Smart Assistive Technology for Cooking for People With Cognitive Impairments Following a Traumatic Brain Injury: User Experience Study.
assistive technologies
patient safety
qualitative methods
rehabilitation
usability testing and evaluation
user experience
Journal
JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies
ISSN: 2369-2529
Titre abrégé: JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101703412
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 Jan 2022
26 Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
11
03
2021
accepted:
26
11
2021
revised:
05
07
2021
entrez:
26
1
2022
pubmed:
27
1
2022
medline:
27
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
User experience (UX), including usability, should be formally assessed multiple times throughout the development process to optimize the acceptability and integration of a new technology before implementing it within the home environment of people living with cognitive impairments. The aim of this study is to identify UX issues, notably usability issues, and factors to consider for the future implementation of the COOK (Cognitive Orthosis for Cooking) within the home of individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI) to identify modifications to improve the technology. This study comprised two rounds of UX evaluations, including extensive usability testing, which were completed in a laboratory context: 3 sessions with 5 experts and, after improvement of COOK, 2 sessions with 10 participants with TBI. Each session included the use of scenarios and questionnaires on UX and usability. Both rounds demonstrated good usability outcomes and hedonic qualities. Various usability issues were identified by participants, such as navigation inconsistencies, technical bugs, and the need for more feedback. Factors to consider in the future implementation of COOK were also mentioned by participants with TBI, including environmental (eg, space available and presence of pets) and personal factors (eg, level of comfort with technology, presence of visual deficits, and preferences). By evaluating UX, including usability, various times throughout the development process and including experts and end users, our research team was able to develop a technology that was perceived as usable, pleasant, and well-designed. This research is an example of how and when people with cognitive impairments (ie, people with TBI) can be involved in evaluating the UX of new technology.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
User experience (UX), including usability, should be formally assessed multiple times throughout the development process to optimize the acceptability and integration of a new technology before implementing it within the home environment of people living with cognitive impairments.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study is to identify UX issues, notably usability issues, and factors to consider for the future implementation of the COOK (Cognitive Orthosis for Cooking) within the home of individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI) to identify modifications to improve the technology.
METHODS
METHODS
This study comprised two rounds of UX evaluations, including extensive usability testing, which were completed in a laboratory context: 3 sessions with 5 experts and, after improvement of COOK, 2 sessions with 10 participants with TBI. Each session included the use of scenarios and questionnaires on UX and usability.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Both rounds demonstrated good usability outcomes and hedonic qualities. Various usability issues were identified by participants, such as navigation inconsistencies, technical bugs, and the need for more feedback. Factors to consider in the future implementation of COOK were also mentioned by participants with TBI, including environmental (eg, space available and presence of pets) and personal factors (eg, level of comfort with technology, presence of visual deficits, and preferences).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
By evaluating UX, including usability, various times throughout the development process and including experts and end users, our research team was able to develop a technology that was perceived as usable, pleasant, and well-designed. This research is an example of how and when people with cognitive impairments (ie, people with TBI) can be involved in evaluating the UX of new technology.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35080496
pii: v9i1e28701
doi: 10.2196/28701
pmc: PMC8829699
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e28701Informations de copyright
©Mireille Gagnon-Roy, Stéphanie Pinard, Carolina Bottari, Fanny Le Morellec, Catherine Laliberté, Rym Ben Lagha, Amel Yaddaden, Hélène Pigot, Sylvain Giroux, Nathalie Bier. Originally published in JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technology (https://rehab.jmir.org), 26.01.2022.
Références
Brain Inj. 2005 May;19(5):337-48
pubmed: 16094781
Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019 Nov;14(8):817-825
pubmed: 30318931
Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021 Feb 3;:1-9
pubmed: 33533286
Comput Inform Nurs. 2009 May-Jun;27(3):175-83
pubmed: 19411947
Assist Technol. 2021 Jan 4;:1-8
pubmed: 32795215
Int J Med Inform. 2019 Jun;126:95-104
pubmed: 31029270
Clin Rehabil. 2010 Aug;24(8):701-14
pubmed: 20543021
Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2014 Jul;9(4):279-85
pubmed: 23919409
NeuroRehabilitation. 2015;37(3):359-78
pubmed: 26518531
Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021 Oct;16(7):687-701
pubmed: 31846395
Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2013;23(1):133-56
pubmed: 23003668
Clin Rehabil. 2019 Nov;33(11):1705-1712
pubmed: 31353940
J Med Syst. 2015 Feb;39(2):1
pubmed: 25600193
Rev Neurol (Paris). 2017 Jul - Aug;173(7-8):461-472
pubmed: 28847474
J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2014 Mar-Apr;29(2):147-52
pubmed: 23249770
Aust Occup Ther J. 2019 Dec;66(6):720-730
pubmed: 31591729
Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020 Nov 5;:1-10
pubmed: 33151098
J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng. 2020 May 13;7:2055668320909074
pubmed: 32435504
Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2003 Aug;35(3):379-83
pubmed: 14587545
Lancet Neurol. 2017 Oct;16(10):813-825
pubmed: 28920887
Clin Rehabil. 2018 May;32(5):692-704
pubmed: 28982252