Tom Chau

Prof. Tom Chau

Bloorview Research Institute, Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
+1
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

28Years (1999-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 September 2007 in Prosthetics and Orthotics International
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
EBElaine A. Biddiss
Elaine A. Biddiss
Tom ChauTom Chau
Tom Chau
This review presents an analytical and comparative survey of upper limb prosthesis acceptance and abandonment as documented over the past 25 years, detailing ar...

3 October 2011 in Psychological Science
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
SMSylvain Moreno
Sylvain Moreno
EBEllen Bialystok
Ellen Bialystok
RBRaluca Barac
Raluca Barac
ESE. Glenn Schellenberg
E. Glenn Schellenberg
NCNicholas J. Cepeda
Nicholas J. Cepeda
Tom ChauTom Chau
Tom Chau
Researchers have designed training methods that can be used to improve mental health and to test the efficacy of education programs. However, few studies have demonstrated broad transfer from such training to performance on untrained cognitive activities. Here we report the effects of two interactive computerized training programs developed for preschool children: one for music and one for visual art. After only 20 days of training, only children in the music group exhibited enhanced performance on a measure of verbal intelligence, with 90% of the sample showing this improvement. These improvements in verbal intelligence were positively correlated with changes in functional brain plasticity during an executive-function task. Our findings demonstrate that transfer of a high-level cognitive skill is possible in early childhood.

1 December 2007 in American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
EBElaine Biddiss
Elaine Biddiss
Tom ChauTom Chau
Tom Chau
To investigate the roles of predisposing characteristics, established need, and enabling resources in upper-limb prosthesis use and abandonment. A self-administered, anonymous survey was designed to explore these factors. The questionnaire was available online and in paper format and was distributed through healthcare providers, community support groups, and one prosthesis manufacturer. Two hundred forty-two participants of all ages and levels of upper-limb absence completed the survey. Of participants, 20% had abandoned prosthesis use. Predisposing factors, namely, origin of limb absence, gender, bilateral limb absence, and, most importantly, level of limb absence, proved influential in the decision not to wear prostheses. Enabling resources such as the availability of health care, cost, and quality of training did not weigh heavily on prosthesis rejection, with the exception of the fitting time frame and the involvement of clients in the prosthesis selection. Conversely, the state of available technology was a highly censured factor in abandonment, specifically in the areas of comfort and function. Perceived need emerged as a predominant factor in prosthesis use. Future research should focus on continued development of more comfortable and functional prostheses, particularly for individuals with high-level or bilateral limb absence. Improved follow-up, repair, and information services, together with active involvement of clients in the selection of prostheses meeting their specific goals and needs, is recommended.

1 January 2007 in Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
EBElaine Biddiss
Elaine Biddiss
DBDorcas Beaton
Dorcas Beaton
Tom ChauTom Chau
Tom Chau
Purpose. To measure consumer satisfaction with upper limb prosthetics and provide an enumerated list of design priorities for future developments. Methods. A self-administered, anonymous survey collected information on participant demographics, history of and goals for prosthesis use, satisfaction, and design priorities. The questionnaire was available online and in paper format and was distributed through healthcare providers, community support groups, and one prosthesis manufacturer; 242 participants of all ages and levels of upper limb absence completed the survey. Results. Rates of rejection for myoelectric hands, passive hands, and body-powered hooks were 39%, 53%, and 50%, respectively. Prosthesis wearers were generally satisfied with their devices while prosthesis rejecters were dissatisfied. Reduced prosthesis weight emerged as the highest priority design concern of consumers. Lower cost ranked within the top five design priorities for adult wearers of all device types. Life-like appearance is a priority for passive/cosmetic prostheses, while improved harness comfort, wrist movement, grip control and strength are required for body-powered devices. Glove durability, lack of sensory feedback, and poor dexterity were also identified as design priorities for electric devices. Conclusions. Design priorities reflect consumer goals for prosthesis use and vary depending on the type of prosthesis used and age. Future design efforts should focus on the development of more light-weight, comfortable prostheses.