Search Terms New search
Diagnosis Interface
Cervical spinal cord injury Physical keyboard
  • Summary

    There are 29 cases in this dataset, with a mean text entry rate of 13.64 wpm. The minimum was 3.70 wpm, the maximum was 35.53 wpm, and the standard deviation was 8.39 wpm. The histogram below shows the distribution of text entry rate across these 29 cases. The most common ranges were text entry rates between 8 and 10 wpm , 10 and 12 wpm, and 12 and 14 wpm, each representing 4 individuals.

    This search also returned 7 subject groups, for which no individual data were reported. The mean text entry rate across the groups was 11.90 wpm. There was no reported minimum. There was no reported maximum. The standard deviation across the groups was 5.36 wpm.

  • Explore

    This section displays a variety of views of the retrieved data, including how text entry rate varies with interface, diagnosis, or body site, where applicable.

    The number of data points in each category is specified only for low N (below 5 data points).

    Text Entry Rate by Interface. Shows average for each interface in the retrieved dataset.

    Text Entry Rate by Diagnosis. Shows average for each diagnosis in the retrieved dataset.

    Text Entry Rate by Body Site. Shows average for each body site in the retrieved dataset.

  • Individual Data. Each row is a case for a single subject in the dataset.

    Study Subject Age Gender Diagnosis Body site Word prediction? TER (wpm)
    Koester 2007 64 39 M SCI_cervical finger_unilateral N 4.94
    Koester 2007 64 39 M SCI_cervical finger_unilateral N 5.30
    Koester 2007 64 39 M SCI_cervical finger_unilateral N 6.65
    Koester 2015 147 62 M SCI_cervical hand_with_CE N 7.70
    Koester 2015 147 62 M SCI_cervical hand_with_CE N 9.50
    Koester 2007 65 24 M SCI_high_cervical finger_bilateral N 10.98
    Koester 2004 24 46 M SCI_high_cervical finger_unilateral N 14.70
    Koester 2004 27 24 M SCI_high_cervical finger_unilateral N 12.80
    Koester 2004 40 31 F SCI_high_cervical fingers_bilateral N 10.70
    Koester 2007 65 24 M SCI_high_cervical fingers_bilateral N 9.18
    Koester 2007 65 24 M SCI_high_cervical fingers_bilateral N 9.32
    Koester 2004 36 29 M SCI_high_cervical hand_with_CE N 8.60
    Koester 2004 46 25 M SCI_high_cervical hand_with_CE N 14.20
    Koester 2007 61 40 M SCI_high_cervical hand_with_CE N 19.39
    Koester 2007 61 40 M SCI_high_cervical hand_with_CE N 17.58
    Koester 2007 61 40 M SCI_high_cervical hand_with_CE N 22.50
    Lau 1993 8 - M SCI_high_cervical mouth N 11.20
    Lau 1993 9 - M SCI_high_cervical mouth N 10.40
    DeVries 1998 11 25 M SCI_high_cervical mouth N 5.00
    Pouplin 2015 162 - - SCI_high_cervical mouth N 12.60
    Koester 2004 39 54 F SCI_low_cervical finger_unilateral N 3.70
    Koester 2007 56 48 M SCI_low_cervical finger_unilateral N 12.96
    Koester 2007 56 48 M SCI_low_cervical finger_unilateral N 13.04
    Koester 2007 56 48 M SCI_low_cervical finger_unilateral N 14.62
    Koester 2007 59 28 F SCI_low_cervical finger_unilateral N 34.55
    Koester 2007 59 28 F SCI_low_cervical finger_unilateral N 35.53
    Koester 2007 59 28 F SCI_low_cervical finger_unilateral N 32.38
    Pouplin 2015 163 - - SCI_low_cervical hand_unspecified N 7.56
    Koester 2004 35 40 F SCI_low_cervical hand_with_CE N 17.90


    Group Data. Each row is a group of subjects that had no individual data reported.

    Study Diagnosis Body site Word prediction? Sample size Avg TER (wpm) StdDev TER (wpm) Min TER (wpm) Max TER (wpm)
    Koester 1996 SCI_cervical various N 6 23.20 6.80 - -
    Koester 1996 SCI_cervical various Y 6 14.20 3.90 - -
    Pouplin 2016 SCI_low_cervical hands_unspecified N 30 13.80 7.20 - -
    Pouplin 2016 SCI_low_cervical hands_unspecified Y 30 10.62 3.80 - -
    Pouplin 2016 SCI_low_cervical hands_unspecified Y 30 10.24 3.80 - -
    Pouplin 2016 SCI_low_cervical hands_unspecified Y 30 10.14 3.40 - -
    Pouplin 2016 SCI_low_cervical hands_unspecified Y 30 11.96 4.20 - -
  • The list below shows all studies in the dataset that match your search criteria.

    • Comparison of Computer Interface Devices for Persons With Severe Physical Disabilities Lau C, O'Leary S. (1993) American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 47(11), 1022-1030. Show abstract
    • A Comparison of Two Computer Access Systems for Functional Text Entry DeVries R, Deitz J, Anson D. (1998) American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 52(8), 656-665. Show abstract
    • Usage, performance, and satisfaction outcomes for experienced users of automatic speech recognition Koester H. (2004) Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development, 41(5), 739-754. Show abstract
    • Toward automatic adjustment of keyboard settings for people with physical impairments Koester H, LoPresti E, Simpson R. (2007) Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 2(5), 261-274. Show abstract
    • Automatic adjustment of keyboard settings can enhance typing Koester H, Mankowski J. (2015) Assistive Technology, 27(3), 136-146. Show abstract
    • Text input speed in persons with cervical spinal cord injury Pouplin S, Roche N, Vaugier I, Cabanilles S, Hugeron C, Bensmail D. (2015) Spinal Cord, 54(2), 158-162. Show abstract
    • Effect of a word prediction feature on user performance Koester H, Levine S. (1996) AAC: Augmentative & Alternative Communication, 12(3), 155-168. Show abstract
    • Influence of the Number of Predicted Words on Text Input Speed in Participants With Cervical Spinal Cord Injury Pouplin S, Roche N, Vaugier I, Jacob A, Figere M, Pottier S, Antoine J, Bensmail D. (2016) Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 97(2), 259-265. Show abstract
    • The effect of word prediction settings (frequency of use) on text input speed in persons with cervical spinal cord injury: a prospective study Pouplin S, Roche N, Antoine J, Vaugier I, Pottier S, Figere M, Bensmail D. (2016) Disability and Rehabilitation, 39(12), 1215-1220. Show abstract

Are you a researcher who would like to add your research to the database?

Contact Us