ArticleScientific reports2025
Assistive technology use in domestic activities by people who are blind.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gamification Enhances User Engagement and Task Performance in Prosthetic Vision Testing.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- Gamification Enhances User Engagement and Task Performance in Prosthetic Vision Testing.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Evaluating Deep Human-in-the-Loop Optimization for Retinal Implants Using Sighted Participants.Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual International Conference · 2025Article
- Aroma: Mixed-Initiative AI Assistance for Non-Visual Cooking by Grounding Multimodal Information Between Reality and Videos.Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology · 2025Article
- From abandonment to adoption: advancing assistive technologies for blindness and low vision in the AI era.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
People who are blind employ unique strategies when performing instrumental activities of daily living (iADLs), often relying on multiple sensory modalities and assistive technologies. While prior research has extensively explored adaptive strategies for outdoor activities like wayfinding and navigation, less emphasis has been placed on the information needs and problem-solving strategies for managing domestic activities. To address this gap, our study presents insights from 16 semi-structured interviews with individuals who are either legally or completely blind, highlighting both the current use and potential future applications of technologies for home-based iADLs. Our findings reveal several underexplored challenges, including the difficulty of locating misplaced objects, a structured problem-solving approach where digital tools are a last resort, and limited awareness of assistive training programs. Participants also faced persistent usability barriers as software updates disrupted accessibility features. Participants utilize a variety of low-tech and high-tech solutions, with tactile labeling systems and digital assistance apps being particularly prevalent. However, existing assistive technologies often fail to integrate seamlessly with users' preferred strategies, leading to frustration and underutilization. Addressing these barriers is crucial for enhancing the adoption of assistive technologies and ultimately improving the quality of life for people who are blind.
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.