ACM Digital Library home
ACM home
Advanced Search
10.1145/3491102.3517738acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

A Performance Evaluation of Nomon: A Flexible Interface for Noisy Single-Switch Users

CHI '22: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsApril 2022Article No.: 495Pages 1–17https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517738
Published:29 April 2022Publication History
  • 2citation
  • 345
  • Downloads
Metrics
Total Citations2
Total Downloads345
Last 12 Months227
Last 6 weeks15
  • PDF

CHI '22: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

A Performance Evaluation of Nomon: A Flexible Interface for Noisy Single-Switch Users
Pages 1–17
PreviousChapterNextChapter

ABSTRACT

Some individuals with motor impairments communicate using a single switch — such as a button click, air puff, or blink. Row-column scanning provides a method for choosing items arranged in a grid using a single switch. An alternative, Nomon, allows potential selections to be arranged arbitrarily rather than requiring a grid (as desired for gaming, drawing, etc.) — and provides an alternative probabilistic selection method. While past results suggest that Nomon may be faster and easier to use than row-column scanning, no work has yet quantified performance of the two methods over longer time periods or in tasks beyond writing. In this paper, we also develop and validate a webcam-based switch that allows a user without a motor impairment to approximate the response times of a motor-impaired single switch user; although the approximation is not a replacement for testing with single-switch users, it allows us to better initialize, calibrate, and evaluate our method. Over 10 sessions with the webcam switch, we found users typed faster and more easily with Nomon than with row-column scanning. The benefits of Nomon were even more pronounced in a picture-selection task. Evaluation and feedback from a motor-impaired switch user further supports the promise of Nomon.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

3491102.3517738-talk-video.mp4

Talk Video

mp4

87.8 MB

Play streamDownload
Available for Download
zip
Supplemental Materials (1.7 MB)

References

  1. Minkyu Ahn and Sung Chan Jun. 2015. Performance variation in motor imagery brain–computer interface: A brief review. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 243 (2015), 103 – 110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2015.01.033Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Jennifer Angelo. 1992. Comparison of three computer scanning modes as an interface method for persons with cerebral palsy. The American journal of occupational therapy 46, 3 (1992), 217–222. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.46.3.21Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Jennifer Angelo. 2000. Factors affecting the use of a single switch with assistive technology devices.Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development 37, 5(2000).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Melanie Baljko and Andrew Tam. 2006. Indirect Text Entry Using One or Two Keys. In Proceedings of the 8th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Portland, Oregon, USA) (Assets ’06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/1168987.1168992Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Timothy C. Bell, John G. Cleary, and Ian H. Witten. 1990. Text Compression. Prentice Hall, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Tamara Broderick. 2009. Nomon: Efficient communication with a single switch. University of Cambridge. Cambridge, United Kingdom.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Tamara Broderick and David J. C. MacKay. 2009. Fast and Flexible Selection with a Single Switch. PLoS ONE 4, 10 (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Stanley F. Chen and Joshua T. Goodman. 1998. An Empirical Study of Smoothing Techniques for Language Modeling. Technical Report. Computer Science Group, Harvard University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. CoughDrop. Accessed September 2020. CoughDrop. https://coughdrop.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/201366669-How-do-I-set-up-scanning-options-in-CoughDrop-Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. W Crochetiere, R Foulds, and R Sterne. 1974. Computer aided motor communication. In Proceedings of the 1974 Conference on Engineering Devices in Rehabilitation. 1–8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Nicola Dell, Vidya Vaidyanathan, Indrani Medhi, Edward Cutrell, and William Thies. 2012. ”Yours is Better!”: Participant Response Bias in HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Austin, Texas, USA) (CHI ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1321–1330. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208589Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Eelke Folmer, Fangzhou Liu, and Barrie Ellis. 2011. Navigating a 3D Avatar Using a Single Switch. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Foundations of Digital Games (Bordeaux, France) (FDG ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 154–160. https://doi.org/10.1145/2159365.2159386Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Chris Gibbons and Erin Beneteau. 2010. Functional performance using eye control and single switch scanning by people with ALS. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication 19, 3(2010), 64–69.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Scott T. Grafton. 2010. Unlocking communication with the nose. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, 32, 13979–13980.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Kristen Grauman, Margrit Betke, Jonathan Lombardi, James Gips, and Gary R. Bradski. 2003. Communication via eye blinks and eyebrow raises: Video-based human-computer interfaces. Universal Access in the Information Society 2, 4 (2003), 359–373.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Sandra G. Hart and Lowell E. Staveland. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. P. A. Hancock and N. Meshkati (Eds.) Human Mental Workload (1988).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Jeffery Higginbotham. 1995. Use of nondisabled subjects in AAC research: Confessions of a research infidel. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 11, 1 (1995), 2–5.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Sunjun Kim, Byungjoo Lee, and Antti Oulasvirta. 2018. Impact Activation Improves Rapid Button Pressing. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174145Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Heidi H. Koester and Sajay Arthanat. 2018. The design, conduct, and reporting of research on text entry with alternative access interfaces: Recommendations from a systematic review. Technology and Disability 30 (2018), 83–95.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Heidi H. Koester and Simon P. Levine. 1994. Modeling the speed of text entry with a word prediction interface. IEEE transactions on rehabilitation engineering 2, 3, 177–187.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Heidi H. Koester and Simon P. Levine. 1996. Effect of a Word Prediction Feature on User Performance. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 12, 3 (1996), 155–168.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Heidi H. Koester and Jennifer Mankowski. 2015. Automatic Adjustment of Keyboard Settings Can Enhance Typing. Assistive Technology 27, 3 (2015), 136–146.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Heidi H. Koester and Richard C. Simpson. 2014. Method for enhancing text entry rate with single-switch scanning. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 51, 6(2014), 995–1012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Heidi H. Koester and Richard C. Simpson. 2017. Effectiveness and usability of Scanning Wizard software: a tool for enhancing switch scanning.Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 14(2) (2017), 161–171.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Byungjoo Lee, Sunjun Kim, Antti Oulasvirta, Jong-In Lee, and Eunji Park. 2018. Moving Target Selection: A Cue Integration Model. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173804Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Byungjoo Lee and Antti Oulasvirta. 2016. Modelling Error Rates in Temporal Pointing. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1857–1868. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858143Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Injung Lee, Hyunchul Kim, and Byungjoo Lee. 2021. Automated Playtesting with a Cognitive Model of Sensorimotor Coordination. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 4920–4929. https://doi.org/10.1145/3474085.3475429Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Gregory Lesher, Bryan Moulton, and D. Jeffery Higginbotham. 1998. Techniques for augmenting scanning communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 14, 2 (1998), 81–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434619812331278236 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/07434619812331278236Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Gregory Lesher, Bryan Moulton, and D Jeffery Higginbotham. 1998. Techniques for augmenting scanning communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 14, 2 (1998), 81–101.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Brian Leung and Tom Chau. 2014. Autonomic responses to correct outcomes and interaction errors during single-switch scanning among children with severe spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy. Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation 11, 1(2014), 34.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Yanran Li, Hui Su, Xiaoyu Shen, Wenjie Li, Ziqiang Cao, and Shuzi Niu. 2017. DailyDialog: A Manually Labelled Multi-turn Dialogue Dataset. In Proceedings of The 8th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (IJCNLP 2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Sebastián Aced López, Fulvio Corno, and Luigi De Russis. 2015. Can We Make Dynamic, Accessible and Fun One-Switch Video Games?. In Proceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility. 421–422.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Sebastián Aced López, Fulvio Corno, and Luigi De Russis. 2015. Gnomon: Enabling dynamic one-switch games for children with severe motor disabilities. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 995–1000.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Sebastián Aced López, Fulvio Corno, and Luigi De Russis. 2015. Playable one-switch video games for children with severe motor disabilities based on GNomon. In 2015 7th International Conference on Intelligent Technologies for Interactive Entertainment (INTETAIN). IEEE, 176–185.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Sebastián Aced López, Fulvio Corno, and Luigi De Russis. 2016. Clocks, bars and balls: Design and evaluation of alternative gnomon widgets for children with disabilities. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1654–1660.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Sebastián Aced López, Fulvio Corno, and Luigi De Russis. 2017. Design and development of one-switch video games for children with severe motor disabilities. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (TACCESS) 10, 4 (2017), 1–42.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. David J. C. MacKay and Chris J. Ball. 2006. Dasher’s One-button Dynamic Mode – Theory and Preliminary Results. Technical Report. Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. David J. C. MacKay, Chris J. Ball, and Mick Donegan. 2004. Efficient communication with one or two buttons. In Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods(AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 735). 207–218.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. I. Scott MacKenzie and R. William Soukoreff. 2003. Phrase Sets for Evaluating Text Entry Techniques. In Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA) (CHI EA ’03). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 754–755. https://doi.org/10.1145/765891.765971Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Robert Mankowski, Richard C. Simpson, and Heidi H. Koester. 2013. Validating a model of row–column scanning. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 8, 3 (2013), 321–329.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Robert C. Moore and William Lewis. 2010. Intelligent Selection of Language Model Training Data. In Proceedings of the ACL 2010 Conference Short Papers (Uppsala, Sweden) (ACLShort ’10). Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 220–224. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1858842.1858883Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Gernot R. Müller-Putz, Christoph Pokorny, Daniela S. Klobassa, and Petar Horki. 2013. A single-switch BCI based on passive and imagined movements: toward restoring communication in minimally conscious patients. International journal of neural systems 23, 02 (2013), 1250037.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Emli-Mari Nel, Per Ola Kristensson, and David J. C. MacKay. 2019. Ticker: An Adaptive Single-Switch Text Entry Method for Visually Impaired Users. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 41, 11(2019), 2756–2769.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Antti Oulasvirta, Sunjun Kim, and Byungjoo Lee. 2018. Neuromechanics of a Button Press. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174082Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Adam Pauls and Dan Klein. 2011. Faster and Smaller N-gram Language Models. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies - Volume 1 (Portland, Oregon) (HLT ’11). Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 258–267. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2002472.2002506Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2018. Language Models are Unsupervised Multitask Learners. (2018). https://d4mucfpksywv.cloudfront.net/better-language-models/language-models.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Brian Roark, Russell Beckley, Chris Gibbons, and Melanie Fried-Oken. 2013. Huffman scanning: Using language models within fixed-grid keyboard emulation. Computer Speech & Language 27, 6 (2013), 1212 – 1234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csl.2012.10.006 Special Issue on Speech and Language Processing for Assistive Technology.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Brian Roark, Melanie Fried-Oken, and Chris Gibbons. 2015. Huffman and linear scanning methods with statistical language models. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 31, 1 (2015), 37–50.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Daniel Rough, Keith Vertanen, and Per Ola Kristensson. 2014. An Evaluation of Dasher with a High-Performance Language Model as a Gaze Communication Method. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (Como, Italy) (AVI ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 169–176.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Saltillo. Accessed September 2020. NovaChat. https://saltillo.com/support/article/scanning-patternsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Claude Shannon. 1948. A Mathematical Theory of Communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27 (July, October 1948), 379–423, 623–656.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Richard C. Simpson, Heidi H. Koester, and Ed LoPresti. 2006. Evaluation of an adaptive row/column scanning system. Technology and disability 18, 3 (2006), 127–138.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Richard C. Simpson, Heidi H. Koester, and Ed LoPresti. 2007. Selecting an Appropriate Scan Rate: The.65 Rule. Assistive Technology 19(2007), 51–58.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Richard C. Simpson, Robert Mankowski, and Heidi H. Koester. 2011. Modeling one-switch row-column scanning with errors and error correction methods. The open rehabilitation journal 4, 1 (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Talk To Me Technologies. Accessed September 2020. Proloquo2go. https://www.talktometechnologies.com/pages/proloquo2goGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Smartbox Assistive Technology. Accessed September 2020. Grid 3. https://thinksmartbox.com/product/grid-3/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Keith Trnka, John McCaw, Debra Yarrington, Kathleen F. McCoy, and Christopher Pennington. 2009. User Interaction with Word Prediction: The Effects of Prediction Quality. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing 1, 17:1–17:34. Issue 3.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Outi Tuisku, Päivi Majaranta, Poika Isokoski, and Kari-Jouko Räihä. 2008. Now Dasher! Dash away! Longitudinal study of fast text entry by Eye Gaze. In ETRA ’08: Proceedings of the 2008 symposium on Eye tracking research & applications (Savannah, Georgia). 19–26.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Horabail Venkatagiri. 1999. Efficient keyboard layouts for sequential access in augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 15, 2 (1999), 126–134.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  60. Keith Vertanen, Dylan Gaines, Crystal Fletcher, Alex M. Stanage, Robbie Watling, and Per Ola Kristensson. 2019. VelociWatch: Designing and Evaluating a Virtual Keyboard for the Input of Challenging Text. In CHI ’19: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Keith Vertanen and Per Ola Kristensson. 2011. The Imagination of Crowds: Conversational AAC Language Modeling using Crowdsourcing and Large Data Sources. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). ACL, 700–711.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Tonio Wandmacher, Jean-Yves Antoine, Franck Poirier, and Jean-Paul Départe. 2008. SIBYLLE, An Assistive Communication System Adapting to the Context and Its User. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing 1, Article 6, 6:1–6:30 pages. Issue 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. David J. Ward, Alan F. Blackwell, and David J. C. MacKay. 2000. Dasher - a Data Entry Interface using Continuous Gestures and Language Models. ACM Press, 129–137.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Johanna Wellnitz. 2020. Person [svg]. OpenMoji. https://openmoji.org/data/color/svg/1F9D1.svg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. John H. Williamson, Melissa Quek, Iulia Popescu, Andrew Ramsay, and Roderick Murray-Smith. 2020. Efficient human-machine control with asymmetric marginal reliability input devices. Plos one 15, 6 (2020), e0233603.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. Bei Yuan, Eelke Folmer, and Frederick C. Harris. 2011. Game accessibility: a survey. Universal Access in the information Society 10, 1 (2011), 81–100.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A Performance Evaluation of Nomon: A Flexible Interface for Noisy Single-Switch Users

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        Get this Publication

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format
        View Table of Contents
        About Cookies On This Site

        We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

        Learn more

        Got it!