The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The AT Effect: How Disability Affects the Perceived Social Acceptability of Head-Mounted Display Use
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“For example, the general public may not accept Google Glass due to privacy concerns, but its use to help people with visual impairments may receive more acceptance (Profita et al., 2016).”
From Exploring the role of generative AI in higher education: Semi-structured interviews with students with disabilities (2025) · cites this paper as Profita et al., 2016
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales
Cohen, J. (1960) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/001316446002000104 · Cited by 42,398
(1998) · Sage eBooks · Cited by 38,631
Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory
Wuetherick, B. (2010) · Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education · doi:10.21225/d5g01t · Cited by 8,333
Multiple comparisons among means
Dunn, O. J. (1961) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1961.10482090 · Cited by 5,006
In the shadow of misperception: assistive technology use and social interactions
Shinohara, K., & Wobbrock, J. O. (2011) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1978942.1979044 · Cited by 495
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 6×
“These individuals often prefer to use the same devices as everyone else, in part due to a desire to blend in [14].”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationUsable gestures for mobile interfaces
Rico, J., & Brewster, S. A. (2010) · ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) · doi:10.1145/1753326.1753458 · Cited by 376
Do life-logging technologies support memory for the past?: an experimental study using sensecam
Sellen, A. J., Fogg, A., Aitken, M., Hodges, S., Rother, C., & Wood, K. (2007) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1240624.1240636 · Cited by 324
Assistive Technology Use and Stigma
Parette, P., & Scherer, M. (2004) · Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities · doi:10.1177/215416470403900304 · Cited by 272
In situ with bystanders of augmented reality glasses
Denning, T., Dehlawi, Z., & Kohno, T. (2014) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2556288.2557352 · Cited by 228
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Amazon Mechanical Turk. Access date: November 24, 2015. http://www.mturk.com/
- Google Glass. Access date: November 24, 2015. http://www.google.com/glass/start/
- Betsy Isaacson. 2013. 5 places Google Glass has already been banned. The Huffington Post. Access date: November 24, 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/10/googleglass-banned_n_3039935.html
- OrCam. Access date: September 24, 2015. http://www.orcam.com/
- SurveyGizmo. Access date: November 24, 2015. http://www.surveygizmo.com/
- 10.1007/s00779-003-0245--8 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Interdependence as a Frame for Assistive Technology Research and Design
Bennett, C. L., Brady, E., & Branham, S. M. (2018) · Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3234695.3236348 · Cited by 493
Next Steps for Human-Computer Integration
Mueller, F. F., Lopes, P., Strohmeier, P., Ju, W., Seim, C., Weigel, M., Nanayakkara, S., Obrist, M., Li, Z., Delfa, J., et al. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376242 · Cited by 260
Niknejad, N., Ismail, W., Mardani, A., Liao, H., & Ghani, I. (2020) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2020.103529 · Cited by 227
Living Disability Theory: Reflections on Access, Research, and Design
Hofmann, M., Kasnitz, D., Mankoff, J., & Bennett, C. L. (2020) · Proceedings of the 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3373625.3416996 · Cited by 200
Social Acceptability in HCI: A Survey of Methods, Measures, and Design Strategies
Koelle, M., Ananthanarayan, S., & Boll, S. (2020) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376162 · Cited by 190
Metadata
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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
