Universal Access to Assistive Technology through Client-Centred Cognitive Assessment

  • 1Patrick Langdon
  • Ray Adams
  • P. John Clarkson
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2615)

Abstract

As a basis for user needs and system design assessments in assistive technology (AT), we have developed a new conceptual framework and battery of tests and research paradigms, on a continuing improvement basis. The framework consists of three levels, to provide; overall guidance, specific models for understanding data and task analysis. Following earlier work [1], we report three case studies, considering attentional problems and user-specific needs, to validate our core test elements and conceptual framework. Our systematic method generated specific benefits for our users and pointed out the need for cognitive software in assistive technology.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Adams, R., Langdon, P., and Clarkson, P.J., (2002), A systematic basis for developing cognitive assessment methods for assistive technology. C6. pp 53–62. In Keates, S., Langdon, P., Clarkson, P.J., and Robinson, P. (Eds. ) Universal Access and Assistive Technology. Springer.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Broadbent, D. E. (1984) The Maltese cross: a new simplistic model or memory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7, 55–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Franklin, S., Howard, D., & Patterson, K. (1994). Abstract word meaning deafness. Cognitive neuropsychology, 11, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Van Lancker, D., Cummings, J. L., Kreiman, J. & Dobkin, B. H. (1988). Phonagnosia: A dissociation between familiar and unfamiliar voices. Cortex, 24, 1–15.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baddeley, A. D. (1990). Human memory: Theory and Practice. Hove, U.K. Lawrence Erlbaum AssociateGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shallice, T. (1991). From neuropsychology to mental structure. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 429–439.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barnard, P.J., May, J., Duke, D. and Duce, D. (2000). Systems interactions and macrotheory. Transactions on Computer Human interface, 7, 222–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rumelhart, D. E. and McClelland, J. L. (1986). On learning the past tenses of English verbs. In Parallel distributed processing. Volume 1. (McClelland, J. L. and Rumelhart, D. E. Eds.). Cambridge Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge M. A.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Handy, T. C., Hopfinger, J. B. and Mangan, G. R. (2001). Functional neuroimaging of attention. In Cabeza, R. and Kingstone, A. (Eds.) Handbook of Functional Neuroimaging of Cognition. Cambridge, MA. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal interactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hartley, L. R. and Adams, R. G. (1974). Effect of noise on the stroop test. Journal ofExperimental Psychology, 102, 62–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Raven, J. (2000). The Raven’s progressive matrices; Change and stability over culture and time. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 32–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lord, W. (1994).a review of item content in the fifth edition of the 16PF. London: ASE.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Adams, R. G. and Berry, C. (1981). Cued recall of sentences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33A, 295–307.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Treisman, A. M. & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature integration of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shepherd, R. N. (1978). The mental image, American Psychologist, 33 125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • 1Patrick Langdon
  • Ray Adams
    • 2
  • P. John Clarkson
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of EngineeringUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  2. 2.School of Computing ScienceMiddlesex UniversityLondon

Personalised recommendations