ForeSee: A Customizable Head-Mounted Vision Enhancement System for People with Low Vision
Abstract
Most low vision people have functional vision and would likely prefer to use their vision to access information. Recently, there have been advances in head-mounted displays, cameras, and image processing technology that create opportunities to improve the visual experience for low vision people. In this paper, we present ForeSee, a head-mounted vision enhancement system with five enhancement methods: Magnification, Contrast Enhancement, Edge Enhancement, Black/White Reversal, and Text Extraction; in two display modes: Full and Window. ForeSee enables users to customize their visual experience by selecting, adjusting, and combining different enhancement methods and display modes in real time. We evaluated ForeSee by conducting a study with 19 low vision participants who performed near- and far-distance viewing tasks. We found that participants had different preferences for enhancement methods and display modes when performing different tasks. The Magnification Enhancement Method and the Window Display Mode were popular choices, but most participants felt that combining several methods produced the best results. The ability to customize the system was key to enabling people with a variety of different vision abilities to improve their visual experience.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Visual augmentation via smart glasses has been used for assistance during shopping, climbing stairs, and sign reading.
“It has been used for assistance during shopping [35], the climbing of stairs [33], and sign reading [11].”
From Pressing a Button You Cannot See: Evaluating Visual Designs to Assist Persons with Low Vision through Augmented Reality (2021) · cites this paper as [33]
Cites
A method of analysing interview transcripts in qualitative research
Burnard, P. (1991) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/0260-6917(91)90009-y · Cited by 2,510 · see citing works
Kane, S. K., Jayant, C., Wobbrock, J. O., & Ladner, R. E. (2009) · Proceedings of the 11th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility · doi:10.1145/1639642.1639663 · Cited by 383 · cited 1× · see citing works
“As with mass-market technology, they will be relatively affordable and available to consumers, unlike specialized assistive technology [24,42,43].”
BackgroundKane, S. K., Bigham, J. P., & Wobbrock, J. O. (2008) · Proceedings of the 10th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/1414471.1414487 · Cited by 374 · cited 1× · see citing works
“However, most of this research ignores the residual vision that many people have and focuses on solutions with audio or vibrotactile interaction ( e.g. , [11,23,54]).”
BackgroundA comparison of static, adaptive, and adaptable menus
Findlater, L., & McGrenere, J. (2004) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/985692.985704 · Cited by 291 · cited 1× · see citing works
“A key finding from the study was that customization (or “adaptability” [16,48]) was extremely useful.”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
CueSee: exploring visual cues for people with low vision to facilitate a visual search task
Zhao, Y., Szpiro, S., Knighten, J., & Azenkot, S. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing · doi:10.1145/2971648.2971730 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
Self-citationHtike, H. M., Margrain, T. H., Lai, Y.-K., & Eslambolchilar, P. (2020) · Translational Vision Science & Technology · doi:10.1167/tvst.9.10.26 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Lang, F., & Machulla, T. (2021) · Proceedings of the 27th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology · doi:10.1145/3489849.3489873 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
- Authors
- Zhao, Y., Szpiro, S., & Azenkot, S.
- Affiliations
- Cornell University (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility - ASSETS '15
- Publisher
- ACM Press
- Published
- 2015
- Pages
- 239-249
- OpenAlex
- W2059214800
- Cited by
- 115
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6
- FWCI
- 15.86
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Gaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
- Keywords
- low vision, head-mounted displays, vision improvement, magnification, contrast enhancement, edge enhancement, text extraction, display modes, personalization, visual accessibility, user preferences
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
