Cited by 46Text Readability and SimplificationDigital Accessibility for DisabilitiesAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility

Automatic Text Simplification Tools for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Adults: Benefits of Lexical Simplification and Providing Users with Autonomy

Alonzo, Oliver, Seita, Matthew, Glasser, Abraham, Huenerfauth, Matt·2020·Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Abstract

Automatic Text Simplification (ATS), which replaces text with simpler equivalents, is rapidly improving. While some research has examined ATS reading-assistance tools, little has examined preferences of adults who are deaf or hard-of-hearing (DHH), and none empirically evaluated lexical simplification technology (replacement of individual words) with these users. Prior research has revealed that U.S. DHH adults have lower reading literacy on average than their hearing peers, with unique characteristics to their literacy profile. We investigate whether DHH adults perceive a benefit from lexical simplification applied automatically or when users are provided with greater autonomy, with on-demand control and visibility as to which words are replaced. Formative interviews guided the design of an experimental study, in which DHH participants read English texts in their original form and with lexical simplification applied automatically or on-demand. Participants indicated that they perceived a benefit form lexical simplification, and they preferred a system with on-demand simplification.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3313831.3376563

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Focus groups can provide ideas on how to improve the use of ASR or help assess the acceptance of new features like automatic content summarisation.

    “Focus groups can also provide ideas on how to improve the use of ASR [Seita et al. 2022], or help assess the acceptance of new features like automatic content summarisation [Alonzo et al. 2020].”

    From Measuring the Accuracy of Automatic Speech Recognition Solutions (2023) · cites this paper as Alonzo et al. 2020

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Alonzo, O., Seita, M., Glasser, A., & Huenerfauth, M.
Affiliations
Rochester Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2020-04-21
Pages
1-13
OpenAlex
W3031037885
Cited by
46
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2
FWCI
2.58
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1822747)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Text Readability and Simplification
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Keywords
text simplification, lexical simplification, deaf and hard of hearing adults, reading support, user autonomy, reading literacy, user preferences, assistive technology

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