Cited by 23Assistive Technology in Communication and MobilityDigital Accessibility for DisabilitiesTactile and Sensory Interactions

Blind Users Accessing Their Training Images in Teachable Object Recognizers

Open access
Hong, Jonggi, Gandhi, Jaina, Mensah, Ernest Essuah, Zeraati, Farnaz Zamiri, Jarjue, Ebrima, Lee, Kyungjun, Kacorri, Hernisa·2022·Proceedings of the 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility

Abstract

Teachable object recognizers provide a solution for a very practical need for blind people – instance level object recognition. They assume one can visually inspect the photos they provide for training, a critical and inaccessible step for those who are blind. In this work, we engineer data descriptors that address this challenge. They indicate in real time whether the object in the photo is cropped or too small, a hand is included, the photos is blurred, and how much photos vary from each other. Our descriptors are built into open source testbed iOS app, called MYCam. In a remote user study in (N = 12) blind participants’ homes, we show how descriptors, even when error-prone, support experimentation and have a positive impact in the quality of training set that can translate to model performance though this gain is not uniform. Participants found the app simple to use indicating that they could effectively train it and that the descriptors were useful. However, many found the training being tedious, opening discussions around the need for balance between information, time, and cognitive load.

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 · 10.1145/3517428.3544824

Cites

61 of 61 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?

  • 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].”

    From "It's trained by non-disabled people": Evaluating How Image Quality Affects Product Captioning with Vision-Language Models (2026) · cites this paper as [60]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 10

  1. Akter Taslima, Dosono Bryan, Ahmed Tousif, Kapadia Apu, and Semaan Bryan. 2020. "I am uncomfortable sharing what I can't see": Privacy Concerns of the Visually Impaired with Camera Based Assistive Applications. In 29th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 20). USENIX Association, 1929-1948. https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity20/ presentation/akter
  2. Bronskill John, Gordon Jonathan, Requeima James, Nowozin Sebastian, and Turner Richard. 2020. TaskNorm: Rethinking Batch Normalization for Meta-Learning. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 119), Daumé Hal III and Singh Aarti (Eds.). PMLR, 1153-1164. https://proceedings.mlr.press/ v119/bronskill20a.html
  3. Kacorri Hernisa, Dwivedi Utkarsh, and Kamikubo Rie. 2020. Data Sharing in Wellness, Accessibility, and Aging. NeurIPS 2020 Workshop on Dataset Curation and Security (2020).
  4. Patel Rupal and Roy Deb. 1998. Teachable interfaces for individuals with dysarthric speech and severe physical disabilities. In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Integrating Artificial Intelligence and Assistive Technology. Citeseer, 40-47.
  5. Samek Wojciech, Wiegand Thomas, and Müller Klaus-Robert. 2017. Explainable Artificial Intelligence: Understanding, Visualizing and Interpreting Deep Learning Models. CoRR abs/ 1708.08296 (2017). arXiv:1708.08296 http://arxiv.org/abs/1708.08296 · arXiv
  6. Stock Pierre and Cisse Moustapha. 2018. ConvNets and ImageNet Beyond Accuracy: Understanding Mistakes and Uncovering Biases. In The European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV).
  7. Vartiainen Henriikka, Tedre Matti, and Valtonen Teemu. 2020. Learning machine learning with very young children: Who is teaching whom? International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 25 (Sept. 2020), 1-11. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S2212868920300155
  8. Vinyals Oriol, Blundell Charles, Lillicrap Timothy, kavukcuoglu koray, and Wierstra Daan. 2016. Matching Networks for One Shot Learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29, Lee DD, Sugiyama M, Luxburg UV, Guyon I, and Garnett R(Eds.). Curran Associates, Inc., 3630-3638. http://papers.nips.cc/paper/6385-matching-networks-for-one-shot- learning.pdf
  9. Zhang Gongjie, Luo Zhipeng, Cui Kaiwen, and Lu Shijian. 2021. Meta-detr: Few-shot object detection via unified image-level meta-learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.11731 (2021). · arXiv
  10. Zhu Xiaojin, Singla Adish, Zilles Sandra, and Rafferty Anna N.. 2018. An Overview of Machine Teaching. CoRR abs/1801.05927 (2018). arXiv:1801.05927 http://arxiv.org/abs/1801.05927 · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hong, J., Gandhi, J., Mensah, E. E., Zeraati, F. Z., Jarjue, E., Lee, K., & Kacorri, H.
Affiliations
  • Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute (US)
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility
Publisher
ACM
Published
2022-10-22
Volume
2022
Pages
1-18
OpenAlex
W4307136615
Cited by
22
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 2
FWCI
9.18
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • NSF (1816380)
  • U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services / ACL / NIDILRR (90REGE0008)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
Keywords
blind users, data descriptors, iOS app, cognitive load, 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