The Role of Accessibility for Acceptance and Usage of an Internet-Based Speech Intervention

  • Vanessa N. HeitplatzEmail author
  • Ute Ritterfeld
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10896)


Within a collaborative effort of technicians, speech therapists and psychologists “ISi-Speech” has been developed as an Internet-based speech-training tool. This tool aims at improving the speech of people with degenerative neurological impairments such as acquired dysarthria in, for example, Parkinson’s Disease. ISi-Speech is characterized by a theory based design of training elements which take specific challenges in speech therapy as well as motivational elements into account. To ensure acceptance and long-time usage of a training system members of the target group have been involved in the design and formative evaluation process at various times in the project. Specifically, we focus on accessibility as one elementary factor of technology acceptance. Based upon the concept of the Universal-Design and Web-Accessibility-Guidelines 2.0 we implemented accessibility requirements that will be introduced and discussed in this paper.


Accessibility Acceptance of technology Parkinson’s disease 


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Hoffmann, E., Menning, S., Schelhase, T.: Demografische Perspektiven zum Altern und zum Alter. In: Böhm, K., Tesch-Römer, C., Ziese, T. (Hrsg.) Gesundheit und Krankheit im Alter, pp. 21–30 (2009).
  3. 3.
    Mühlhaus, J., Frieg, H., Bilda, K., Ritterfeld, U.: Game-based speech rehabilitation for people with Parkinson’s Disease. In: Antona, M., Stephanidis, C. (eds.) UAHCI 2017. LNCS, vol. 10279, pp. 76–85. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mader, S., Levieux, G., Natkin, S.: A game design method for therapeutic games. Paper Presented at the 2016 8th International Conference on Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications, (VS-Games) (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hainey, T., Conolly, T., Stansfield, M., Boyle, E.: The differences in motivations of online game players and offline game players: a combined analysis of three studies at higher education level. Comput. Educ. 57, 2197–2211 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gage, H., Grainger, L., Ting, S., Williams, P., Chorley, C., Carey, G., Borg, N., Bryan, K., Castelton, C., Trend, P., Kaye, J., Jorda, J. Wade, D.: Specialist rehabilitation for people with Parkinson’s Disease in the community: a randomized controlled trial. Health Serv. Deliv. Res. 51(2) (2014).
  7. 7.
    Ritterfeld, U.: Von video games zu health gaming. In: Dadaczynski, K., Schiemann, S. (Hrsg.) Gesundheit spielend fördern. Potenziale und Herausforderungen von digitalen Spieleanwendungen für die Gesundheitsförderung und Prävention, pp. 173–190. Beltz, Weinheim (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M.: Self-determination theory: a macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Can. Psychol. Assoc. 49(3), 182–185 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ritterfeld, U., Muehlhaus, J., Frieg, H., Bilda, K.: Developing a technology-based speech intervention for acquired dysarthria. In: Miesenberger, K., Bühler, C., Penaz, P. (eds.) ICCHP 2016. LNCS, vol. 9758, pp. 93–100. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Neyer, F.J., Felber, J., Gebhardt, C.: Entwicklung und Validierung einer Kurzskala zur Erfassung von Technikbereitschaft. Diagnostica 58(2), 87–99 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schramm, H., Wirth, W.: Testing a universal tool for measuring parasocial interactions across different situation and media. Findings from three studies. J. Media Psychol. 22(1), 26–36 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bühler, C.: Technology for inclusion and participation – technology based accessibility (TBA). In: Antona, M., Stephanidis, C. (eds.) UAHCI 2016. LNCS, vol. 9737, pp. 144–149. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  13. 13.
    United Nations: Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2017).
  14. 14.
    Global Universal Design Commission: Creating Voluntary Universal Design Standards (2017).
  15. 15.
    Hastall, M.R., Dockweiler, C., Mühlhaus, J.: Achieving end user acceptance: building blocks for an evidence-based user-centered framework for health technology development and assessment. In: Antona, M., Stephanidis, C. (eds.) UAHCI 2017. LNCS, vol. 10279, pp. 13–25. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  16. 16.
    World Wide Web Consortium: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (2008).
  17. 17.
    Bühler, C.: “Accessibility” über Desktopanwendungen hinaus – Barrierefreiheit. Informatik-Spektrum 40(6), 501–510 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Witt, K., Kalbe, E., Erasmi, R., Eberbach, G.: Nichtmedikamentöse Therapieverfahren beim Morbus Parkinson. Nervenarzt 88(1), 383–390 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aybek, S., Gronchi-Perrin, A., Berney, A., Catalano Chiuve, S., Villemure, J., Burkhard, P., Vingerhoets, F.: Long-term cognitive profile and incidence of dementia after STN-DBS in Parkinson’s disease. Mov. Disord. 22(7), 974–981 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Davis, F.: A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1980).
  21. 21.
    Hastall, M.R., Eiermann, N., Ritterfeld, U.: Formal and informal carers’ views on ICT in dementia care: insights from two qualitative studies. Gerontology 13(1), 53–58 (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Conti, D., Nuovo, S.D., Buono, S., Di Nuovo, A.: Robots in education and care of children with developmental disabilities: a study on acceptance by experienced and future professionals. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 9(1), 51–62 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Language and CommunicationTU Dortmund UniversityDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations