The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluating the Benefit of Highlighting Key Words in Captions for People who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing
Open accessAbstract
Recent research has investigated automatic methods for identifying how important each word in a text is for the overall message, in the context of people who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) viewing video with captions. We examine whether DHH users report benefits from visual highlighting of important words in video captions. In formative interview and prototype studies, users indicated a preference for underlining of 5%-15% of words in a caption text to indicate that they are important, and they expressed an interest for such text markup in the context of educational lecture videos. In a subsequent user study, 30 DHH participants viewed lecture videos in two forms: with and without such visual markup. Users indicated that the videos with captions containing highlighted words were easier to read and follow, with lower perceived task-load ratings, compared to the videos without highlighting. This study motivates future research on caption highlighting in online educational videos, and it provides a foundation for how to evaluate the efficacy of such systems with users.
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.
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
Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research
(1988) · Advances in Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0166-4115(08)62386-9 · Cited by 15,003
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100612453266 · Cited by 3,138
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 44
- 10.1177/004005990503800203 · DOI
- 10.1017/CBO9780511816819.009 · DOI
- Keith Bain, Sara Basson, Alexander Faisman, and Dimitri Kanevsky. 2005. Accessibility, transcription, and access everywhere. IBM systems journal 44, 3 (2005), 589--603.
- 10.1145/638249.638284 · DOI
- 10.21437/SpeechProsody.2018-15 · DOI
- 10.1145/3132525.3132541 · DOI
- 10.1145/3173574.3173665 · DOI
- 10.1006/brcg.2001.1497 · DOI
- Barbara B Braverman and Melody Hertzog. 1980. The effects of caption rate and language level on comprehension of a captioned video presentation. American Annals of the Deaf (1980), 943--948.
- 10.1145/1639642.1639656 · DOI
- 10.1117/12.703344 · DOI
- 10.1145/1040830.1040895 · DOI
- 10.1109/IMCTL.2014.7011119 · DOI
- Ana-Belén Domínguez, María-Soledad Carrillo, María del Mar Pérez, and Jesús Alegría. 2014. Analysis of reading strategies in deaf adults as a function of their language and meta-phonological skills. Research in developmental disabilities 35, 7 (2014), 1439--1456.
- 10.1145/2207016.2207053 · DOI
- Shawn M Glynn. 1978. Capturing readers' attention by means of typographical cuing strategies. Educational Technology 18, 11 (1978), 7--12.
- Allen VR Harper. 2015. Eye Tracking and Performance Evaluation: Automatic Detection of User Outcomes. (2015). CUNY Academic Works.
- Rozita Ismail and Azizah Jaafar. 2014. Important Features in Text Presentation for Children with Dyslexia. Journal of Theoretical & Applied Information Technology 63, 3 (2014).
- Dorothy W Jackson, Peter V Paul, and Jonathan C Smith. 1997. Prior knowledge and reading comprehension ability of deaf adolescents. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education (1997), 172--184.
- Dale D Johnson and Bonnie von Hoff Johnson. 1986. Highlighting vocabulary in inferential comprehension instruction. Journal of Reading 29, 7 (1986), 622--625.
- 10.1145/3132525.3132542 · DOI
- Sushant Kafle and Matt Huenerfauth. 2018. A Corpus for Modeling Word Importance in Spoken Dialogue Transcripts. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-2018).
- Yuka Kawasaki, Hironori Sasaki, Haruhisa Yamaguchi, and Yumi Yamaguchi. 2008. Effectiveness of highlighting as a prompt in text reading on a computer monitor. In Proceedings of the 8th WSEAS International Conference on Multimedia systems and signal processing. World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS), 311--315.
- 10.1145/1878803.1878827 · DOI
- 10.1145/2461121.2461142 · DOI
- 10.1145/2543578 · DOI
- 10.1145/2596695.2596701 · DOI
- 10.1027/0044-3409.215.3.174 · DOI
- Robert F Lorch. 1989. Text-signaling devices and their effects on reading and memory processes. Educational psychology review 1, 3 (1989), 209--234.
- 10.1353/aad.0.0006 · DOI
- Marc Marschark, Jeff B Pelz, Carol Convertino, Patricia Sapere, Mary Ellen Arndt, and Rosemarie Seewagen. 2005. Classroom interpreting and visual information processing in mainstream education for deaf students: Live or Memorex® American Educational Research Journal 42, 4 (2005), 727--761.
- 10.1080/1461670X.2010.511951 · DOI
- 10.1002/1520-6807(199007)27:3<210::AID-PITS2310270306>3.0.CO;2-S · DOI
- 10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.010 · DOI
- 10.1162/08989290260138591 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-3-642-40498-6_15 · DOI
- 10.3115/v1/W14-1204 · DOI
- Robbins, Naomi B., and Richard M. Heiberger. 2011. Plotting Likert and other rating scales. In Proc. of the 2011 Joint Statistical Meeting, 1058--1066.
- 10.1145/2661334.266133740 · DOI
- Hendrik Strobelt, Daniela Oelke, Bum Chul Kwon, Tobias Schreck, and Hanspeter Pfister. 2016. Guidelines for effective usage of text highlighting techniques. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 22, 1 (2016), 489--498.
- 10.1179/146431509790559606 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/1357054.1357288 · DOI
- Suzanne E Wade, Woodrow Trathen, and Gregory Schraw. 1990. An analysis of spontaneous study strategies. Reading Research Quarterly (1990), 147--166.
- 10.1109/TMM.2016.2613641 · DOI
Metadata
- Authors
- Kafle, S., Yeung, P., & Huenerfauth, M.
- Affiliations
- Rochester Institute of Technology (US)
- ORCID
- Huenerfauth, Matt
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 21st International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2019-10-24
- Pages
- 43-55
- OpenAlex
- W2981822980
- Cited by
- 39
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4
- FWCI
- 30.56
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Google (Faculty Research Award)
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (90DPCP0002-01-00)
- National Technical Institute for the Deaf (Seed Funding)
- National Science Foundation (1462280,1822747)
- Microsoft (AI for Accessibility)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Subtitles and Audiovisual Media
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Hearing Impairment and Communication
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Keywords
- video captions, deaf and hard of hearing users, text markup, video lectures, educational videos, readability, workload, 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
