Aesthetics and the perceived stigma of assistive technology for visual impairment

References

• World Health Organization [Internet]. Geneva (Switzerland): WHO; World report on disability. p. 28; 2011. [cited 2018 Nov 14]. Available from: www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/accessible_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Louvet E. Social judgment toward job applicants with disabilities: perception of personal qualities and competences. Rehabil Psychol. 2007;52(3):297–303.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pape TLB, Kim J, Weiner B. The shaping of individual meanings assigned to assistive technology: a review of personal factors. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24(1–3):5–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shinohara K, Wobbrock JO. In the shadow of misperception: assistive technology use and social interactions. Paper presented at the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; 2011 May; Vancouver, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Soderstrom S, Ytterhus B. The use and non-use of assistive technologies from the world of information and communication technology by visually impaired young people: a walk on the tightrope of peer inclusion. Disabil Soc. 2010;25(3):303–315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faucett HA, Ringland KE, Cullen ALL, et al. (In)visibility in disability and assistive technology. ACM Trans Access Comput. 2017;10(4):1–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hersh M. Cane use and late onset visual impairment. Technol Disabil. 2015;27(3):103–116.
   Google Scholar
• Shinohara K, Wobbrock JO. Self-conscious or self-confident? A diary study conceptualizing social accessibility of assistive technology. ACM Trans Access Comput. 2016;8(2):1–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verza R, Carvalho MLL, Battaglia MA, et al. An interdisciplinary approach to evaluating the need for assistive technology reduces equipment abandonment. Mult Scler. 2006;12(1):88–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federici S, Meloni F, Borsci S. The abandonment of assistive technology in Italy: a survey of users of the national health service. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2016;52(4):516–526.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cruz D, Emmel MLG, Manzini MG, et al. Assistive technology accessibility and abandonment: challenges for occupational therapists. Open J Occup Ther. 2016;4(1):1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Petrie H, Carmien S, Lewis A. Assistive technology abandonment: research realities and potentials. In: Miesenberger K, Kouroupetroglou G, editors. Computers helping people with special needs. ICCHP 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 10897. Cham (Switzerland): Springer; 2018. p. 532–540.
   Google Scholar
• Jonge D, Aplin T, Larkin S, et al. The aesthetic appeal of assistive technology and the economic value baby boomers place on it: a pilot study. Aust Occup Ther J. 2016;63(6):415–423.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halfmann A, Rieger D. Permanently on call: the effects of social pressure on smartphone users’ self-control, need satisfaction, and well-being. J Comput Mediat Commun. 2019;24(4):165–181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mead GH. Mind Self, and society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press; 1962.
   Google Scholar
• Medola FO, Sandnes FE, Ferrari ALM, et al. Strategies for developing students’ empathy and awareness for the needs of people with disabilities: contributions to design education. In: Craddock G, Doran C, McNutt L, editors. Transforming our world through design, diversity and education. Amsterdam (the Netherlands): IOS Press; 2018. p. 137–147.
   Google Scholar
• Day H, Jutai J, Campbell KA. Development of a scale to measure the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: lessons learned and the road ahead. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24(1–3):31–37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lanutti JNL, Medola FO, Gonçalves DD, et al. The significance of manual wheelchairs: a comparative study on male and female users. Procedia Manuf. 2015;3:6079–6085.
   Google Scholar
• Bispo R, Branco V. Designing out stigma: a new approach to designing for human diversity. Paper presented at the 9th Intenational European Academy of Design Conference; 2011 May 4–7; Porto, Portugal.
   Google Scholar
• Da Silva LA, Medola FO, Rodrigues OV, et al. Interdisciplinary-based development of user-friendly customized 3D printed upper limb prosthesis. In: Ahram T, Falcão C, editors. Advances in intelligent systems and computing. Cham (Switzerland): Springer International Publishing; 2019. p. 899–908.
   Google Scholar
• Medola FO, Sandnes FE, da Silva SRM, et al. Improving assistive technology in practice: contributions from interdisciplinary research and development and collaboration. Assist Technol Outcomes Benefits. 2018;12:1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Sandnes FE, Medola FO, Berg A, et al. Solving the grand challenges together: a Brazil-Norway approach to teaching collaborative design and prototyping of assistive technologies and products for independent living. In: Berg A, Bohemia E, Buck L, editors. Proceedings of E&PDE 2017 International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education. Building Communi-ty: Design Education for a Sustainable Future; 2017 September 7–8; Oslo, Norway. Wiltshire (United Kingdom): The Design Society, Institution of Engineering Designers; 2017. pp. 122–127.
   Google Scholar
• Cuturi LF, Aggius-Vella E, Campus C, et al. From science to technology: orientation and mobility in blind children and adults. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2016;71:240–251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long SK, Karpinsky ND, Doner H, et al. Using a mobile application to help visually impaired individuals explore the outdoors. In: Di Bucchianico G, Kercher P, editors. Advances in design for inclusion. Advances in intelligent systems and computing, 500. Cham (Switzerland): Springer; 2016. p. 213–223.
   Google Scholar
• Maidenbaum S, Hanassy S, Abboud S, et al. The “EyeCane”, a new electronic travel aid for the blind: technology, behavior & swift learning. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2014;32(6):813–824.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hallemans A, Ortibus E, Meire F, et al. Low vision affects dynamic stability of gait. Gait Posture. 2010;32(4):547–551.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shiizu Y, Hirahara Y, Yanashima K, et al. The development of a white cane which navigates the visually impaired. In: Proceedings of Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society; 2007 August 22–26; Lyon, France. New York (NY): IEEE; 2007. p. 5005–5008.
   Google Scholar
• Gallo S, Chapuis D, Santos-Carreras L, et al. Augmented white cane with multimodal haptic feedback. In: Proceedings of 3rd IEEE RAS and EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics; 2010 September 26–29; Tokyo, Japan. New York (NY): IEEE; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Pyun R, Kim Y, Wespe P, et al. Advanced augmented white cane with obstacle height and distance feedback. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics; 2013 June 24–26; Seattle, WA. New York (NY): IEEE; 2013. p. 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• dos Santos ADP, Medola FO, Cinelli MJ, et al. Are electronic white canes better than traditional canes? A comparative study with blind and blindfolded participants. Universal Access Inf. 2020;1–11. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-020-00712-z
   Google Scholar
• Sandnes FE. What do low-vision users really want from smart glasses? Faces, text and perhaps no glasses at all. In: Proceedings International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs; 2016 July 13–15; Linz, Austria. Cham (Switzerland): Springer; 2016. p. 187–194.
   Google Scholar
• Martín FV, Peli E. Augmented-view for restricted visual field: multiple device implementations. Optom Vis Sci. 2002;79(11):715–723.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gracia CM, Lenc K, Mirmehdi M. A head-mounted device for recognizing text in natural scenes. In: Iwamura M, Shafait F, editors. Camera-based document analysis and recognition. CBDAR 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series, 7139. Berlin (Germany): Springer; 2012. p. 29–41.
   Google Scholar
• Hwang AD, Peli E. Augmented edge enhancement for vision impairment using Google Glass. J Soc Inf Disp. 2014;45(1):305–307.
   Google Scholar
• Zhao Y, Szpiro S, Azenkot S. ForeSee: a customizable head-mounted vision enhancement system for people with low vision. In: Proceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility; 2015 October 26–28; Lisbon: Portugal. New York (NY): ACM New York; 2015. p. 239–249.
   Google Scholar
• Sandnes FE, Eika E. Head-mounted augmented reality displays on the cheap: a DIY approach to sketching and prototyping low-vision assistive technologies. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction; 2017 July 9–14; Vancouver, Canada. Cham (Switzerland): Springer; 2017. p. 167–186.
   Google Scholar