Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
TABLe 18.1 (COnTInUeD)
Studies Using Microswitch Technology for Persons with Multiple Disabilities
Studies
Participants
Age
Response Types
Combinations of Microswitches and VOCAs (Continued)
Lancioni et al. (2008d)
3
10-15
3 responses per participant: Trunk movements,
head movements, leg/foot movements, and one
or two hand movements
Lancioni et al. (2009b)
1
52
2 responses: Head movements and arm/hand
movements
Lancioni et al. (2009c)
11
5-18
2 responses per participant: Head, foot, and hand
movements and vocalization
Lancioni et al. (2009e)
2
35, 60
2 responses per participant: Hand and foot
movements
Lancioni et al. (2009f)
1
32
3 responses: Eyelid movements and two hand
movements
Lancioni et al. (2010d)
1
20
4 responses: Two hand movements and two head
movements
18.2 Experimental Microswitches for Small (Nontypical) Responses
The most common examples of responses used in early microswitch programs have been
head turning and hand pushing. The microswitches adopted for them generally con-
sisted of commercially available pressure devices or similar kinds of instruments. These
response-microswitch combinations, albeit apparently simple and immediate, may not suit
a number of situations, namely those in which the person has only a minimal behavioral
(motor) repertoire (Lancioni et al. 2005b, 2008b). In those situations, the professional is left
with two options: (1) excluding the person from any microswitch programs, or (2) resort-
ing to new microswitch devices that can detect small, nontypical responses, such as eye-
lid or chin movements, which may be much more feasible for the person (Lancioni et al.
2006f, 2009b). Table 18.1 provides a list of 14 studies, in each of which new/experimental
microswitch technology was used for monitoring a single, nontypical response (Lancioni
and Lems 2001; Lancioni et al. 2001c, 2004a, 2004b, 2004e, 2005a, 2006c, 2006f, 2007b, 2007c,
2009a, 2009b, 2010a, 2010c).
For example, Lancioni et al. (2001c) worked with two participants of seven and ten years
of age. They had pervasive multiple disabilities with minimal motor repertoires, but they
possessed spontaneous vocal responses, which were considered a relevant resource and
targeted through a new (specifically built) microswitch. The new microswitch consisted of
a battery-powered, sound-detecting device connected to a throat microphone (not affected
by environmental noise), which was held at the participants' larynx, with a simple neck-
band. During the intervention phase, vocalization responses allowed the participants to
access brief periods of preferred stimulation. Data showed that during that phase the par-
ticipants' level of vocalization responses increased substantially and remained consistent.
This increase was taken to suggest that the participants had learned to use these responses
as means for stimulation access.
Lancioni et al. (2004b) conducted a program with a boy of six years of age, who usually
sat in a reclined position with no obvious signs of movement of his head and limbs. The
response that seemed most suitable for him to perform (and was already present in his
