Couldn't agree more! However, the reality for most of our centers is that we have a limited budget to update and enhance the technologies available for assessments. In an ideal world each clinic would be able to line up all the eye gaze systems on the market and clients could try each one and compare simultaneously. Even with this approach, the client and the team may be making a decision based on ease of use at first encounter rather than the most effective long-term use - especially if change is expected. In this case, which system, after the initial learning phase, would have the best, most reliable selection rate (bits/sec), accuracy, reliability (e.g. maintaining calibration), stability, flexibility, etc. Given that our clients would not be able to tolerate the large number of targets needed to be selected for an adequate trial, I'm afraid that we're always struggling not to base a choice on impressions of effectiveness. Consequently, I'd really like to have more clinical and personal evidence to go by to discuss with clients/families to guide decisions or to support purchasing technology for a clinic. If for example, my clinic can only afford to purchase 1 eye gaze system, should we want to have the best performing, most flexible technology possible for the budget? During the demonstration of eye gaze access as a control interface, we could then be collecting baseline data from the center's system while fully informing clients about the features and performance of other systems also. I'm curious about how many different eye gaze systems most clients get an opportunity to trial, and what type of performance differences and user-ratings you're seeing among those systems. Is anyone using the Quest or PIADS to support the effectiveness of the intervention? Do you prefer using the Questionnaire for User Interface Satisfaction (Quis) or designing your own surveys using the Quis format? Thanks for the previous replies and any additional feedback or discussion. Katya -----Original Message----- From: xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Wright, Amy Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 11:16 AM To: 'xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx' Subject: RE: [Assistive Technology] comparing eye gaze systems I have to agree with Antoinette. There's not one eye-gaze system that seems to work for every patient. To conduct the best evaluation we would all need a demo model of each system. Most of my patients are using either Tobii or ERICA but that is largely due to the fact that I have more regional support for and access to these systems. Have you talked to Keith Jackson at EyeTech? They were able to let us borrow a system for independent evaluation last year. Amy Wright, MCD, CCC-SLP Speech Therapy Coordinator (704) 355-0867 -----Original Message----- From: xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Antoinette Verdone Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 11:00 AM To: xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [Assistive Technology] comparing eye gaze systems In my limited observations, different patients have chosen different eyegaze systems for different reasons. So, I don't think that you are going to find one system that "performs" better than others. It is just what works for that particular patient. That is why it is important for patients to be given the opportunity to try out different systems (for a period of time) before making this important decision. I have a hard time understanding these eye gaze vendors who do not want to loan out systems. I understand that they have to be selective, but if you want someone to buy a $10,000+ device, you have to give them the opportunity to try it out! It is not just about money. If a person with ALS makes a quick decision based on a five minute eval, and then it does not work in real life - they are stuck! (THIS DOES HAPPEN!!!) We are now living in a world with multiple eye gaze systems that all have pros and cons that should be weighed for each situation. Also, systems have different software options that could also be the deciding factor, not strictly eye gaze performance. Another often overlooked aspect of this is service. If a certain eye gaze system has no support in your local area, then I don't know that it should ever be recommended for purchase. In my humble opinion, I don't know if purchasing a system is the best route - why don't we make the vendors work for their commissions! Ok, I am getting off my soapbox now. Antoinette Verdone, MSBME, ATP Assistive Technology Specialist The ALS Association, Greater New York Chapter 116 John Street, Suite 1304 New York, NY 10038 Phone: 212-720-3054 Fax: 212-619-7409 Email: xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx www.als-ny.org "One cannot consent to creep when one has the impulse to soar" -- Helen Keller -----Original Message----- From: xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hill, Katharine J Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 9:48 AM To: xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [Assistive Technology] comparing eye gaze systems Our rehab clinic is exploring purchasing an eye gaze system. We have several vendors demonstrating product. However, you may have experienced that vendors are reluctant to leave a system for staff to try out independently. As a training institution we have several students who would be able to test out a system to give us good data to make comparisons. Have any of you been successful with having an eye gaze system left for you try and evaluate independently? When one system was borrowed from an AT lending library a few months back, staff had trouble with calibration of the system. I know we would be very grateful if clinicians on the list would provide us with any performance data that has been collected to compare eye gaze technologies, especially selection rates and under what conditions these rates were achieved. Also, what are the other criteria you're using to evaluate and compare eye gaze control interfaces as well as personal observations on performance and user-satisfaction. Thanks for any input that may help our clinic in making the most informed choice. Great news about the ALS funding!!! Katya Katya Hill, Ph.D., CCC-SLP Associate Professor Communication Science and Disorders 6017 Forbes Tower University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260 Tel: 412-383-6659 Fax: 412-383-6555 Email: xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx ----------------------------------------- This electronic message may contain information that is confidential and/or legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the individual(s) and entity named as recipients in the message. If you are not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender immediately and delete the material from any computer. Do not deliver, distribute or copy this message, and do not disclose its contents or take any action in reliance on the information it contains. Thank you.
