Touchscreen Interactions in the Wild, pp. 123–130. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Maziewski, P., Suchomski, P., Kostek, B., Czyzewski, A.: An intuitive graphical user interface for the Parkinson’s disease patients. In: An Intuitive Graphical User Interface for the Parkinson’s Disease Patients, pp. 14–17. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gregor, P., Newell, A.F., Zajicek, M.: Designing for dynamic diversity: interfaces for older people. In: Designing for Dynamic Diversity: Interfaces for Older People, pp. 151–156, ACM (2002)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Marcus, A., Gould, E.W.: Crosscurrents: cultural dimensions and global web user-interface design. Interactions 7(4), 32–46 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hawthorn, D.: Interface design and engagement with older people. Behav. Inf. Technol. 26(4), 333–341 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hawthorn, D.: Possible implications of aging for interface designers. Interact. Comput. 12(5), 507–528 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ramírez-Correa, P.E., Arenas-Gaitán, J., Rondán-Cataluña, F.J.: Gender and acceptance of e-learning: a multi-group analysis based on a structural equation model among college students in Chile and Spain. PLoS ONE 10(10), e0140460 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13, 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Malhotra, Y., Galletta, D.F.: Extending the technology acceptance model to account for social influence: theoretical bases and empirical validation. In: Extending the Technology Acceptance Model to Account for Social Influence: Theoretical Bases and Empirical Validation, p. 14. IEEE (1999)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Van Biljon, J., Kotzé, P.: Modelling the factors that influence mobile phone adoption. In: Modelling the Factors that Influence Mobile Phone Adoption, pp. 152–161. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Al-Mamary, Y.H., Shamsuddin, A., Abdul Hamid, N.A.: Factors affecting successful adoption of management information systems in organizations towards enhancing organizational performance. Am. J. Syst. Softw. 2(5), 121–126 (2014)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    DeLone, W.H., McLean, E.R.: Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Inf. Syst. Res. 3(1), 60–95 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lee, H.-M., Chen, T.: Perceived quality as a key antecedent in continuance intention on mobile commerce. Int. J. Electron. Commer. Stud. 5(2), 123–142 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Almaiah, M.A., Man, M.: Empirical investigation to explore factors that achieve high quality of mobile learning system based on students’ perspectives. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 19(3), 1314–1320 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Al-Debei, M.M.: The quality and acceptance of websites: an empirical investigation in the context of higher education. Int. J. Bus. Inf. Syst. 15(2), 170–188 (2014)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Landrum, H.T., Prybutok, V.R., Strutton, D., Zhang, X.: Examining the merits of usefulness versus use in an information service quality and information system success web-based model. Inf. Resour. Manag. J. (IRMJ) 21(2), 1–17 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wang, Y.S.: Assessing e-commerce systems success: a respecification and validation of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success. Inf. Syst. J. 18(5), 529–557 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Demoulin, N.T., Coussement, K.: Acceptance of text-mining systems: the signaling role of information quality. Inf. Manag. (2018)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ali, B.M., Younes, B.: The impact of information systems on user performance: an exploratory study. J. Knowl. Manag. Econ. Inf. Technol. 3(2), 128–154 (2013)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lan, P., Ruan, A.-Q., Zhang, W.: User adoption intention of the tourism APP based on experimental method. In: DEStech Transactions on Environment, Energy and Earth Sciences, EESD (2017)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hassn, H.A.H., Ismail, A., Borhan, M.N., Syamsunur, D.: The impact of intelligent transport system quality: drivers’ acceptance perspective. Int. J. Technol. 4, 553–561 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Pantano, E., Rese, A., Baier, D.: Enhancing the online decision-making process by using augmented reality: a two country comparison of youth markets. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 38, 81–95 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Porter, C.E., Donthu, N.: Using the technology acceptance model to explain how attitudes determine Internet usage: the role of perceived access barriers and demographics. J. Bus. Res. 59(9), 999–1007 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    McCloskey, D.W.: The importance of ease of use, usefulness, and trust to online consumers: an examination of the technology acceptance model with older consumers. J. Org. End User Comput. 18(3), 47 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Amin, M., Rezaei, S., Abolghasemi, M.: User satisfaction with mobile websites: the impact of perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEOU) and trust. Nankai Bus. Rev. Int. 5(3), 258–274 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Karahanna, E., Straub, D.W.: The psychological origins of perceived usefulness and ease-of-use. Inf. Manag. 35(4), 237–250 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Nwokah, N.G., Ntah, S.W.: Website quality and online shopping of e-tail stores in Nigeria. J. Serv. Sci. Manag. 10(06), 497 (2017)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Lund, A.M.: Measuring usability with the use questionnaire12. Usability Interface 8(2), 3–6 (2001)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Assila, A., Ezzedine, H.: Standardized usability questionnaires: features and quality focus. Electron. J. Comput. Sci. Inf. Technol. eJCIST 6(1) (2016)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Erdinç, O., Lewis, J.R.: Psychometric evaluation of the T-CSUQ: the Turkish version of the computer system usability questionnaire. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 29(5), 319–326 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Lewis, J.R.: Psychometric evaluation of the post-study system usability questionnaire: the PSSUQ. In: Psychometric Evaluation of the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire: The PSSUQ, pp. 1259–1260. Sage Publications, Los Angeles (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Barnes, S.J., Vidgen, R.: Measuring web site quality improvements: a case study of the forum on strategic management knowledge exchange. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 103(5), 297–309 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Eppler, M.J., Muenzenmayer, P.: Measuring information quality in the web context: a survey of state-of-the-art instruments and an application methodology. In: Measuring Information Quality in the Web Context: A Survey of State-of-the-Art Instruments and an Application Methodology, pp. 187–196. Citeseer (2002)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Chiu, C.-M., Hsu, M.-H., Sun, S.-Y., Lin, T.-C., Sun, P.-C.: Usability, quality, value and e-learning continuance decisions. Comput. Educ. 45(4), 399–416 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Chae, M., Kim, J., Kim, H., Ryu, H.: Information quality for mobile internet services: A theoretical model with empirical validation. Electron. Markets 12(1), 38–46 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Tandi Lwoga, E.: Measuring the success of library 2.0 technologies in the African context: the suitability of the DeLone and McLean’s model. Campus-Wide Inf. Syst. 30(4), 288–307 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Gandhi, A., Shihab, M.R., Yudhoatmojo, S.B., Hidayanto, A.N.: Information quality assessment for user perception on Indonesia Kreatif web portal. In: Information Quality Assessment for User Perception on Indonesia Kreatif Web Portal, pp. 171–176. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Gao, J., Zhang, C., Wang, K., Ba, S.: Understanding online purchase decision making: The effects of unconscious thought, information quality, and information quantity. Decis. Support Syst. 53(4), 772–781 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Kahn, B.K., Strong, D.M., Wang, R.Y.: Information quality benchmarks: product and service performance. Commun. ACM 45(4), 184–192 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Swanson, E.B.: Management information systems: appreciation and involvement. Manag. Sci. 21(2), 178–188 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Erkan, İ., Rahman, M., Sap, S.: Mobile word of mouth (MWOM) in messaging applications: an integrative framework of the impact of MWOM communicationGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Lee, D.-M., Chae, Y.-S., Lee, Y.-K., Choi, M.-J., Jang, S.-H.: The impact of information system quality and media quality on the intention to use IPTV. J. Inf. Commun. Convergence Eng. 10(1), 71–77 (2012)Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Ujakpa, M.M., Heukelman, D.: Extended Technological Acceptance Model for Evaluating E-Learning: The African Context (ETAM-4EEA)Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Saadé, R., Bahli, B.: The impact of cognitive absorption on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in on-line learning: an extension of the technology acceptance model. Inf. Manag. 42(2), 317–327 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Laguna, K., Babcock, R.L.: Computer anxiety in young and older adults: Implications for human-computer interactions in older populations. Comput. Hum. Behav. 13(3), 317–326 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Van Raaij, E.M., Schepers, J.J.: The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment in China. Comput. Educ. 50(3), 838–852 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Kassim, E.S., Jailani, S.F.A.K., Hairuddin, H., Zamzuri, N.H.: Information system acceptance and user satisfaction: The mediating role of trust. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 57, 412–418 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Thorlacius, L.: The role of aesthetics in web design. Nordicom Rev. 28(1), 63–76 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Lindgaard, G., Dudek, C.: What is this evasive beast we call user satisfaction? Interact. Comput. 15(3), 429–452 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Norman, D.A.: Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Deng, S., Fang, Y., Liu, Y., Li, H.: Understanding the factors influencing user experience of social question and answer services. Inf. Res.: Int. Electron. J. 20(4), 4 (2015)Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Sohn, S.: A contextual perspective on consumers’ perceived usefulness: The case of mobile online shopping. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 38, 22–33 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Peng, X., Peak, D., Prybutok, V., Xu, C.: The effect of product aesthetics information on website appeal in online shopping. Nankai Bus. Rev. Int. 8(2), 190–209 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Kjeldskov, J., Paay, J.: A longitudinal review of mobile HCI research methods. In: A Longitudinal Review of Mobile HCI Research Methods, pp. 69–78. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Dickinson, A., Arnott, J., Prior, S.: Methods for human–computer interaction research with older people. Behav. Inf. Technol. 26(4), 343–352 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Wu, J.-H., Wang, S.-C., Lin, L.-M.: Mobile computing acceptance factors in the healthcare industry: a structural equation model. Int. J. Med. Inform. 76(1), 66–77 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Xu, D.J., Liao, S.S., Li, Q.: Combining empirical experimentation and modeling techniques: a design research approach for personalized mobile advertising applications. Decis. Support Syst. 44(3), 710–724 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Matemba, E.D., Li, G., Maiseli, B.J.: Consumers’ stickiness to mobile payment applications: an empirical study of WeChat wallet. J. Database Manag. (JDM) 29(3), 43–66 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Wright, S.R.: Mobile technology adoption: assessing faculty acceptance using the technology acceptance model. ProQuest LLC (2018)Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Al Amri, S.Q., Sadka, A.H.: The moderating role of personality traits on the relationship between behavioral intention and actual use of mobile government. In: The Moderating Role of Personality Traits on the Relationship Between Behavioral Intention and Actual use of Mobile Government, p. 279. Academic Conferences and Publishing Limited (2018)Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Byrne, B.M.: Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Routledge, Abingdon (2016)Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Fornell, C., et al.: A second generation of multivariate analysis: classification of methods and implications for marketing research. Solstice: Electron. J. Geogr. Math. 5(2)Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F.: Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: algebra and statistics. J. Mark. Res. 18, 382–388 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Bentler, P.M., Bonett, D.G.: Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol. Bull. 88(3), 588 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Kock, N.: Common method bias in PLS-SEM: a full collinearity assessment approach. Int. J. e-Collab. (IJeC) 11(4), 1–10 (2015)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Burr, R., Hayduk, L.A.: Structural Equations Modeling with Lisrel, p. 396. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (1987). $37.50 (hard cover). Res. Nurs. Health 11(5), 352–353 (1988)Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Scott, J.E.: The measurement of information systems effectiveness: evaluating a measuring instrument. ACM SIGMIS Database: Database Adv. Inf. Syst. 26(1), 43–61 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y.: On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 16(1), 74–94 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Lewis, J.R., Utesch, B.S., Maher, D.E.: UMUX-LITE: When There’s No Time for the SUS, pp. 2099–2102. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Sutcliffe, A.: Assessing the reliability of heuristic evaluation for web site attractiveness and usability. In: Assessing the Reliability of Heuristic Evaluation for Web Site Attractiveness and Usability, pp. 1838–1847. IEEE (2002)Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Nielsen, J.: Designing Web Usability: The Practice of Simplicity. New Riders Publishing, Indianapolis (1999)Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Kim, J., Lee, J., Choi, D.: Designing emotionally evocative homepages: an empirical study of the quantitative relations between design factors and emotional dimensions. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 59(6), 899–940 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Lavie, T., Tractinsky, N.: Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 60(3), 269–298 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Lewis, J.R.: IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7(1), 57–78 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of LahoreLahorePakistan
  2. 2.National Textile UniversityFaisalabadPakistan
  3. 3.COMSATS University IslamabadIslamabadPakistan

Personalised recommendations