This chapter considers the use of haptics for learning fundamental rhythm skills, including skills that depend on multi-limb coordination. Different sensory modalities have different strengths and weaknesses for the development of skills related to rhythm. For example, vision has low temporal resolution and performs poorly for tracking rhythms in real time, whereas hearing is highly accurate. However, in the case of multi-limbed rhythms, neither hearing nor sight is particularly well suited to communicating exactly which limb does what and when, or how the limbs coordinate. By contrast, haptics can work especially well in this area, by applying haptic signals independently to each limb. We review relevant theories, including embodied interaction and biological entrainment. We present a range of applications of the Haptic Bracelets, which are computer-controlled wireless vibrotactile devices, one attached to each wrist and ankle. Haptic pulses are used to guide users in playing rhythmic patterns that require multi-limb coordination. One immediate aim of the system is to support the development of practical rhythm skills and multi-limb coordination. A longer-term goal is to aid the development of a wider range of fundamental rhythm skills including recognising, identifying, memorising, retaining, analysing, reproducing, coordinating, modifying and creating rhythms—particularly multi-stream (i.e. polyphonic) rhythmic sequences. Empirical results are presented. We reflect on related work and discuss design issues for using haptics to support rhythm skills. Skills of this kind are essential not just to drummers and percussionists but also to keyboards’ players and more generally to all musicians who need a firm grasp of rhythm.
DOCUMENT
Assistive technology supports maintenance or improvement of an individual’s functioning and independence, though for people in need the access to assistive products is not always guaranteed. This paper presents a generic quality framework for assistive technology service delivery that can be used independent of the setting, context, legislative framework, or type of technology. Based on available literature and a series of discussions among the authors, a framework was developed. It consists of 7 general quality criteria and four indicators for each of these criteria. The criteria are: accessibility; competence; coordination; efficiency; flexibility; user centeredness, and infrastructure. This framework can be used at a micro level (processes around individual users), meso level (the service delivery scheme or programme) or at a macro level (the whole country). It aims to help identify in an easy way the main strengths and weaknesses of a system or process, and thus guide possible improvements. As a next step in the development of this quality framework the authors propose to organise a global consultancy process to obtain responses from stakeholders across the world and to plan a number of case studies in which the framework is applied to different service delivery systems and processes in different countries.
DOCUMENT
Background: Impaired upper extremity function due to muscle paresis or paralysis has a major impact on independent living and quality of life (QoL). Assistive technology (AT) for upper extremity function (i.e. dynamic arm supports and robotic arms) can increase a client’s independence. Previous studies revealed that clients often use AT not to their full potential, due to suboptimal provision of these devices in usual care. Objective: To optimize the process of providing AT for impaired upper extremity function and to evaluate its (cost-)effectiveness compared with care as usual. Methods: Development of a protocol to guide the AT provision process in an optimized way according to generic Dutch guidelines; a quasi-experimental study with non-randomized, consecutive inclusion of a control group (n = 48) receiving care as usual and of an intervention group (optimized provision process) (n = 48); and a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis from societal perspective will be performed. The primary outcome is clients’ satisfaction with the AT and related services, measured with the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with AT (Dutch version; D-QUEST). Secondary outcomes comprise complaints of the upper extremity, restrictions in activities, QoL, medical consumption and societal cost. Measurements are taken at baseline and at 3, 6 and 9 months follow-up.
DOCUMENT
