CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 151Innovative Human-Technology InteractionDisability Rights and RepresentationAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility

ADHD and Technology Research – Investigated by Neurodivergent Readers

Open access
Spiel, Katta, Hornecker, Eva, Williams, Rua Mae, Good, Judith·2022·CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
DOI 10.1145/3491102.3517592
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Technology research for neurodivergent conditions is largely shaped by research aims which privilege neuro-normative outcomes. As such, there is an epistemic imbalance in meaning making about these technologies. We conducted a critical literature review of technologies designed for people with ADHD, focusing on how ADHD is framed, the research aims and approaches, the role of people with ADHD within the research process, and the types of systems being developed within Computing and HCI. Our analysis and review is conducted explicitly from an insider perspective, bringing our perspectives as neurodivergent researchers to the topic of technologies in the context of ADHD. We found that 1) technologies are largely used to ‘mitigate’ the experiences of ADHD which are perceived as disruptive to neurotypical standards of behaviour; 2) little HCI research in the area invites this population to co-construct the technologies or to leverage neurodivergent experiences in the construction of research aims; and 3) participant resistance to deficit frames can be read within the researchers’ own accounts of participant actions. We discuss the implications of this status quo for disabled people and technology researchers alike, and close with a set of recommendations for future work in this area.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3491102.3517592

Cites

149 of 156 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Across HCI studies, there is a tendency to design systems that address perceived neurodivergent behaviours from an external viewpoint without adequately considering internal struggles.

    “Across a number of studies [9, 29, 30, 39, 54, 55, 64, 74, 81, 90, 93], there is a noticeable tendency to design systems that address perceived neurodivergent behaviours, often from an external viewpoint, without adequately considering the internal struggles experienced by neurodivergent individuals.”

    From Burnout by Design: How Digital Systems Overburden Neurodivergent Students in Higher Education (2025) · cites this paper as [74]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. [1][1] Ashwag Al-Shathri, Areej Al-Wabil, and Yousef Al-Ohali. 2013. Eye-Controlled Games for Behavioral Therapy of Attention Deficit Disorders. In HCI International 2013 - Posters' Extended Abstracts , Constantine Stephanidis (Ed.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 574-578. -
  2. [13][13] Jared David Berezin. 2014. Disabled capital: A narrative of attention deficit disorder in the classroom through the lens of Bourdieu's capital. Disability Studies Quarterly 34, 4 (2014). -
  3. [14][14] K Birth. 2017. Time Blind . Springer. -
  4. [29][29] Emma A Climie and Sarah M Mastoras. 2015. ADHD in schools: Adopting a strengths-based perspective. Canadian Psychology/psychologie canadienne 56, 3 (2015), 295. -
  5. [32][32] Nicholas Sheep Dalton. 2013. Neurodiversity & HCI. In CHI '13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Paris, France) (CHI EA '13) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2295-2304. [https://doi.org/10.1145/2468356.2468752](https://doi.org/10.1145/2468356.2468752) - · DOI
  6. [36][36] Edward L Deci and Richard M Ryan. 2008. Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian psychology/Psychologie canadienne 49, 3 (2008), 182. -
  7. [66][66] Aimi Hamraie and Kelly Fritsch. 2019. Crip technoscience manifesto. Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience 5, 1 (2019), 1-33. -
  8. [69][69] Donna Haraway. 1988. Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist studies 14, 3 (1988), 575-599. -
  9. [74][74] John C Hill and Eugene P Schoener. 1996. Age-dependent decline of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The American Journal of Psychiatry (1996). -
  10. [91][91] Alison Kafer. 2019. Crip kin, manifesting. Catalyst: Feminism, theory, technoscience 5, 1 (2019), 1-37. -
  11. [90][90] Alison Kafer. 2013. Feminist, queer, crip . Indiana University Press. -
  12. [114][114] Robert McRuer. 2006. Crip Theory: Cultural signs of queerness and disability . Vol. 9. NYU press. -
  13. [125][125] Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha. 2018. Care work: Dreaming disability justice . arsenal pulp press Vancouver. -
  14. [127][127] Victoria Powell, Sharifah Shameem Agha, Rhys Bevan Jones, Olga Eyre, Anita Thapar, and Frances Rice. 2021. ADHD in adults with recurrent depression. medRxiv (2021). -
  15. [132][132] Supassorn Rodrak, Supatcha Namtong, and Yodchanan Wongsawat. 2011. Calibration Method for HEG Neurofeedback Device. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Rehabilitation Engineering & Assistive Technology (i-CREATe '11) . Singapore Therapeutic, Assistive & Rehabilitative Technologies (START) Centre, Midview City, SGP, Article 27, 4 pages. -
  16. [134][134] Ellen Samuels. 2017. Six ways of looking at crip time. Disability Studies Quarterly 37, 3 (2017). -
  17. [133][133] Hanna Bertilsdotter Rosqvist, Nick Chown, and Anna Stenning. 2020. Neurodiversity studies: A new critical paradigm . Routledge. -
  18. [141][141] Jim Sinclair. 2013. Why I dislike 'person first' language. Autonomy, the Critical Journal of Interdisciplinary Autism Studies 1, 2 (2013). -
  19. [144][144] Tobias Sonne and Mads Møller Jensen. 2016. ChillFish: A Respiration Game for Children with ADHD. In Proceedings of the TEI '16: Tenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI '16) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 271-278. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 2839462.2839480 -
  20. [156][156] Joseph A Stramondo. 2019. The distinction between curative and assistive technology. Science and engineering ethics 25, 4 (2019), 1125-1145. -
  21. [175][175] Langdon Winner. 1980. Do Artifacts Have Politics? Daedalus 109, 1 (1980), 121-136. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20024652 -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Spiel, K., Hornecker, E., Williams, R. M., & Good, J.
Affiliations
  • TU Wien (AT)
  • Bauhaus-Universität Weimar (DE)
  • Computer Graphics Technology, Purdue University, United States
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
ORCID
Venue
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2022-04-29
Pages
1-21
DOI
10.1145/3491102.3517592
OpenAlex
W4225147585
Cited by
150
References
150
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 4
FWCI
23.00
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
FWF - Austrian Science Fund (T 1146-G)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Rights and Representation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Keywords
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, neurodivergence, assistive technology, deficit framing, co-design, emic perspective, people with disabilities, human-computer interaction research

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