Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025-9
Usability and User Experience of Environmental Control Units: Temporal Stress and Control Modalities’ Effects On Performance Measures and Cognitive and Affective States
Environmental control units (ECUs) are an integral assistive product for individuals who suffer from spinal cord injuries (SCIs). One noteworthy SCI population to study is veterans due to the exponential increase in SCI injuries amongst them over the past 50+ years. Assistive technology is intended to improve a person’s well-being, independence, and mobility, but if it is rendered ineffective and unusable for these goals, then it can do more harm than good. However, research on ECUs focuses on technology acceptance or identification of opportunities and costs when it comes to the devices resulting in a lack of usability testing to improve their design and functioning. A study conducted on the control modalities (touchscreen vs. voice control) that manipulate navigation through the ECU’s interface, and a time pressure stressor (high vs. low) examined the usability and user experience of this device can identify areas of improvement for designers. Both performance and self-reports of operators’ cognitive affect states were evaluated in this study. Recommendations to improve the device’s design to support those with mobility limitations are herein discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Accessibility Services, Inc. (2024). Autonome: ECU - assistive technology. Retrieved March 29, 2024, from https://accessibilityservices.com4
2.
BidassieB.ValletteM. A.JamesT.MartinezR.EtingenB.CozartH.WeaverF. M. (2017). Evaluating the roll-out of environmental control units in veterans affairs spinal cord injury centers: Workflow observations. International Journal of Healthcare, 3(2), 57. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijh.v3n2p57
3.
CraigA.HancockK.DicksonH. (1999). Improving the long-term adjustment of spinal cord injured persons. Spinal Cord, 37(5), 345–350. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.sc.3100829
4.
DingY.CaoY.DuffyV. G.WangY.ZhangX. (2020). Measurement and identification of mental workload during simulated computer tasks with multimodal methods and machine learning. Ergonomics, 63(7), 896– 908. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2020.1759699
5.
EtingenB.MartinezR. N.ValletteM. A.DendingerR.BidassieB.MiskevicsS.KhanH. T.CozartH. T.LocatelliS. M.WeaverF. M. (2017). Patient perceptions of environmental control units: Experiences of veterans with spinal cord injuries and disorders receiving inpatient VA Healthcare. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 13(4), 325–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2017.1312574
FyffeD. C.WilliamsJ.TobinP.Gibson-GillC. (2019). Spinal Cord Injury veterans’ disability benefits, outcomes, and Health Care Utilization Patterns: Protocol for a qualitative study. JMIR Research Protocols, 8(10). https://doi.org/10.2196/14039
8.
GrierR. A. (2015a). How high is high? A meta-analysis of NASA-TLX Global Workload Scores. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 59(1), 1727–1731. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931215591373
9.
HaradaS.WobbrockJ. O.MalkinJ.BilmesJ. A.LandayJ. A. (2009). Longitudinal Study of people learning to use continuous voice-based cursor control. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518757
10.
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in Psychology, 139–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0166-4115(08)62386-9
11.
HooperB.VerdonckM.AmstersD.MyburgM.AllanE. (2017a). Smart-device environmental control systems: Experiences of people with cervical spinal cord injuries. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 13(8), 724–730. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2017.1369591
12.
KumarA.PaekT.LeeB. (2012). Voice typing. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208386
13.
LivnehH.MartzE. (2014). Coping strategies and resources as predictors of psychosocial adaptation among people with spinal cord injury. Rehabilitation Psychology, 59(3), 329–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036733
14.
MacCaffreyR. J.DuffK.WesterveltH. J. (2000). Practitioner’s Guide to evaluating change with Neuropsychological Assessment Instruments. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
15.
MoghadamK. N.ChehrzadM. M.MasoulehS. R.MalekiM.MardaniA.AtharyanS.HardingC. (2021). Nursing physical workload and mental workload in intensive care units: Are they related?Nursing Open, 8(4), 1625–1633. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.785
16.
OkenB. S.ChamineI.WakelandW. (2015). A systems approach to stress, stressors and resilience in humans. Behavioural Brain Research, 282, 144–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2014.12.047
17.
PalD.ArpnikanondtC.FunilkulS.VaradarajanV. (2019). User experience with Smart Voice assistants: The accent perspective. 2019 10th International Conference on Computing, Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT). https://doi.org/10.1109/icccnt45670.2019.8944754
18.
PuntM. M.StefelsC. N.GrimbergenC. A.DankelmanJ. (2005). Evaluation of voice control, touch panel control and assistant control during steering of an endoscope. Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies, 14(3), 181–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645700510033967
19.
SuttonS. J.FoulkesP.KirkD.LawsonS. (2019). Voice as a design material. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300833i
20.
Tsimhoni (2004)VerdonckM.StegglesE.NolanM.ChardG. (2013). Experiences of using an environmental control system (ECS) for persons with high cervical spinal cord injury: The interplay between hassle and engagement. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 9(1), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2013.823572
21.
WellingsD. J.UnsworthJ. (1997). Fortnightly Review: Environmental Control Systems for people with a disability: An update. BMJ, 315(7105), 409–412. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7105.409
WuJ.ZhuY.FangX.BanerjeeP. (2023). Touch or click? the effect of direct and indirect human-computer interaction on consumer responses. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 32(2), 158–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2022.2158872
