17 ways to say yes:Toward nuanced tone of voice in AAC and speech technology

People with complex communication needs who use speech-generating devices have very little expressive control over their tone of voice. Despite its importance in human interaction, the issue of tone of voice remains all but absent from AAC research and development however. In this paper, we describe three interdisciplinary projects, past, present and future: The critical design collection Six Speaking Chairs has provoked deeper discussion and inspired a social model of tone of voice; the speculative concept Speech Hedge illustrates challenges and opportunities in designing more expressive user interfaces; the pilot project Tonetable could enable participatory research and seed a research network around tone of voice. We speculate that more radical interactions might expand frontiers of AAC and disrupt speech technology as a whole

A Proteinaceous Fraction of Wheat Bran May Interfere in the Attachment of Enterotoxigenic E. Coli K88 (F4+) to Porcine Epithelial Cells

Peer reviewe

A survey of national and multi-national registries and cohort studies in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: Challenges and opportunities

Background: To characterize the existing national and multi-national registries and cohort studies in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) and identify differences as well as areas of potential future collaboration. Methods: We surveyed investigators from North America, Europe, and Australia about existing JIA cohort studies and registries. We excluded cross-sectional studies. We captured information about study design, duration, location, inclusion criteria, data elements and collection methods. Results: We received survey results from 18 studies, including 11 national and 7 multi-national studies representing 37 countries in total. Study designs included inception cohorts, prevalent disease cohorts, and new treatment cohorts (several of which contribute to pharmacosurveillance activities). Despite numerous differences, the data elements collected across the studies was quite similar, with most studies collecting at least 5 of the 6 American College of Rheumatology core set variables and the data needed to calculate the 3-variable clinical juvenile disease activity score. Most studies were collecting medication initiation and discontinuation dates and were attempting to capture serious adverse events. Conclusion: There is a wide-range of large, ongoing JIA registries and cohort studies around the world. Our survey results indicate significant potential for future collaborative work using data from different studies and both combined and comparative analyses

High Levels of DEK Autoantibodies in Sera of Patients With Polyarticular Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis and With Early Disease Flares Following Cessation of Antiâ Tumor Necrosis Factor Therapy

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/142962/1/art40404_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/142962/2/art40404-sup-0001-Supinfo.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/142962/3/art40404.pd

Evidence for Updating the Core Domain Set of Outcome Measures for Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: Report from a Special Interest Group at OMERACT 2016

Objective. The current Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) Core Set was developed in 1997 to identify the outcome measures to be used in JIA clinical trials using statistical and consensus-based techniques, but without patient involvement. The importance of patient/parent input into the research process has increasingly been recognized over the years. An Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) JIA Core Set Working Group was formed to determine whether the outcome domains of the current core set are relevant to those involved or whether the core set domains should be revised.Methods. Twenty-four people from the United States, Canada, Australia, and Europe, including patient partners, formed the working group. Guided by the OMERACT Filter 2.0 process, we performed (1) a systematic literature review of outcome domains, (2) a Web-based survey (142 patients, 343 parents), (3) an idea-generation study (120 parents), (4) 4 online discussion boards (24 patients, 20 parents), and (5) a Special Interest Group (SIG) activity at the OMERACT 13 (2016) meeting.Results. A MEDLINE search of outcome domains used in studies of JIA yielded 5956 citations, of which 729 citations underwent full-text review, and identified additional domains to those included in the current JIA Core Set. Qualitative studies on the effect of JIA identified multiple additional domains, including pain and participation. Twenty-one participants in the SIG achieved consensus on the need to revise the entire JIA Core Set.Conclusion. The results of qualitative studies and literature review support the need to expand the JIA Core Set, considering, among other things, additional patient/parent-centered outcomes, clinical data, and imaging data

How a Diverse Research Ecosystem Has Generated New Rehabilitation Technologies: Review of NIDILRR’s Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers

Over 50 million United States citizens (1 in 6 people in the US) have a developmental, acquired, or degenerative disability. The average US citizen can expect to live 20% of his or her life with a disability. Rehabilitation technologies play a major role in improving the quality of life for people with a disability, yet widespread and highly challenging needs remain. Within the US, a major effort aimed at the creation and evaluation of rehabilitation technology has been the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs) sponsored by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research. As envisioned at their conception by a panel of the National Academy of Science in 1970, these centers were intended to take a “total approach to rehabilitation”, combining medicine, engineering, and related science, to improve the quality of life of individuals with a disability. Here, we review the scope, achievements, and ongoing projects of an unbiased sample of 19 currently active or recently terminated RERCs. Specifically, for each center, we briefly explain the needs it targets, summarize key historical advances, identify emerging innovations, and consider future directions. Our assessment from this review is that the RERC program indeed involves a multidisciplinary approach, with 36 professional fields involved, although 70% of research and development staff are in engineering fields, 23% in clinical fields, and only 7% in basic science fields; significantly, 11% of the professional staff have a disability related to their research. We observe that the RERC program has substantially diversified the scope of its work since the 1970’s, addressing more types of disabilities using more technologies, and, in particular, often now focusing on information technologies. RERC work also now often views users as integrated into an interdependent society through technologies that both people with and without disabilities co-use (such as the internet, wireless communication, and architecture). In addition, RERC research has evolved to view users as able at improving outcomes through learning, exercise, and plasticity (rather than being static), which can be optimally timed. We provide examples of rehabilitation technology innovation produced by the RERCs that illustrate this increasingly diversifying scope and evolving perspective. We conclude by discussing growth opportunities and possible future directions of the RERC program