Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 67 references

ToPSen: Task-Oriented Priming and Sensory Alignment for Comparing Coding Strategies Between Sighted and Blind Programmers

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read When both groups code through audio alone, expert blind programmers build richer, more accurate mental models of code than sighted programmers.

desk verdict Real methodological advance and useful qualitative findings; the abstract's working-memory claim outruns the data. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22414 v1 pith:5OBG2OMQ submitted 2025-05-28 cs.HC

Md Ehtesham-Ul-Haque , Syed Masum Billah This is my paper
classification cs.HC
keywords programmingblindprogrammerssightedaudiofeedbackmentalmodelsscreenreaderscognitiveloadIDEaccessibility
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

ToPSen is a comparison method that replaces blindfolding with task-oriented priming: sighted programmers code on a headless server with only text-to-speech feedback, so non-visual coding becomes a technical constraint rather than a disability simulation. Using it with 12 blind and 12 sighted programmers on identical Python tasks, the paper claims that expert blind programmers maintain more accurate mental models and process more information in working memory than sighted programmers in the same audio-only condition. The reason, the authors argue, is that blind experts actively track code structure, indentation level, and cursor position, while sighted programmers focus on syntax and logic and let structural information slip because their visual system normally supplies it automatically. This matters for mixed-ability collaboration: if sighted programmers do not attend to the information blind programmers need, communication and teaching break down. The study closes with IDE design guidelines that make structural and positional information explicit in audio.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is ToPSen, a three-part study design: task-oriented priming (presenting non-visual coding as a realistic technical requirement, such as writing Python on a headless server), sensory alignment (giving both groups the identical text-to-speech readout), and tasks scoped to under 30 lines so both groups can participate without assistive-technology training. The diagnostic instrument is cursor-navigation analysis: because the text-to-speech editor announces only what the cursor touches, the paths participants take through a code snippet reveal what they chose to listen to and therefore what they are trying to hold in mind.

What would settle it

A replication that measures working memory directly, for example by asking participants to recall a code snippet they heard once or by adding a dual-task interference condition, and finds no expert blind advantage would falsify the working-memory claim even if the observed navigation strategies still differ.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that expert blind programmers outperform expert sighted programmers when both are restricted to audio feedback, and they do so by building qualitatively different mental models. Blind experts read code top to bottom in an initial overview, absorb more than ten statements and four to five nesting levels in a single pass, track cursor location before editing, and review code frequently to prevent errors from accumulating. ToPSen sighted experts, by contrast, read statement by statement, memorize constants they later have to revisit, rarely check cursor position, and struggle to recall the structure of error messages; they prioritize logical correctness over positional awareness. The paper interprets this contrast as evidence that blind programmers treat structural and positional information as an active part of the mental model, whereas sighted programmers treat it as background that vision normally supplies for free. Novices in both groups failed on the same tasks, which the paper reads as showing that programming expertise, not auditory experience, is the main driver of success.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that cursor-navigation patterns directly show how much information a programmer holds in working memory; if those patterns instead reflect tool familiarity or a different task strategy, the claim that blind experts hold more code in memory would lose its support even though the qualitative strategy differences might remain.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • IDEs should explicitly announce code structure, indentation level, and cursor position in audio, so sighted users do not have to count spaces or relocate themselves after editing.
  • Collaboration tools should expose a structural summary (total lines, maximum nesting depth, statement types) to both partners, giving sighted programmers the same anchor that blind programmers actively maintain.
  • Error messages need an audio-friendly redesign, since ToPSen sighted participants struggled with the caret indicator and multi-line error layout read through text-to-speech.
  • Novice programmers of both groups need structured editors and proactive auditory feedback about cursor location and syntax errors; expertise, not hearing ability, predicted success.
  • Keeping functions under roughly fifteen statements and five nesting levels would support the audio-overview capacity observed in expert blind programmers.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The strongest quantitative claim, that blind experts hold more information in working memory, is inferred from cursor-navigation patterns rather than from a direct memory measure, so a follow-up using recall-after-listening or dual-task interference would be the cleanest way to test whether the mental-model difference is actually a working-memory difference.
  • The ToPSen paradigm generalizes in a direction the paper only sketches: the same three-step alignment could compare hearing and deaf programmers reading subtitles or lip movements under masked audio, and could be applied to any two groups whose secondary sensory channel differs.
  • If the structural-overview gap is real, pair-programming tools should broadcast structural annotations and cursor location between partners by default, rather than expecting sighted programmers to verbalize information they normally absorb unconsciously.
  • The expert habit of talking out loud points to a concrete extension: an audio IDE could prompt novices to verbalize code summaries, or generate spoken summaries with a language model, and measure whether that closes the novice-expert gap.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper introduces ToPSen, a design framework intended to compare sighted and blind programmers under audio-only feedback without relying on blindfold-based disability simulation. The authors report a study of 12 blind and 12 sighted programmers (8 experts and 4 novices per group) who completed code-reading, error-correction, and code-writing tasks in a simple text-to-speech IDE. The abstract's central claim is that expert blind programmers maintain more accurate mental models and process more information in working memory than sighted programmers using ToPSen. The body of the paper reports quantitative performance metrics (Table 2) and qualitative analyses of cursor navigation, mental-model construction, error detection, verification practices, and coding style, from which the authors derive IDE design guidelines and a proposed collaboration mode.

Significance. The ToPSen idea is a reasonable and ethically motivated alternative to blindfold-based simulation, and the qualitative findings—anchor-point strategies for indentation, error cascades, verification rituals, and the contrast between global and local code overview—are useful for accessibility research and IDE design. The design guidelines in Sec. 5.2 are concrete and grounded in the observed behaviors. However, the abstract's quantitative superiority claim is not established by the reported evidence: the accuracy difference in Table 2 is negligible, no inferential statistics are reported, the working-memory claim rests on a behavioral proxy explicitly labeled a hypothesis in Sec. 4.2, and the design confounds group with session setting and prior screen-reader experience. The paper's value would be preserved by reframing the headline claim as a hypothesis and presenting the strategic differences as the main result.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. 4.2] The claim that expert blind programmers 'process more information in working memory' is not supported by the data. The only evidence is the cursor-overview span reported in Sec. 4.2 (blind experts overviewed 10+ statements and 4-5 levels, while ToPSen experts managed 6-8 statements and up to 4 levels), which is a behavioral measure of navigation strategy, not a direct test of working memory capacity. The paper itself says 'We hypothesize that talking out loud might help them... to store more information in their two main temporary storage systems' and later says the contrast 'likely stems from' enhanced capacity, so the abstract converts a stated hypothesis into a finding. No n-back, listening-span, or recall measure was administered. I recommend removing the working-memory superiority claim from the abstract and conclusion, or explicitly presenting it as a hypothesis with the cursor-overview observation as exploratory evidence.
  2. [Table 2; Sec. 4.1] The 'more accurate mental models' part of the headline claim is similarly unsupported by the quantitative results. In Table 2, expert blind T1 accuracy is 79.65% versus 77.4% for expert ToPSen, a difference of about two percentage points with overlapping standard deviations, and no inferential statistics (tests, confidence intervals, or effect sizes) are reported anywhere in the paper. The text itself describes these as 'comparable accuracy' in Sec. 4.1, while the abstract says 'more accurate.' The accuracy claim should be softened to 'comparable accuracy with different strategies,' and any claim of superiority needs either a formal test or an explicit statement that the difference is descriptive only.
  3. [Sec. 3.2] The exclusion of trials that exceeded five minutes as failures biases the reported means. The paper states: 'If participants failed to complete a trial within 5 minutes, we marked it as a failure and removed the data from our performance calculations. We noted three such failures.' If failures are more frequent in one group, the group means in Table 2 are conditional on success and the group comparison is distorted. Please report the number of failures by group and by task, and either analyze completion times with failures included (e.g., completion rates or censored time-to-completion models) or present success rates as a separate outcome.
  4. [Sec. 3.2] The comparison is confounded by session setting: blind participants were tested remotely over Zoom, while sighted participants were tested in-person in a quiet office. Remote versus in-person conditions can affect audio quality, screen-sharing behavior, social presence, and the availability of visual cues outside the IDE; this is particularly problematic for the quantitative comparisons in Table 2 and for the verbalization and behavioral observations. At minimum, this should be acknowledged as a design limitation in the main text, and ideally the authors should test at least a subset of participants under matched settings.
  5. [Sec. 4.2; Sec. 5.5] The interpretation that blind experts have an 'enhanced capacity to process multiple audio chunks in working memory' conflates long-term experience with working memory capacity. Expert blind participants have years of daily screen-reader use; expert ToPSen participants have none. The observed differences in overview span and structural tracking are equally or more plausibly explained by acquired strategies and tool familiarity. The paper's own limitation section (Sec. 5.5) acknowledges the small sample and single-session design but does not address this confound. Please reframe the global-versus-local contrast as a product of experience and strategy rather than a claim about underlying memory capacity.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 5.5; Abstract] The limitation section appropriately notes the lack of statistical power and the single-session design, but these caveats are absent from the abstract and conclusion; please align the claimed strength of the findings with the stated limitations.
  2. [Sec. 4.2; References] The sentence about 'echoic memory for 2 to 4 seconds [6]' cites Baddeley and Hitch, but the reference entry is malformed in the bibliography (it appears as '[n.d.]' with a stray 'J.'). Please correct the citation and consider adding a more specific source for the echoic-memory duration.
  3. [Table 2] Please state the number of participants per cell in Table 2; the text says 8 experts and 4 novices per group, but the table does not include N, which makes the reported means and standard deviations harder to interpret.
  4. [Sec. 3.3] The qualitative coding process would benefit from inter-rater reliability metrics (e.g., Cohen's kappa) or at least a statement of how many transcripts were double-coded, since the findings rely heavily on the iterative coding process.
  5. [Fig. 6] Figure 6 is dense and the four design-idea labels are hard to parse; a version with clearer callouts or an annotated layout would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the findings are observed behavioral measurements, and the authors' self-citations are background, not load-bearing.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical user study, not a derivation. The central results (cursor-navigation spans, structural tracking behaviors, accuracy means, error counts) are observed measurements reported in Tables 1-2 and Sec. 4; none are obtained by fitting a parameter to the outcome and then predicting it. ToPSen is a methodological framing (Sec. 1.1) that equips both groups with the same audio TTS editor; the claim that expert blind programmers overview 10+ statements vs. 6-8 for ToPSen experts (Sec. 4.2) is a behavioral observation, not an analytic consequence of the ToPSen definition. The phrase "process more information in working memory" is an interpretation of that behavioral span and is explicitly hedged as a hypothesis in Sec. 4.2; whether the proxy is valid is a construct-validity and statistical-inference concern, not circularity. The paper cites several prior works by the same authors (e.g., Grid-Coding [18], screen-reader plugins [35,36], LMM studies [64,65]), but these appear in related work and design implications and do not supply the load-bearing premise; the findings would stand without them. No self-citation chain forces the conclusion, and no equation or defined quantity reduces to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces a design framework, ToPSen, but no physical entities or fitted parameters. The central claim is empirical, and the main burden falls on the comparability of the ToPSen condition and on the behavioral proxies used for mental model and working memory claims.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption TTS output from the custom IDE matches standard screen reader behavior for both participant groups.
    Sec. 3.1 states the IDE 'provides TTS output that matches standard screen reader behavior'; the fairness of the comparison depends on this equivalence, but no verification with screen-reader experts is reported.
  • domain assumption Cursor movement patterns and think-aloud verbalizations are valid indicators of mental model contents and working memory usage.
    Sec. 4.2 infers that scanning 'more than 10 statements' in an overview means 'process more information in working memory'; no direct working-memory measurement validates this proxy.
  • ad hoc to paper The ToPSen condition makes sighted programmers' audio coding experience comparable to blind programmers' everyday audio coding, while removing the emotional artifacts of blindness simulation.
    This is the central premise of the proposed framework (Sec. 1.1, 2.3); if the framing does not achieve this alignment, the between-group comparison is not controlled.
  • domain assumption Remote participation of blind participants over Zoom is equivalent to in-person participation of sighted participants.
    Sec. 3.2 specifies different settings for the two groups; any difference in distraction, audio quality, or researcher oversight could confound group comparisons.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ToPSen: Task-Oriented Priming and Sensory Alignment for Comparing Coding Strategies Between Sighted and Blind Programmers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5OBG2OMQ

@misc{pith2026250522414,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ToPSen: Task-Oriented Priming and Sensory Alignment for Comparing Coding Strategies Between Sighted and Blind Programmers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5OBG2OMQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22414}
}
read the original abstract

This paper examines how the coding strategies of sighted and blind programmers differ when working with audio feedback alone. The goal is to identify challenges in mixed-ability collaboration, particularly when sighted programmers work with blind peers or teach programming to blind students. To overcome limitations of traditional blindness simulation studies, we proposed Task-Oriented Priming and Sensory Alignment (ToPSen), a design framework that reframes sensory constraints as technical requirements rather than as a disability. Through a study of 12 blind and 12 sighted participants coding non-visually, we found that expert blind programmers maintain more accurate mental models and process more information in working memory than sighted programmers using ToPSen. Our analysis revealed that blind and sighted programmers process structural information differently, exposing gaps in current IDE designs. These insights inform our guidelines for improving the accessibility of programming tools and fostering effective mixed-ability collaboration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22414 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An illustration comparing non-visual coding practices between blind and sighted programmers. Left (1): A traditional setup for blind [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) The two anchor points to count the number of spaces. (b) - (d) Three different ways to reach anchor points. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Five code snippets written by the participants and the associated errors, separated by a dashed line. In all error messages, the visual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A sequence of editing steps leading to a deviation from the mental model. The cursor at each editing step is represented using a red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Potential design to align sighted programmers’ mental model with blind programmers during mixed-ability collaboration. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Nor Hafizah Adnan and Albert D Ritzhaupt. 2018. Software engineering design principles applied to instructional design: What can we learn from our sister discipline?TechTrends62, 1 (2018), 77–94

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Swati Agarwal, Nitish Mittal, Rohan Katyal, Ashish Sureka, and Denzil Correa

    work page

  3. [3]

    Khaled Albusays and Stephanie Ludi. 2016. Eliciting Programming Challenges Faced by Developers with Visual Impairments: Exploratory Study. InProceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering(Austin, Texas)(CHASE ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 82–85. https://doi.org/10.1145...

    work page arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    Khaled Albusays, Stephanie Ludi, and Matt Huenerfauth. 2017. Interviews and Observation of Blind Software Developers at Work to Understand Code Naviga- tion Challenges(ASSETS ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1145/3132525.3132550

    arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    Ameer Armaly, Paige Rodeghero, and Collin McMillan. 2017. A comparison of program comprehension strategies by blind and sighted programmers.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering44, 8 (2017), 712–724

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    AD Baddeley and Graham Hitch. [n.d.]. J.(1974). Working memory.The psychology of learn-’ing. and motivation([n. d.]), 47–90

    work page 1974

  7. [7]

    Baker, Lauren R

    Catherine M. Baker, Lauren R. Milne, and Richard E. Ladner. 2015. StructJumper: A Tool to Help Blind Programmers Navigate and Understand the Structure of Code. InProceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Seoul, Republic of Korea)(CHI ’15). Association for Computing Machin- ery, New York, NY, USA, 3043–3052. https:...

    arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    Benjamin B Bederson and Angela Boltman. 1999. Does animation help users build mental maps of spatial information?. InProceedings 1999 IEEE symposium on information visualization (InfoVis’ 99). IEEE, 28–35

    work page 1999

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    Marina Bedny, Alvaro Pascual-Leone, David Dodell-Feder, Evelina Fedorenko, and Rebecca Saxe. 2011. Language processing in the occipital cortex of congenitally blind adults.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences108, 11 (2011), 4429–4434

    2011

  2. [10]

    Cynthia L Bennett and Daniela K Rosner. 2019. The Promise of Empathy: Design, Disability, and Knowing the “Other”’. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–13

    2019

  3. [11]

    Porter, and I.V

    Syed Masum Billah, Vikas Ashok, Donald E. Porter, and I.V. Ramakrishnan. 2017. Ubiquitous Accessibility for People with Visual Impairments: Are We There Yet?. InProceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 5862–5868. https://doi.org/10.114...

    2017

  4. [12]

    Porter, and I

    Syed Masum Billah, Donald E. Porter, and I. V. Ramakrishnan. 2016. Sinter: low-bandwidth remote access for the visually-impaired. InProceedings of the Eleventh European Conference on Computer Systems. ACM, 2901335, 1–16. https: //doi.org/10.1145/2901318.2901335

    2016

  5. [13]

    Danielle Bragg, Cynthia Bennett, Katharina Reinecke, and Richard Ladner. 2018. A Large Inclusive Study of Human Listening Rates. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, ...

    2018

  6. [14]

    Danielle Bragg, Cynthia Bennett, Katharina Reinecke, and Richard Ladner. 2018. A large inclusive study of human listening rates. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1–12

    2018

  7. [15]

    1994.Analyzing qualitative data

    Alan Bryman, Robert G Burgess, et al. 1994.Analyzing qualitative data. Vol. 11. Routledge London

    1994

  8. [16]

    Harold Burton. 2003. Visual cortex activity in early and late blind people.Journal of Neuroscience23, 10 (2003), 4005–4011

    2003

  9. [17]

    Yoonha Cha, Victoria Jackson, Isabela Figueira, Stacy Marie Branham, and André Van der Hoek. 2024. Understanding the Career Mobility of Blind and Low Vision Software Professionals. InProceedings of the 2024 IEEE/ACM 17th International Conference on Cooperative and Human Aspect...

    2024

  10. [18]

    Md Ehtesham-Ul-Haque, Syed Mostofa Monsur, and Syed Masum Billah. 2022. Grid-Coding: An Accessible, Efficient, and Structured Coding Paradigm for Blind and Low-Vision Programmers. InThe 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. Association for Comput...

    2022

  11. [19]

    Claudia Flores-Saviaga, Benjamin V Hanrahan, Kashif Imteyaz, Steven Clarke, and Saiph Savage. 2025. The Impact of Generative AI Coding Assistants on Developers Who Are Visually Impaired.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.16491(2025)

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Ashley Flower, Matthew K Burns, and Nicole A Bottsford-Miller. 2007. Meta- analysis of disability simulation research.Remedial and Special Education28, 2 (2007), 72–79

    2007

  13. [21]

    1983.Mental models

    Dedre Gentner and Albert L Stevens. 1983.Mental models. Psychology Press

    1983

  14. [22]

    Frédéric Gougoux, Robert J Zatorre, Maryse Lassonde, Patrice Voss, and Franco Lepore. 2005. A functional neuroimaging study of sound localization: visual cortex activity predicts performance in early-blind individuals.PLoS biology3, 2 (2005), e27

    2005

  15. [23]

    Chaeeun Han, Prasenjit Mitra, and Syed Masum Billah. 2024. Uncovering Human Traits in Determining Real and Spoofed Audio: Insights from Blind and Sighted Individuals. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14

    2024

  16. [24]

    Ava Heinonen, Bettina Lehtelä, Arto Hellas, and Fabian Fagerholm. 2023. Syn- thesizing research on programmers’ mental models of programs, tasks and con- cepts—A systematic literature review.Information and Software Technology(2023), 107300

    2023

  17. [25]

    Kirsten Hötting and Brigitte Röder. 2009. Auditory and auditory-tactile processing in congenitally blind humans. 258, 1-2 (dec 2009), 165–174. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.heares.2009.07.012

    2009

  18. [26]

    Md Touhidul Islam, E Porter Donald, and Syed Masum Billah. 2023. A Probabilistic Model and Metrics for Estimating Perceived Accessibility of Desktop Applications in Keystroke-Based Non-Visual Interactions. InThe 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’2...

    2023

  19. [27]

    Samuel Kacer. 2022. NVDA Addons: Ignore Blanks Indentation Reporting. https:// addons.nvda-project.org/addons/ignoreBlanksIndentationReporting.en.html. Ac- cessed: 2025-01-21

    2022

  20. [28]

    Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho. 2015. Evidence-based programming language design: a philosophical and methodological exploration.Jyväskylä studies in computing 222 (2015)

    2015

  21. [29]

    Shaun K Kane and Jeffrey P Bigham. 2014. Tracking @stemxcomet: teaching programming to blind students via 3D printing, crisis management, and twitter. InProceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education. 247–252

    2014

  22. [30]

    Thomas Kauffman, Hugo Théoret, and Alvaro Pascual-Leone. 2002. Braille character discrimination in blindfolded human subjects.Neuroreport13, 5 (2002), 571–574

    2002

  23. [31]

    Andrew J Kolarik, Rajiv Raman, Brian CJ Moore, Silvia Cirstea, Sarika Gopalakr- ishnan, and Shahina Pardhan. 2020. The accuracy of auditory spatial judgments in the visually impaired is dependent on sound source distance.Scientific reports 10, 1 (2020), 7169

    2020

  24. [32]

    Jimmie Leppink, Fred Paas, Cees PM Van der Vleuten, Tamara Van Gog, and Jeroen JG Van Merriënboer. 2013. Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load.Behavior research methods45 (2013), 1058–1072

    2013

  25. [33]

    Sean Mealin and Emerson Murphy-Hill. 2012. An exploratory study of blind soft- ware developers, In Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC), 2012 IEEE Symposium on.Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, VL/HCC, 71–74. https:...

    2012

  26. [34]

    Lotfi B Merabet, Roy Hamilton, Gottfried Schlaug, Jascha D Swisher, Elaine T Kiriakopoulos, Naomi B Pitskel, Thomas Kauffman, and Alvaro Pascual-Leone

  27. [35]

    Farhani Momotaz, Md Ehtesham-Ul-Haque, and Syed Masum Billah. 2023. Un- derstanding the Usages, Life-Cycle, and Opportunities of Screen Readers’ Plugins. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing(feb 2023). https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3582697

    2023

  28. [36]

    Farhani Momotaz, Md Touhidul Islam, Md Ehtesham-Ul-Haque, and Syed Masum Billah. 2021. Understanding Screen Readers’ Plugins. InThe 23rd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. ACM, 1–10. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3441852.3471205

    2021

  29. [37]

    Aboubakar Mountapmbeme, Obianuju Okafor, and Stephanie Ludi. 2022. Ac- cessible Blockly: An Accessible Block-Based Programming Library for People with Visual Impairments. InProceedings of the 24th International ACM SIGAC- CESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility(Athens, ...

    2022

  30. [38]

    Aboubakar Mountapmbeme, Obianuju Okafor, and Stephanie Ludi. 2022. Address- ing Accessibility Barriers in Programming for People with Visual Impairments: A Literature Review.ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (TACCESS)15, 1 (2022), 1–26

    2022

  31. [39]

    Donald A Norman. 1983. Some observations on mental models.Mental Models7, 112 (1983), 7–14

    1983

  32. [40]

    Maulishree Pandey, Vaishnav Kameswaran, Hrishikesh V Rao, Sile O’Modhrain, and Steve Oney. 2021. Understanding Accessibility and Collaboration in Pro- gramming for People with Visual Impairments.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–30

    2021

  33. [41]

    Achille Pasqualotto and Michael J Proulx. 2012. The role of visual experience for the neural basis of spatial cognition.Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews36, 4 (2012), 1179–1187

    2012

  34. [42]

    Romedi Passini, Guylene Proulx, and Constant Rainville. 1990. The spatio- cognitive abilities of the visually impaired population.Environment and Behavior 22, 1 (1990), 91–118

    1990

  35. [43]

    Minoli Perera. 2024. Enhancing Productivity Applications for People who are Blind using AI Assistants. InExtended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–6

    2024

  36. [44]

    Venkatesh Potluri, Maulishree Pandey, Andrew Begel, Michael Barnett, and Scott Reitherman. 2022. CodeWalk: Facilitating Shared Awareness in Mixed-Ability Collaborative Software Development. InProceedings of the 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Acces...

    2022

  37. [45]

    Vidya, Manohar Swaminathan, and Gopal Srinivasa

    Venkatesh Potluri, Priyan Vaithilingam, Suresh Iyengar, Y. Vidya, Manohar Swaminathan, and Gopal Srinivasa. 2018. CodeTalk: Improving Programming Environment Accessibility for Visually Impaired Developers. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing ...

    2018

  38. [46]

    Rensink, J

    Ronald A. Rensink, J. Kevin O’Regan, and James J. Clark. 1997. To See or Not to See: The Need for Attention to Perceive Changes in Scenes.Psychological Science 8, 5 (1997), 368–373. DIS ’25, July 5–9, 2025, Funchal, Portugal Md Ehtesham-Ul-Haque and Syed Masum Billah

    1997

  39. [47]

    Risko and Sam J

    Evan F. Risko and Sam J. Gilbert. 2016. Cognitive Offloading.Trends in Cognitive Sciences20, 9 (2016), 676–688

    2016

  40. [48]

    Anthony Robins, Jennifer Rountree, and Nathan Rountree. 2003. Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion.Computer Science Education13, 2 (2003), 137–172

    2003

  41. [49]

    Brigitte Röder, Frank Rösler, and Helen J Neville. 2001. Auditory memory in con- genitally blind adults: a behavioral-electrophysiological investigation.Cognitive Brain Research11, 2 (2001), 289–303

    2001

  42. [50]

    Brigitte Röder, Oliver Stock, Siegfried Bien, Helen Neville, and Frank Rösler. 2002. Speech processing activates visual cortex in congenitally blind humans. 16, 5 (sep 2002), 930–936. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1460-9568.2002.02147.x

    2002

  43. [51]

    Emmanuel Schanzer, Sina Bahram, and Shriram Krishnamurthi. 2019. Accessible AST-Based Programming for Visually-Impaired Programmers. InProceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education(Minneapolis, MN, USA)(SIGCSE ’19). Association for Computing Mac...

    2019

  44. [52]

    Ihor Shcherbinin. 2024. 12 Principles of Software Development. https://distantjob. com/blog/principles-software-development/

    2024

  45. [53]

    Arielle Michal Silverman. 2015. The perils of playing blind: Problems with blindness simulation and a better way to teach about blindness. (2015)

    2015

  46. [54]

    Ann C Smith, Joan M Francioni, and Sam D Matzek. 2000. A Java programming tool for students with visual disabilities. InProceedings of the fourth international ACM conference on Assistive technologies. 142–148

    2000

  47. [55]

    Andreas Stefik, Andrew Haywood, Shahzada Mansoor, Brock Dunda, and Daniel Garcia. 2009. Sodbeans. In2009 IEEE 17th International Conference on Program Comprehension. IEEE, 293–294

    2009

  48. [56]

    Andreas Stefik and Susanna Siebert. 2013. An empirical investigation into pro- gramming language syntax.ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 13, 4 (2013), 1–40

    2013

  49. [57]

    Andreas M Stefik, Christopher Hundhausen, and Derrick Smith. 2011. On the design of an educational infrastructure for the blind and visually impaired in com- puter science. InProceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education. 571–576

    2011

  50. [58]

    John Sweller. 1988. Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive science12, 2 (1988), 257–285

    1988

  51. [59]

    John Sweller. 2011. Cognitive load theory. InPsychology of learning and motivation. Vol. 55. Elsevier, 37–76

    2011

  52. [60]

    Hugo Théoret, Lotfi Merabet, and Alvaro Pascual-Leone. 2004. Behavioral and neuroplastic changes in the blind: evidence for functionally relevant cross-modal interactions. 98, 1-3 (jan 2004), 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphysparis. 2004.03.009

    2004 doi

  53. [61]

    Patrice Voss, Frederic Gougoux, Robert J Zatorre, Maryse Lassonde, and Franco Lepore. 2008. Differential occipital responses in early-and late-blind individuals during a sound-source discrimination task.Neuroimage40, 2 (2008), 746–758

    2008

  54. [62]

    Mark Wessinger, Leonardo G

    Robert Weeks, Barry Horwitz, Ali Aziz-Sultan, Biao Tian, C. Mark Wessinger, Leonardo G. Cohen, Mark Hallett, and Josef P. Rauschecker. 2000. A Positron Emission Tomographic Study of Auditory Localization in the Congenitally Blind. 20, 7 (apr 2000), 2664–2672. https://doi.org/1...

  55. [63]

    Jingyi Xie, Rui Yu, Kaiming Cui, Sooyeon Lee, John M Carroll, and Syed Masum Billah. 2023. Are Two Heads Better than One? Investigating Remote Sighted Assistance with Paired Volunteers. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 1810–1825

    2023

  56. [64]

    Jingyi Xie, Rui Yu, He Zhang, Syed Masum Billah, Sooyeon Lee, and John M Carroll. 2025. Beyond Visual Perception: Insights from Smartphone Interaction of Visually Impaired Users with Large Multimodal Models. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computin...

    2025

  57. [65]

    Jingyi Xie, Rui Yu, He Zhang, Sooyeon Lee, Syed Masum Billah, and John M Carroll. 2024. Emerging practices for large multimodal model (lmm) assistance for people with visual impairments: Implications for design.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.08882(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  58. [2008]

    Rapid and reversible recruitment of early visual cortex for touch.PLoS one 3, 8 (2008), e3046

    2008

  59. [2016]

    Women in computer science research: What is the bibliography data telling us?Acm Sigcas Computers and Society46, 1 (2016), 7–19

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.