Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41184432›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Making smartglasses accessible: perspectives and prototypes from co-design with people with aphasia.

Humphrey Curtis, Timothy Neate

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Humphrey CurtisDepartment of Informatics, King's College London, London, WC2B 4BG, United Kingdom. humphrey.curtis@kcl.ac.uk.
Timothy NeateDepartment of Informatics, King's College London, London, WC2B 4BG, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Smartglasses are set to become a mainstream consumer technology in the near future. However, emerging technologies often overlook the accessibility needs of users with disabilities and older adults, increasing the risk of alienation and marginalization of these vulnerable communities. To address this tension, we conducted three co-design workshops with people living with aphasia (N=14) to examine their perspectives on smartglasses, envision potential applications, and identify anticipated barriers. Co-designers proposed and prototyped a variety of smartglass applications for both general and aphasia-specific support. However, co-designers also raised concerns about interaction difficulties and the socially conspicuous form-factor of current smartglass designs. Additionally, we evaluated smartglass functionalities using a mixed reality HoloLens head-mounted display (HMD). While participants expressed enthusiasm, qualitative and quantitative findings revealed mixed reactions. The standard hands-free interaction of the HoloLens was perceived as publicly awkward and deemed inaccessible for participants with vision impairments or post-stroke paralysis. Our findings highlight the need for more inclusive design practices to ensure emerging smartglasses empower all users.

Indexed as

AphasiaAdultAgedEquipment DesignFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPersons with Disabilities

Identifiers

PMID41184432
PMCPMC12583751

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.