Cited by 131Assistive Technology in Communication and MobilityInnovative Human-Technology InteractionDigital Accessibility for Disabilities

The AT Effect: How Disability Affects the Perceived Social Acceptability of Head-Mounted Display Use

Open access
Profita, Halley, Albaghli, Reem, Findlater, Leah, Jaeger, Paul, Kane, Shaun K.·2016·Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Abstract

Wearable computing devices offer new possibilities to increase accessibility and independence for individuals with disabilities. However, the adoption of such devices may be influenced by social factors, and useful devices may not be adopted if they are considered inappropriate to use. While public policy may adapt to support accommodations for assistive technology, emerging technologies may be unfamiliar or unaccepted by bystanders. We surveyed 1200 individuals about the use of a head-mounted display in a public setting, examining how information about the user's disability affected judgments of the social acceptability of the scenario. Our findings reveal that observers considered head-mounted display use more socially acceptable if the device was being used to support a person with a disability.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2858036.2858130

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Diverse Disabilities and Technological Support #chi4good, CHI 2016, San Jose, CA, USA
  2. Diverse Disabilities and Technological Support #chi4good, CHI 2016, San Jose, CA, USA

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Profita, H., Albaghli, R., Findlater, L., Jaeger, P., & Kane, S. K.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2016-05-07
Pages
4884-4895
OpenAlex
W2398493637
Cited by
131
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 3
FWCI
38.38
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
Funders
NSF (IIS-1350438)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
Keywords
assistive technology, wearable computing, head-mounted displays, social acceptance, disability, technology adoption, accessibility, public policy

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