Now Available for Public Comment: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for FDAAA 801 and NIH Draft Reporting Policy for NIH-Funded Trials

Evaluation of the Efficiency of Word Prediction Software to Text Input Speed for Tetraplegia (Smartwrite)

The recruitment status of this study is unknown because the information has not been verified recently.
Verified July 2012 by Centre d'Investigation Clinique et Technologique 805.
Recruitment status was  Not yet recruiting
Sponsor:
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
Pouplin Samuel, Centre d'Investigation Clinique et Technologique 805
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
NCT01953666
First received: September 17, 2013
Last updated: September 26, 2013
Last verified: July 2012

September 17, 2013
September 26, 2013
September 2013
September 2013   (final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
Change from Text Input Speed at 1 month [ Time Frame: Phase 1 After every test (10 minutes) Phase 2 : 1 months ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
text input speed (characters/minute)
Same as current
Complete list of historical versions of study NCT01953666 on ClinicalTrials.gov Archive Site
  • Change from Errors at 1 month [ Time Frame: Phase 1 After every test (10 minutes) Phase 2 : 1 month ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
    We record errors in text entry test
  • Change from Bit Rate at 1 month [ Time Frame: Phase 1 After every test (10 minutes) Phase 2 : 1 month ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
    Bit rate de Wolpaw = log2N+P.log2P+(1-P).log2.((1-P)/(N-1))
  • Change from item selection rate [ Time Frame: Phase 1 After every test (10 minutes) Phase 2 : 1 month ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
    items/total time
  • Change from rate enhancement at 1 month [ Time Frame: Phase 1 After every test (10 minutes) Phase 2 : 1 month ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
    rate enhancement: text input speed with word prediction software versus text input speed without word prediction software
  • Change from Keystrokes Saving at 1 month [ Time Frame: Phase 1 After every test (10 minutes) Phase 2 : 1 month ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
    Number of keystrokes saved with word prediction software
  • Change from Prediction use at 1 month [ Time Frame: Phase after every test (10 minutes) Phase 2 : 1 month ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
    Number of use of word prediction software
  • Change from Satisfaction [ Time Frame: Phase 1 After every test (10 minutes) Phase 2 : 1 month ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
    Satisfaction of people with spinal cord injury about word prediction software (visual analogue scale)
  • Change from Cognitive load at 1 month [ Time Frame: Phase 1 After every test (10 minutes) Phase 2 : 1 month ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
    Cognitive load of people with spinal cord injury (visual analogue scale)
  • Change from Fatigue [ Time Frame: Phase 1 Before and After every test (10 minutes) Phase 2 : 1 month ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
    Fatigue of people with spinal cord injury (visual analogue scale)
  • Change from Speed sensation at 1 month [ Time Frame: Phase 1 After every test (10 minutes) Phase 2 : 1 month ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
    speed sensation of people with spinal cord injury with word prediction software (visual analogue scale)
  • Change from Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) at 1 month [ Time Frame: 1 month ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
    The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM)© is an individualized outcome measure designed for use by occupational therapists. The measure is designed to detect change in a client's self-perception of occupational performance over time.
Same as current
Not Provided
Not Provided
 
Evaluation of the Efficiency of Word Prediction Software to Text Input Speed for Tetraplegia
Phase 1 Evaluation of the Influence of Settings of Word Prediction Software (Phase 1)and the Efficiency of Rehabilitation Programm (Phase 2)to Text Input Speed for People With Spinal Cord Injury

Computers now play an important role in the lives of most individuals.Access to computers is crucial for people with disabilities and may improve their quality of life. The use of computers can facilitate mainstreaming at school, for example, and the Internet may provide a valuable means of communication. However, the use of computers requires a certain degree of motor ability. People with motor disabilities frequently experience difficulties using a standard keyboard and standard pointing input systems such as a mouse. Many solutions exist to facilitate computer access, depending on the person's specific impairments and the purpose for which the computer is used. The most common solution relies on the use of a virtual keyboard which is directly displayed on the computer screen. The selection of the desired key on the virtual keyboard can be handled by a large variety of input devices, from a microgravity mouse to single switch devices supplemented by a process of dynamic scanning of the keyboard.Although such assistive devices render computers accessible to people with disabilities, the actual inputting of text can be very slow. A method to increase text input speed is to display words which are predicted from the letters previously typed. Word prediction reduces the number of necessary key strokes by avoiding having to type the whole word. The effect on text input speed is, however uncertain and results in the literature are inconclusive. Indeed, word prediction software provide a enhancement of cognitive load which decrease text input speed.The reduction of cognitive load could therefore be based in part on the optimization settings of the software and / or achievement of a rehabilitation program.Our hypothesis are for people with spinal cord injury : i) optimization settings word prediction software and ii) a rehabilitation program could improve the text input speed.The investigators propose to study the influence of settings word prediction software on text input speed and the influence of a rehabilitation program provided by a therapist, focused on word prediction software to help integrate them. The aim is to increase the performance of people with spinal cord injury and their satisfaction.

The first phase of this research is to select the word prediction software and configuration that provides the best user support.The second phase corresponds to the objective of evaluating the efficiency of a rehabilitation program .

PHASE 1 : The first phase studied the repeated measurement of the efficiency of typing text topics in various situations. Each subject will copy a text different in each test and in a random order. Similarly, if the word prediction software has a capacity for self-improvement the internal dictionary, it will be disabled.

the investigators will study one setting of the configuration word prediction software. Are available the length of the list of proposals for which three options are selected: 1, 3 or 5 words, according to the literature and to the results of a questionnaire.This questionnaire was sent to identify the use of people with spinal cord injury and professionals about word prediction software.

The list of words is in the upper position of the screen based on the results of the questionnaire.

Four combinations will be tested on each subject. Twelve Tetraplegics will be required in each group (one group using a virtual keyboard and one group using the physical keyboard) Each combination will be tried for 10 minutes.

PHASE 2 :

The second phase will evaluate the effeciency of a rehabilitation program reduced cognitive load generated by the software predictions words.

The investigators propose an evaluation of the effects of 12 training sessions in a controlled, randomized, three parallel groups (experimental group : rehabilitation program, a group : a self-learning and a group : no learning).

Text input tests will be performed before and after the training sessions for people who have rehabilitation program. For the other two groups, those will be reviewed one month after the first test.

For this evaluation, a different text but with the same difficulty will be used. The order of execution will be randomized.

At the end of the month the three groups will be evaluated according to the same procedures for the firts test.

Observational
Observational Model: Case Control
Time Perspective: Prospective
Not Provided
Not Provided
Probability Sample

People with spinal cord injury : tetraplegia

  • Settings Word Prediction Software
  • Rehabilitation Program
  • Other: Rehabilitation program

    Rehabilitation program with an occupational therpasit

    3 training sessions (one hour) per week for a month (12 sessions)

  • Other: Self - Training at home
    Only instructions for a self - training at home
  • Other: No treatment
    No rehabilitation program No instructions
  • Rehabilitation Group
    People with spinal cord injury who have a rehabilitation program on a word prediction software with an occupational therapist.
    Intervention: Other: Rehabilitation program
  • Self Training at Home Group
    People with spinal cord injury who don't have a rehabilitation program with an occupational therapist but who have instructions for learning at home on a word prediction software
    Intervention: Other: Self - Training at home
  • No treatment Group
    People with spinal cord injury who don't have instructions, rehabilitation programm on word prediction software. They have no treatment.
    Intervention: Other: No treatment
Not Provided

*   Includes publications given by the data provider as well as publications identified by ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT Number) in Medline.
 
Not yet recruiting
45
June 2014
September 2013   (final data collection date for primary outcome measure)

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Tetraplegia (between C4 and C8 ASIA) more than 6 months.
  • Can read and write
  • No visual problems preventing the use of computers.
  • Recipient of a Health Insurance Plan
  • Having read information note.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Moving in progress or predictable
Both
18 Years to 70 Years
Yes
Contact: Samuel POUPLIN, OT-MSC 01 47 10 70 61 samuel.pouplin@rpc.aphp.fr
Contact: Djamel BENSMAIL, MDPHD 01 47 10 70 63 djamel.bensmail@rpc.aphp.fr
France
 
NCT01953666
12053
No
Pouplin Samuel, Centre d'Investigation Clinique et Technologique 805
Centre d'Investigation Clinique et Technologique 805
Not Provided
Study Director: Djamel Bensmail, MDPHD HOPITAL RAYMOND POINCARE
Centre d'Investigation Clinique et Technologique 805
July 2012

ICMJE     Data element required by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the World Health Organization ICTRP