Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Three-dimensional-printed assistive devices hold promise for improving writing abilities, yet factors influencing device selection and their impact on satisfaction and effectiveness remain unclear, especially in adults, as they are typically tested on children. The aim of this article is to assess the efficacy and satisfaction with a writing assistive device at different angles among individuals with brain injury and explore device selection factors. Twenty-six participants with brain injuries selected their preferred device angle. Writing speed, quality, and satisfaction were recorded. Immediate speed improvements were significant at 5° and 30° (p = .006, .013, respectively). Satisfaction scores did not significantly differ among angles. Normotonia in elbow (p < .001; odds ratio: 3.403) and wrist (p ≤ .001; odds ratio: 2.695) muscles increased the likelihood of selecting the 5° device. Immediate speed improvements at specific angles highlight the influence of muscle normotonia on device selection, vital for tailored brain injury rehabilitation.

Plain Language Summary

Evaluation of a 3D-Printed Writing Assistive Device for People With Brain Injury

This study, titled “Evaluation of a 3D-Printed Writing Assistive Device for People with Brain Injury,” aimed to understand how 3D-printed devices could improve writing for individuals with brain injuries. The researchers explored the effectiveness and satisfaction of using these devices at different angles (5°, 20°, and 30°) among 26 participants with brain injuries. Participants chose the device angle that felt most comfortable to them, and the study measured their writing speed, quality, and satisfaction. The findings revealed that using 3D-printed writing devices significantly improved writing speed immediately, regardless of the chosen angle (5° or 30°). Satisfaction scores were similar across all angles. Interestingly, individuals with normal elbow and wrist muscle tone were more likely to prefer the 5° device. In summary, this study concludes that 3D-printed writing devices can promptly enhance writing for people with brain injuries. The specific angle of the device significantly affect outcomes, and participants generally find satisfaction with their choice. If you have normal elbow and wrist muscle tone, the 5° angle may be the optimal choice for you.

Keywords

assistive technologies brain injury handwriting

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Amaral

Duarte

Barros

Cavalcanti

Ranzolin

Leite

Dantas

Oliveira

Santos

Silva

(2018). Assistive devices: An effective strategy in non-pharmacological treatment for hand osteoarthritis—Randomized clinical trial. Rheumatology International, 38, 343–351.

Baronio

Harran

Signoroni

A. J. A.

(2016). A critical analysis of a hand orthosis reverse engineering and 3D printing process. Applied Bionics and Biomechanics, 2016, 8347478.

Brossard-Racine

Shevell

Snider

Belanger

S. A.

Julien

Majnemer

(2015). Persistent handwriting difficulties in children with ADHD after treatment with stimulant medication. Journal of Attention Disorders, 19(7), 620–629.

Bumin

Kavak

S. T.

(2010). An investigation of the factors affecting handwriting skill in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy. Taylor & Francis.

Chagas

D. V.

Leporace

Batista

L. A.

(2016). Relationships between motor coordination and academic achievement in middle school children. International Journal of Exercise Science, 9(5), 616–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.02.010

Chang

S.-H.

Chen

C.-L.

N.-Y.

(2015). Biomechanical analyses of prolonged handwriting in subjects with and without perceived discomfort. Human Movement Science, 43, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2015.06.008

Chen

Hung

Chen

(2008). The development of literacy skills of Chinese students with literate difficulty. NTTU Educational Research Journal, 19, 31–60. https://doi.org/10.6778/NTTUERJ.200812.0031

Dhanya

Alamelu

(2019). Factors influencing the acquisition of writing skills. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, 8(7), 259–263.

Dunn

(2021). ACCESS FM-helpsheet. http://gcseproductdesign.weebly.com/product-analysis.html

10.

Finneran

O’Sullivan

(2013). Effects of grip type and wrist posture on forearm EMG activity, endurance time and movement accuracy. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 43(1), 91–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2012.11.012

11.

Guan

C. Q.

Wagner

R. K.

Meng

(2013). Developmental and individual differences in Chinese writing. Reading and Writing, 26, 1031–1056.

12.

Harada

Okajima

Takahashi

(2010). Three-dimensional movement analysis of handwriting in subjects with mild hemiparesis. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 91(8), 1210–1217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2010.01.023

13.

Heller

G. Z.

Manuguerra

Chow

(2016). How to analyze the Visual Analogue Scale: Myths, truths and clinical relevance. Scandinavian Journal of Pain, 13(1), 67–75.

14.

Houglum

P. A.

Bertoti

D. B.

(2011). Brunnstrom’s clinical kinesiology. F.A. Davis. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001577-199100340-00010

15.

Hunzeker

Ozelie

(2021). A cost-effective analysis of 3D printing applications in occupational therapy practice. The Open Journal of Occupational Therapy, 9(1), 1–12.

16.

Israely

Carmeli

(2017). Handwriting performance versus arm forward reach and grasp abilities among post-stroke patients, a case-control study. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 24(1), 5–11.

17.

Janson

Burkhart

Firchau

Hicks

Pittman

Yopps

Hatfield

Garabrant

(2020). Three-dimensional printed assistive devices for addressing occupational performance issues of the hand: A case report. Journal of Hand Therapy, 33(2), 164–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2020.03.025

18.

Jumani

Shaikh

Shah

S. A.

(2014). Fused deposition modelling technique (FDM) for fabrication of custom-made foot orthoses: A cost and benefit analysis. Science International, 26(5), 2571–2576. https://doi.org/10.1016/0958-2592(95)90000-4

19.

Kuo

L.-C.

Hsu

H.-M.

P.-T.

Lin

S.-C.

Hsu

H.-Y.

Jou

I.-M.

(2014). Impact of distal median neuropathy on handwriting performance for patients with carpal tunnel syndrome in office and administrative support occupations. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 24(2), 332–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-013-9471-8

20.

Lee

K. H.

Kim

D. K.

Cha

Y. H.

Kwon

J.-Y.

Kim

D.-H.

Kim

S. J.

(2019). Personalized assistive device manufactured by 3D modelling and printing techniques. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 14(5), 526–531.

21.

Long

T. M.

Woolverton

Perry

D. F.

Thomas

M. J.

(2007). Training needs of pediatric occupational therapists in assistive technology. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61(3), 345–354. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.61.3.345

22.

H.-I.

Hwang

W.-J.

Tsai

P.-L.

Hsu

Y.-W.

(2009). The effect of eating utensil weight on functional arm movement in people with Parkinson’s disease: A controlled clinical trial. Clinical Rehabilitation, 23(12), 1086–1092. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215509342334

23.

Maharaj

Ragoo

Sirjoosingh

Sahadeo

Lall

Chowdary

B. V.

(2019). Design and performance evaluation of 3D printed writing and typing assistive devices: A pragmatic single participant study. Technology and Disability, 31(1–2), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.3233/TAD-180221

24.

McDonald

S. S.

Levine

Richards

Aguilar

(2016). Effectiveness of adaptive silverware on range of motion of the hand. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 75(2), Article e1667. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2021.75S2-RP387

25.

Meary

Chary

Palluel-Germain

Orliaguet

J.-P.

(2005). Visual perception of writing and pointing movements. Perception, 34(9), 1061–1067. https://doi.org/10.1068/p3388

26.

Nackaerts

Vervoort

Heremans

Smits-Engelsman

B. C.

Swinnen

S. P.

Nieuwboer

(2013). Relearning of writing skills in Parkinson’s disease: A literature review on influential factors and optimal strategies. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 37(3), 349–357.

27.

O’Driscoll

S. W.

Horii

Ness

Cahalan

T. D.

Richards

R. R.

K.-N.

(1992). The relationship between wrist position, grasp size, and grip strength. The Journal of Hand Surgery, 17(1), 169–177.

28.

Portnova

A. A.

Mukherjee

Peters

K. M.

Yamane

Steele

K. M.

(2018). Design of a 3D-printed, open-source wrist-driven orthosis for individuals with spinal cord injury. PLOS ONE, 13(2), Article e0193106. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193106

29.

Scherer

M. J.

(2011). Assistive technologies and other supports for people with brain impairment. Springer.

30.

Seo

S.-M.

(2018). The effect of fine motor skills on handwriting legibility in preschool age children. Journal of Physical Therapy Science, 30(2), 324–327.

31.

Skymne

Dahlin-Ivanoff

Claesson

Eklund

(2012). Getting used to assistive devices: Ambivalent experiences by frail elderly persons. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 19(2), 194–203. https://doi.org/10.3109/11038128.2011.569757

32.

Smit

(2013). An investigation into the effect of a stetro pencil grip on the writing and pencil grasp of grade 2 children with handwriting difficulties. University of the Witwatersrand.

33.

Temur

(2011). Description of primary education 1st grade students’ forms of holding a pencil as well as their grip and compression strengths. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 11(4), 2199–2205.

34.

Thiel

Sage

Conroy

(2015). Retraining writing for functional purposes: A review of the writing therapy literature. Aphasiology, 29(4), 423–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2014.965059

35.

Van Galen

G. P.

Müller

M. L.

Meulenbroek

R. G.

Van Gemmert

A. W.

(2002). Forearm EMG response activity during motor performance in individuals prone to increased stress reactivity. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 41(5), 406–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.10051

36.

Wessels

Dijcks

Soede

Gelderblom

De Witte

(2003). Non-use of provided assistive technology devices, a literature overview. Technology and Disability, 15(4), 231–238. https://doi.org/10.3233/TAD-2003-15404

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB

0.02 MB

0.11 MB

0.13 MB