Comparison of the Using Ability Between a Smartphone and a Conventional Mobile Phone in People With Cervical Cord Injury

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the ability of spinal cord injury (SCI) patients in the use mobile cellular devices, especially the smartphone. METHODS: Seventeen people with motor complete cervical SCI participated in the study. The assist-devices deemed most fitting were introduced to the patients: a mouth stick, multifunctional splint, activities of daily living (ADL) splint, universal cuff or none of the above. To determine the effective devices, a Multi-Directional Click Test (MDCT), Phone Number Test (PNT), and individual satisfaction inquiry were used. The most appropriate assist device was selected by MDCT. Subsequently PNT and individual satisfaction inquiry were performed with the conventional model and compared. RESULTS: Those with C4 cord injury chose mouth stick. Those with C5 cord injury chose multifunctional splint (3 people) and ADL splint (2 people). Those with C6 cord injury chose universal cuff (3 people) or bare hands only. Those with C7 cord injury chose universal cuff (3 people). With a smartphone, all participants were able to complete the PNT. With a conventional model, only twelve participants (71%) were able to complete the same test. While it took 26.8+/-6.8 seconds with a conventional model to complete PNT, the same test took 18.8+/-10.9 seconds to complete with a smartphone (p<0.05). Overall, participants expressed higher satisfaction when using a smartphone. CONCLUSION: The results offer a practical insight into the appropriate assist devices for SCI patients who wish to use mobile cellular devices, particularly smartphones. When the SCI patients are given the use of a smartphone with the appropriate assist devices, the SCI patients are expected to access mobile cellular device faster and with more satisfaction.

Comparison of the Using Ability Between a Smartphone and a Conventional Mobile Phone in People With Cervical Cord Injury

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the ability of spinal cord injury (SCI) patients in the use mobile cellular devices, especially the smartphone. METHODS: Seventeen people with motor complete cervical SCI participated in the study. The assist-devices deemed most fitting were introduced to the patients: a mouth stick, multifunctional splint, activities of daily living (ADL) splint, universal cuff or none of the above. To determine the effective devices, a Multi-Directional Click Test (MDCT), Phone Number Test (PNT), and individual satisfaction inquiry were used. The most appropriate assist device was selected by MDCT. Subsequently PNT and individual satisfaction inquiry were performed with the conventional model and compared. RESULTS: Those with C4 cord injury chose mouth stick. Those with C5 cord injury chose multifunctional splint (3 people) and ADL splint (2 people). Those with C6 cord injury chose universal cuff (3 people) or bare hands only. Those with C7 cord injury chose universal cuff (3 people). With a smartphone, all participants were able to complete the PNT. With a conventional model, only twelve participants (71%) were able to complete the same test. While it took 26.8+/-6.8 seconds with a conventional model to complete PNT, the same test took 18.8+/-10.9 seconds to complete with a smartphone (p<0.05). Overall, participants expressed higher satisfaction when using a smartphone. CONCLUSION: The results offer a practical insight into the appropriate assist devices for SCI patients who wish to use mobile cellular devices, particularly smartphones. When the SCI patients are given the use of a smartphone with the appropriate assist devices, the SCI patients are expected to access mobile cellular device faster and with more satisfaction.

The Selection of the Appropriate Computer Interface Device for Patients With High Cervical Cord Injury

In order to determine the most suitable computer interfaces for patients with high cervical cord injury, we report three cases of applications of special input devices. The first was a 49-year-old patient with neurological level of injury (NLI) C4, American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (ASIA)-A. He could move the cursor by using a webcam-based Camera Mouse. Moreover, clicking the mouse could only be performed by pronation of the forearm on the modified Micro Light Switch. The second case was a 41-year-old patient with NLI C3, ASIA-A. The SmartNav 4AT which responds according to head movements could provide stable performance in clicking and dragging. The third was a 13-year-old patient with NLI C1, ASIA-B. The IntegraMouse enabling clicking and dragging with fine movements of the lips. Selecting the appropriate interface device for patients with high cervical cord injury could be considered an important part of rehabilitation. We expect the standard proposed in this study will be helpful.