ORCID Profile
0000-0003-1128-729X
Current Organisation
University of Queensland
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
In Research Link Australia (RLA), "Research Topics" refer to ANZSRC FOR and SEO codes. These topics are either sourced from ANZSRC FOR and SEO codes listed in researchers' related grants or generated by a large language model (LLM) based on their publications.
Information Systems | Computer-Human Interaction | Organisation of Information and Knowledge Resources | Digital and Interaction Design | Health Informatics | Psychology and Cognitive Sciences not elsewhere classified |
Expanding Knowledge in the Information and Computing Sciences | Expanding Knowledge in Psychology and Cognitive Sciences | Technological and Organisational Innovation | Health Protection and/or Disaster Response
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Date: 2020
Publisher: World Scientific Pub Co Pte Lt
Date: 09-2008
DOI: 10.1142/S1363919608001996
Abstract: An increasing number of corporations engage with users in co-innovation of products and services. But there are a number of competing perspectives on how best to integrate these understandings into existing corporate innovation development processes. This paper maps out three of the dominant approaches, compares them in terms of goals, methods and basic philosophy, and shows how they may beneficially enrich one another. We will present an industrial innovation case that has been instrumental to the development of what we have termed "Participatory Innovation". Based on this, we will list the challenges such an approach sets to innovation management, and discuss research directions of what we see as fundamental to the development of the field of user-driven innovation.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 09-2021
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 12-06-2018
Publisher: Chapman and Hall/CRC
Date: 10-09-2013
DOI: 10.1201/B15530
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2022
Publisher: MIT Press - Journals
Date: 07-2008
Publisher: ACM
Date: 04-12-2018
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 10-10-2016
Publisher: ACM
Date: 28-06-2021
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 05-2016
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000252
Abstract: This study used vocoder simulations with normal-hearing (NH) listeners to (1) measure their ability to integrate speech information from an NH ear and a simulated cochlear implant (CI), and (2) investigate whether binaural integration is disrupted by a mismatch in the delivery of spectral information between the ears arising from a misalignment in the mapping of frequency to place. Eight NH volunteers participated in the study and listened to sentences embedded in background noise via headphones. Stimuli presented to the left ear were unprocessed. Stimuli presented to the right ear (referred to as the CI-simulation ear) were processed using an eight-channel noise vocoder with one of the three processing strategies. An Ideal strategy simulated a frequency-to-place map across all channels that matched the delivery of spectral information between the ears. A Realistic strategy created a misalignment in the mapping of frequency to place in the CI-simulation ear where the size of the mismatch between the ears varied across channels. Finally, a Shifted strategy imposed a similar degree of misalignment in all channels, resulting in consistent mismatch between the ears across frequency. The ability to report key words in sentences was assessed under monaural and binaural listening conditions and at signal to noise ratios (SNRs) established by estimating speech-reception thresholds in each ear alone. The SNRs ensured that the monaural performance of the left ear never exceeded that of the CI-simulation ear. The advantages of binaural integration were calculated by comparing binaural performance with monaural performance using the CI-simulation ear alone. Thus, these advantages reflected the additional use of the experimentally constrained left ear and were not attributable to better-ear listening. Binaural performance was as accurate as, or more accurate than, monaural performance with the CI-simulation ear alone. When both ears supported a similar level of monaural performance (50%), binaural integration advantages were found regardless of whether a mismatch was simulated or not. When the CI-simulation ear supported a superior level of monaural performance (71%), evidence of binaural integration was absent when a mismatch was simulated using both the Realistic and the Ideal processing strategies. This absence of integration could not be accounted for by ceiling effects or by changes in SNR. If generalizable to unilaterally deaf CI users, the results of the current simulation study would suggest that benefits to speech perception in noise can be obtained by integrating information from an implanted ear and an NH ear. A mismatch in the delivery of spectral information between the ears due to a misalignment in the mapping of frequency to place may disrupt binaural integration in situations where both ears cannot support a similar level of monaural speech understanding. Previous studies that have measured the speech perception of unilaterally deaf in iduals after CI but with nonin idualized frequency-to-electrode allocations may therefore have underestimated the potential benefits of providing binaural hearing. However, it remains unclear whether the size and nature of the potential incremental benefits from in idualized allocations are sufficient to justify the time and resources required to derive them based on cochlear imaging or pitch-matching tasks.
Publisher: ACM
Date: 28-11-2017
Publisher: ACM
Date: 25-04-2020
Publisher: ACM
Date: 18-09-2019
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 05-2022
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 07-2007
Publisher: ACM
Date: 04-2000
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Date: 11-07-2011
DOI: 10.1017/S0890060411000059
Abstract: This paper illustrates the complexity of pointing as it is employed in a design workshop. Using the method of interaction analysis, we argue that pointing is not merely employed to index, locate, or fix reference to an object. It also constitutes a practice for reestablishing intersubjectivity and solving interactional trouble such as misunderstandings or disagreements by virtue of enlisting something as part of the participants’ shared experience. We use this analysis to discuss implications for how such practices might be supported with computer mediation, arguing for a “bricolage” approach to systems development that emphasizes the provision of resources for users to collaboratively negotiate the accomplishment of intersubjectivity rather than systems that try to support pointing as a specific gestural action.
Publisher: ACM
Date: 07-12-2015
Publisher: Inderscience Publishers
Date: 2013
Publisher: OMICS Publishing Group
Date: 11-2008
DOI: 10.4066/AMJ.2009.99
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 12-2012
Publisher: American Speech Language Hearing Association
Date: 10-2016
Abstract: This research note describes a planned project to design, implement, and evaluate remote care for adults using cochlear implants and compare their outcomes with those of in iduals following the standard care pathway. Sixty people with cochlear implants will be recruited and randomized to either the remote care group or a control group. The remote care group will use new tools for 6 months: remote and self-monitoring, self-adjustment of device, and a personalized online support tool. The main outcome measure is patient empowerment, with secondary outcomes of stability in hearing and quality of life, patient and clinician preference, and use of clinic resources. The clinical trial ends in summer 2016. Remote care may offer a viable method of follow-up for some adults with cochlear implants.
Publisher: ACM
Date: 04-06-2016
Publisher: ACM
Date: 04-06-2016
Publisher: ACM
Date: 13-02-2022
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 14-06-2023
Publisher: ACM
Date: 21-04-2020
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 11-2016
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000341
Abstract: To estimate and compare the prevalence of and associations between tinnitus and sleep difficulties in a s le of UK adult cochlear implant users and those identified as potential candidates for cochlear implantation. The study was conducted using the UK Biobank resource, a population-based cohort of 40- to 69-year olds. Self-report data on hearing, tinnitus, sleep difficulties, and demographic variables were collected from cochlear implant users (n = 194) and in iduals identified as potential candidates for cochlear implantation (n = 211). These “candidates” were selected based on (i) impaired hearing sensitivity, inferred from self-reported hearing aid use and (ii) impaired hearing function, inferred from an inability to report words accurately at negative signal to noise ratios on an unaided closed-set test of speech perception. Data on tinnitus (presence, persistence, and related distress) and on sleep difficulties were analyzed using logistic regression models controlling for gender, age, deprivation, and neuroticism. The prevalence of tinnitus was similar among implant users (50%) and candidates (52% p = 0.39). However, implant users were less likely to report that their tinnitus was distressing at its worst (41%) compared with candidates (63% p = 0.02). The logistic regression model suggested that this difference between the two groups could be explained by the fact that tinnitus was less persistent in implant users (46%) compared with candidates (72% p 0.001). Self-reported difficulties with sleep were similar among implant users (75%) and candidates (82% p = 0.28), but participants with tinnitus were more likely to report sleep difficulties than those without ( p 0.001). The prevalence of sleep difficulties was not related to tinnitus persistence ( p = 0.28) or the extent to which tinnitus was distressing ( p = 0.55). The lack of association between tinnitus persistence and sleep difficulties is compatible with the notion that tinnitus is suppressed in implant users primarily during active electrical stimulation and may return when the implant is switched off at night time. This explanation is supported by the similar prevalence of sleep problems among implant users and potential candidates for cochlear implantation, despite differences between the groups in tinnitus persistence and related emotional distress. Cochlear implantation may therefore not be an appropriate intervention where the primary aim is to alleviate sleep difficulties.
Publisher: JMIR Publications Inc.
Date: 28-01-2016
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 04-2016
DOI: 10.1080/14670100.2016.1161143
Abstract: Adult cochlear implant (CI) candidacy is assessed in part by the use of speech perception measures. In the United Kingdom the current cut-off point to fall within the CI candidacy range is a score of less than 50% on the BKB sentences presented in quiet (presented at 70 dBSPL). The specific goal of this article was to review the benefit of adding the AB word test to the assessment test battery for candidacy. The AB word test scores showed good sensitivity and specificity when calculated based on both word and phoneme scores. The word score equivalent for 50% correct on the BKB sentences was 18.5% and it was 34.5% when the phoneme score was calculated these scores are in line with those used in centres in Wales (15% AB word score). The goal of the British Cochlear Implant Group (BCIG) service evaluation was to determine if the pre-implant assessment measures are appropriate and set at the correct level for determining candidacy, the future analyses will determine whether the speech perception cut-off point for candidacy should be adjusted and whether other more challenging measures should be used in the candidacy evaluation.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 14-02-2022
Publisher: Design Research Society
Date: 10-09-2020
Publisher: ACM
Date: 29-11-2010
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 09-2021
Publisher: ACM Press
Date: 2006
Publisher: ACM
Date: 06-05-2021
Publisher: ACM
Date: 04-06-2016
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 11-2012
Publisher: IEEE
Date: 06-2013
DOI: 10.1109/MDM.2013.46
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 09-2016
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 17-03-2007
Publisher: Design Research Society
Date: 10-09-2020
Publisher: ACM
Date: 19-06-2023
Publisher: ACM
Date: 28-11-2017
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 18-06-2016
Publisher: ACM
Date: 29-04-2022
Publisher: No publisher found
Date: 2014
Publisher: ACM
Date: 24-06-2013
Publisher: John Benjamins Publishing Company
Date: 2014
DOI: 10.1075/Z.186.17MAT
Publisher: ACM
Date: 04-06-2016
Publisher: ACM
Date: 18-09-2019
Publisher: ACM
Date: 04-12-2018
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 14-07-2020
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 10-2021
Publisher: ACM
Date: 02-12-2014
DOI: 10.1145/2686612
Publisher: No publisher found
Date: 2014
Start Date: 02-2018
End Date: 12-2023
Amount: $453,370.00
Funder: Australian Research Council
View Funded ActivityStart Date: 10-2022
End Date: 09-2025
Amount: $420,000.00
Funder: Australian Research Council
View Funded Activity