Cited by 33Assistive Technology in Communication and MobilityTactile and Sensory InteractionsUsability and User Interface Design

Toward User-Driven Sound Recognizer Personalization with People Who Are d/Deaf or Hard of Hearing

Goodman, Steven M., Liu, Ping, Jain, Dhruv, McDonnell, Emma J., Froehlich, Jon E., Findlater, Leah·2021·Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies

Abstract

Automated sound recognition tools can be a useful complement to d/Deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) people's typical communication and environmental awareness strategies. Pre-trained sound recognition models, however, may not meet the diverse needs of individual DHH users. While approaches from human-centered machine learning can enable non-expert users to build their own automated systems, end-user ML solutions that augment human sensory abilities present a unique challenge for users who have sensory disabilities: how can a DHH user, who has difficulty hearing a sound themselves, effectively record samples to train an ML system to recognize that sound? To better understand how DHH users can drive personalization of their own assistive sound recognition tools, we conducted a three-part study with 14 DHH participants: (1) an initial interview and demo of a personalizable sound recognizer, (2) a week-long field study of in situ recording, and (3) a follow-up interview and ideation session. Our results highlight a positive subjective experience when recording and interpreting training data in situ, but we uncover several key pitfalls unique to DHH users---such as inhibited judgement of representative samples due to limited audiological experience. We share implications of these results for the design of recording interfaces and human-the-the-loop systems that can support DHH users to build sound recognizers for their personal needs.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3463501

Cites

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?

  • In many tasks, disabled people might have limited access to sensory information that is important to the task, or their desired information might come into tension with other values such as privacy or making racial inference from photos.

    “In many tasks, disabled people might have limited access to sensory information that is important to the task [33, 75], or their desired information might come into tension with other values such as privacy or making racial inference from photos [10, 37, 94].”
  • Annotating disability-centered datasets with meaningful 'ground truth' labels so that they can be used in benchmark studies and model evaluations remains a challenge, particularly when the phenomena of interest are inaccessible to the people who matter most.

    “annotating these datasets with meaningful 'ground truth' labels so that they can be used in benchmark studies and model evaluations such as the present paper remains a challenge, particularly when the phenomena of interest are inaccessible to the people who matter most [51, 60].”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 69 · Cited by 33

Authors
Goodman, S. M., Liu, P., Jain, D., McDonnell, E. J., Froehlich, J. E., & Findlater, L.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies
Published
2021-06-23
Volume
5
Issue
2
Pages
1-23
ISSN
2474-9567 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3175922611
Cited by
33
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6
FWCI
8.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive Mobile Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
Keywords
sound recognition, personalization, deaf and hard of hearing users, assistive technology, human-centered machine learning, human-in-the-loop systems, auditory disability, environmental awareness

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