ArticlePloS one2024
Exploring social perceptions of everyday smartglass use in Australia.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Smart Glasses for Older Adults With Cognitive Impairment: Explanatory Mixed Methods Study.JMIR aging · 2026Article
- AI-Enabled Smart Glasses for Active Aging: Scoping Review.JMIR aging · 2026Review
- Smart Glasses for Older Adults With Cognitive Impairment: A Scoping Review.Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · 2025Article
- Smart Glasses in Dentistry: Technologies, Use Cases, and Future Directions.Biomedical engineering and computational biology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Smartglasses like Ray-Ban Stories by Meta are now commercially available, offering users features like photography, videography, music playback, phone calls, and content sharing. While existing research identifies barriers to adoption, no study has investigated the social acceptability of these commercially available devices. This is crucial because devices like Ray-Ban Stories are considered precursors to Augmented Reality-enabled smartglasses, and understanding current public perceptions is vital before further advancements. This study aimed to examine the social acceptability of everyday smartglass use. An online survey recruited 1037 Australian residents aged 18+ (58.6% owners, n = 608; 41.4% non-owners, n = 429). The WEAR scale assessed social acceptability. Owners perceived the device as aligning with their desired self-image, while non-owners expressed stronger concerns regarding privacy, anti-social behaviour, and potential harm. The WEAR scores highlight contrasting expectations between owners and non-owners regarding appropriate technology use, suggesting a potential source of social tension. Further research is needed to understand how individuals negotiate the use of these devices in public spaces.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.