Correction: Integrating technologies in the clinical practice, from challenges to opportunities: a multicentric feasibility study in children with different neurodevelopmental disabilities

A correction has been made to the section Results, paragraphs 4–6. Several instances of numbers contained in brackets were incorrectly tagged as reference citations. These have been corrected to appear as plain numbers. The text now reads as follows:

“No statistically significant differences were found across different age groups, while diagnosis impacted usability scores (F (4) = 3.00; p < 0.05). A statistically significant difference was confirmed only between unilateral CP and the heterogeneous group of “Other neurodevelopmental disabilities” (p < 0.05), favoring the first group. When cognitive functioning was included as a covariate, diagnosis remained significantly associated with feasibility outcomes (η² = 0.000, p = 0.94).

Statistically significant differences in the usability domain were found across different levels of intellectual functioning (F (2) = 4.88; p < 0.01). Specifically, participants with cognitive disability scored lower when compared to those with borderline and average cognitive functioning (p < 0.05) (Figure 3). Analyzing whether cognitive functioning influenced the feasibility of technology across all domains (motor, cognitive and speech-language), further analyses revealed that children with intellectual disabilities scored significantly lower than those with borderline or average intellectual functioning in both the usability (F (2) = 7.26; p < 0.01) and acceptability (F (2) = 4.77; p < 0.05) areas of the questionnaire for cognitive activities protocols. However, these differences were not observed in the clinician responses following sessions of motor or speech-language activities. No statistically significant differences were found according to different activities’ domains (cognitive, motor or speech-language), while both usability (F (2) = 3.59; p < 0.05) and acceptability (F (2) = 4.50 p < 0.05) scores were influenced by the device used. Only a statistically significant difference was confirmed only between TR and Tablet (VRRS, Khymeia), with significantly higher acceptability scores for the first device. Overall, no statistically significant differences were found in feasibility scores according to the peripheral devices used. Analyzing the influence of the devices used specifically in the motor domain, a statistically significant difference was observed in both usability (F (2) = 11.55; p < 0.01) and acceptability (F (2) = 23.51; p < 0.01). Specifically, both in terms of usability and acceptability, the TR outperformed the Tablet (p < 0.01), with the Evo also rating higher than the Tablet (p < 0.01) only for acceptability area. Statistically significant lower scores in feasibility outcome was also revealed for the touch mode compared to peripheral devices, both balance and sensors, in motor activities protocols (usability: F (2) = 4.27; p < 0.05; acceptability: F (2) = 6.83; p < 0.01).

In a subgroup of participants diagnosed with CP, the impact of gross motor function and manual ability (classified by levels according to the GMFCS and MACS, respectively) on the feasibility of ICTs systems was investigated. Overall, a statistically significant effect of manual ability level (MACS) on usability (F (3) = 5.40; p < 0.01) and acceptability (F (3) = 4.15; p < 0.01) was highlighted, while results did not show any statistically significant effect of the gross motor functional level (GMFCS). Specifically, participants at MACS level 1 had higher feasibility scores compared to those at level 4 (p < 0.01), who, in turn, had also lower scores than those at level 2 (p < 0.05) (Figure 4). A deeper analysis of motor activities protocols, highlighted an effect of MACS on usability (F (3) = 5.86; p < 0.01) and acceptability (F (3) = 3.61; p < 0.05) of ICTs only when used in touch mode or applying sensors (Khymu, K-wand), but not when balance was involved as a peripheral device. Results revealed no impact of the level of gross-motor function either. Considering cognitive functioning in the subgroup of CP patients, a statistically significant effect was found only for the usability area (F (2) = 3.34, p < 0.05), with children with intellectual disabilities scoring lower than those with average cognitive functioning. A statistically significant difference was also found considering CP classification, with unilateral CP scoring higher than bilateral CP, both for usability (t = 1.99; p < 0.05) and acceptability (t = 1.90; p < 0.05).”

There was a mistake in Figure 4 as published. The corrected Figure 4 appears below.

The original version of this article has been updated.

Generative AI statement

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited and reviewed by: Charline Grossard, Assistance Publique Hopitaux De Paris, France