Cited by 189Ethics and Social Impacts of AIDigital Accessibility for DisabilitiesAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility

Toward fairness in AI for people with disabilities SBG@a research roadmap

Guo, Anhong, Kamar, Ece, Vaughan, Jennifer Wortman, Wallach, Hanna, Morris, Meredith Ringel·2020·ACM SIGACCESS Accessibility and Computing

Abstract

AI technologies have the potential to dramatically impact the lives of people with disabilities (PWD). Indeed, improving the lives of PWD is a motivator for many state-of-the-art AI systems, such as automated speech recognition tools that can caption videos for people who are deaf and hard of hearing, or language prediction algorithms that can augment communication for people with speech or cognitive disabilities. However, widely deployed AI systems may not work properly for PWD, or worse, may actively discriminate against them. These considerations regarding fairness in AI for PWD have thus far received little attention. In this position paper, we identify potential areas of concern regarding how several AI technology categories may impact particular disability constituencies if care is not taken in their design, development, and testing. We intend for this risk assessment of how various classes of AI might interact with various classes of disability to provide a roadmap for future research that is needed to gather data, test these hypotheses, and build more inclusive algorithms.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3386296.3386298

Cites

36 of 36 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Guo, A., Kamar, E., Vaughan, J. W., Wallach, H., & Morris, M. R.
Affiliations
Microsoft (United States) (US)
Venue
ACM SIGACCESS Accessibility and Computing
Published
2020-03-02
Issue
125
Pages
1-1
ISSN
  • 1558-1187 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-2337
OpenAlex
W3009306974
Cited by
128
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
FWCI
24.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM SIGACCESS Accessibility and Computing (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Keywords
algorithmic fairness, people with disabilities, algorithmic discrimination, accessibility, speech recognition, deaf and hard of hearing, assistive technology, research roadmap

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