Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 130 references

FocusView: Understanding and Customizing Informational Video Watching Experiences for Viewers with ADHD

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Giving ADHD viewers control over video elements significantly improved their perceived viewability in a 12-person study.

desk verdict First ADHD-focused video customization system with genuinely useful qualitative findings, but the headline effectiveness number rests on a confounded first-half versus second-half design. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13309 v1 pith:Z5W4EP55 submitted 2025-07-17 cs.HC

Hanxiu 'Hazel' Zhu , Ruijia Chen , Yuhang Zhao This is my paper
classification cs.HC
keywords ADHDvideoaccessibilitycustomizationdistractionreductioninformationalvideosuserstudyassistivetechnology
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

This paper argues that the distractions embedded in informational videos—background music, busy backgrounds, overlays, caption styling, and speaker presentation—are a real and addressable barrier for viewers with ADHD, and that giving these viewers control over those elements improves their video watching experience. To show this, the authors built FocusView, a web interface that breaks a video into visual and auditory channels and lets users customize layout, background, captions, and audio with preset options. In a study with 12 adults with ADHD, perceived viewability of short informational videos rose significantly after customization, with a large effect size. The paper also documents that ADHD viewers disagree with each other about what counts as a distraction—background music helps some and hinders others—so a one-size-fits-all fix would miss the point. A sympathetic reader would take away that video accessibility for ADHD is less about removing any particular element and more about giving each viewer a simple way to make the video fit their own attention profile.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is FocusView, a web interface that decomposes a video into separate channels (speaker, content overlays, auxiliary overlays, background, captions, and audio) using computer vision and audio models—object detection with YOLO11, SAM2 segmentation, rectangle and text-overlay detection, LaMa inpainting, Whisper transcription, and resemble-enhance speech enhancement. Users then customize four aspects (layout, background, caption, and audio) through a deliberately small set of preset options, which the authors argue reduces decision fatigue for ADHD users. The evaluative machinery is a within-subject pre-post design that compares viewability ratings for the original first half of a short video with the customized second half, using Aligned Rank Transform ANOVA to test the difference.

What would settle it

A randomized counterbalanced study in which half of the participants watch the customized second half and the other half watch the original second half, with the first half always original, would settle the claim: if the viewability gain does not replicate or shrinks below the reported large effect, the effect is an artifact of order or content differences rather than customization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

FocusView significantly improved participants' perceived viewability of short informational videos, with a within-subject comparison showing a large effect ($F = 165.4$, $p < 0.001$, $\eta^2_p = 0.75$) across educational, casual, and news videos. The authors' central claim is that customization—not any particular 'ADHD-friendly' style—is the effective mechanism, because participants' preferences diverged sharply: background music was a distraction for some and a stimulation boost for others, some preferred blur while others wanted outright background removal, and every participant changed their preferred layout across videos. The paper therefore argues that future systems should offer small, preset-driven menus of options to avoid overwhelming users, support both ad-hoc and pre-planned customization of long videos, and be cautious about AI-generated reconstruction that could introduce new distractions or misinformation.

Load-bearing premise

The measured gain assumes that the two halves of each short video are otherwise comparable, and that simply watching the second half after the first—with no counterbalanced control condition—does not inflate ratings through order, practice, fatigue, or demand effects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Video platforms could offer ADHD users preset-driven simplification across layout, background, captions, and audio, rather than a single accessible preset, because preferences vary by person and by video type.
  • Customization features should be designed for low workload: limited options reduce decision fatigue, and presets plus segment merging make long-video editing feasible.
  • Future systems should support both ad-hoc adjustments during viewing and pre-watching segment edits, since participants preferred each strategy for different reasons.
  • Audio removal and speech enhancement deserve first-class status in accessibility tooling, as several participants rated it the most helpful feature.
  • AI-based video modification should preserve information integrity by avoiding detailed reconstructions, indicating when content has been altered, and allowing quick recovery of the original.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the pattern generalizes beyond short clips, video customization could reduce repeated re-watching in educational and workplace settings, but a longitudinal field study would be needed to test that cost saving, which this paper does not measure.
  • Because participants switched layouts across video types, a personalization algorithm trained on one viewing session would need to be context-aware; otherwise it would overfit to a single video's style.
  • The finding that the customization process itself can become a distraction implies a testable ceiling: beyond a certain number of preset options, a customization interface for ADHD users would decrease rather than increase engagement.
  • Comparing FocusView-style customization against a fixed 'focus mode' preset would separate the benefit of the customized video from the benefit of having control during the act of customization.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents FocusView, a video customization interface for viewers with ADHD that segments videos into visual and auditory elements and allows customization of layout, background, caption, and audio. The authors report a formative study of ADHD-relevant comments on YouTube and TikTok, a user study with 12 ADHD participants who customized short and long informational videos, and a set of design implications. The core quantitative claim is that FocusView significantly improved perceived viewability (F=165.4, p<0.001, eta^2_p=0.75), alongside qualitative findings about diverse distraction perceptions and customization preferences. The paper's main contributions are the system design, the qualitative understanding of ADHD video-watching needs, and the effectiveness claim.

Significance. If the effectiveness claim were supported, this would be a useful contribution to video accessibility and ADHD-focused assistive technology. The system implementation is non-trivial, integrating object detection, segmentation, inpainting, and audio separation. The qualitative findings—such as background music being a distraction for some participants but a stimulation boost for others, and the concern that customization itself can become a distraction—are valuable and credible. The paper also provides a concrete testbed for future video customization research. However, the central quantitative claim rests on a confounded design, which limits the significance of the reported effect size. The qualitative insights and design implications are the stronger parts of the paper.

major comments (2)
  1. [5.3, 6.1] The effectiveness claim (F=165.4, p<0.001, eta^2_p=0.75) is not identifiable from the implemented design. In the short-video session, each participant watched the first half of a video in original form, rated its viewability, customized the video, watched the customized second half, and rated viewability again. Condition is therefore perfectly confounded with content half (first vs. second), with time-on-task, with carryover from prior exposure to the first half, and with the act of having just performed customization. There is no counterbalancing of which half is customized, no control condition in which participants watch an unmodified second half, and no objective outcome (e.g., comprehension, gaze) to corroborate the self-report. Because participants knew they were evaluating a tool built to reduce distraction, demand characteristics alone could produce a large shift; the reported effect size is thus an upper bound rather than an estimate of the causal effect of FocusView. Please either add a controlled replication or substantially weaken the causal wording of this claim.
  2. [7.4] The Limitations section does not mention the confound described above. It acknowledges the lab context, the pre-processing, and the focus on short videos, but the most load-bearing threat to the central effectiveness claim—the first-half/second-half design and the absence of a no-customization control—is omitted. This missing limitation should be acknowledged explicitly, and the paper's abstract and Section 6.1 should be adjusted accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [4.2] The rules for classifying a detected element as main versus auxiliary content rely on four thresholds (95% duration, 50% frame size, 30% central size, 5% minimum rectangle area) that are presented without justification or sensitivity analysis; please add a rationale or reference for these values.
  2. [5.3] The rating question is described as evaluating 'the viewability of the video for ADHD viewers,' which is ambiguous between the participant's own experience and a general judgment about ADHD viewers; please clarify the exact wording presented to participants.
  3. [6.1, Figure 9] Figure 9 shows aggregate means without individual data points or error bars; please include per-participant ratings or confidence intervals so the variability behind the large effect size is visible.
  4. [3.1] The formative study draws on the top 20 comments per video as ranked by platform algorithms; the selection criteria (e.g., comments that mention 'my ADHD') are reasonable, but the sample is not described in terms of the number of comments actually analyzed after filtering; please report the final corpus size.
  5. [5.1] One participant (P9) was not clinically diagnosed at the time of the study; this should be acknowledged as a limitation in Section 7.4, alongside the self-report eligibility criterion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: FocusView's effectiveness claim is an empirical self-report comparison, not a quantity defined by or fitted to the system's own design choices.

full rationale

This paper makes no derivational claim that could reduce to its inputs. The central quantitative result (Section 6.1, F = 165.4, p < 0.001, eta^2_p = 0.75) is a within-subject comparison of participants' 7-point viewability ratings before and after customization, measured in a user study rather than derived from the system parameters or from a fitted model. No parameter is fitted to data and then renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from prior work by the same authors, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The only related weaknesses are methodological (first-half vs. second-half confounding, no counterbalancing of which half is customized, and potential demand characteristics), which concern internal validity and causal interpretability, not circularity. The limitations section (7.4) addresses lab context and pre-processing but does not claim the effect is mathematically forced by the design. Since the effectiveness claim is an empirical outcome of self-reports and not equivalent by construction to any input, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

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

No mathematical derivation exists, so the ledger captures the hand-set thresholds and domain assumptions the central claim depends on.

free parameters (4)
  • Overlay duration threshold 95% = 0.95 (fraction of video duration)
    Section 4.2 Layout Modification treats elements appearing for more than 95% of the video duration as main content; this hand-selected threshold determines what counts as auxiliary and is not validated against a gold standard.
  • Overlay size threshold 50% = 0.50 (frame height and width)
    Section 4.2 treats long-term overlays occupying more than 50% of the frame in both dimensions as main content; chosen arbitrarily.
  • Central overlay size threshold 30% = 0.30 (width or height)
    Section 4.2 treats large central overlays needing at least 30% of a frame dimension as main content; hand-set heuristic.
  • Minimum rectangle area 5% = 0.05 (frame area)
    Section 4.2 discards rectangles smaller than 5% of the total frame; ad hoc threshold.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Self-reported or clinically diagnosed ADHD is sufficient for participant inclusion, with no verification of diagnosis severity or subtype.
    Section 5.1 says eligibility was self-report of ADHD (11 clinically diagnosed, 1 in diagnostic process); the study does not control for subtype, medication, or comorbidity, which could affect distraction perceptions.
  • domain assumption The first and second halves of each short video are comparable in content demand, distraction, and fatigue, so that a rating difference can be attributed to customization.
    Section 5.3 describes rating the first half unmodified and the second half customized, without counterbalancing the order of condition or controlling for content differences between halves.
  • domain assumption The single-item 7-point Likert 'viewability' question validly measures the construct of interest.
    Section 5.4.1 defines Viewability as the only quantitative measure; no validation of the item is provided, and no objective behavioral measure (gaze, comprehension, task performance) is collected.
  • domain assumption Pre-processed videos with all customization combinations generated in advance represent a realistic deployment of the system.
    Section 7.4 acknowledges preprocessing eliminated processing time, which 'limited the real-world applicability'; participants therefore never experienced the latency that the paper itself identifies as a concern for ADHD users.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FocusView: Understanding and Customizing Informational Video Watching Experiences for Viewers with ADHD." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z5W4EP55

@misc{pith2026250713309,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FocusView: Understanding and Customizing Informational Video Watching Experiences for Viewers with ADHD},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z5W4EP55}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13309}
}
read the original abstract

While videos have become increasingly prevalent in delivering information across different educational and professional contexts, individuals with ADHD often face attention challenges when watching informational videos due to the dynamic, multimodal, yet potentially distracting video elements. To understand and address this critical challenge, we designed \textit{FocusView}, a video customization interface that allows viewers with ADHD to customize informational videos from different aspects. We evaluated FocusView with 12 participants with ADHD and found that FocusView significantly improved the viewability of videos by reducing distractions. Through the study, we uncovered participants' diverse perceptions of video distractions (e.g., background music as a distraction vs. stimulation boost) and their customization preferences, highlighting unique ADHD-relevant needs in designing video customization interfaces (e.g., reducing the number of options to avoid distraction caused by customization itself). We further derived design considerations for future video customization systems for the ADHD community.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13309 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FocusView provides a video customization interface to help reduce distractions during video watching for viewers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of video elements for two videos: speaker, content (i.e., visual elements illustrating the content being [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Layout Customization Options: (A) Original; (B) Speaker Focus; (C) Content Focus; (D) Auxiliary Removal. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Background Customization: (A) Original; (B) Blur; (C) Remove (white); (D) Remove (dark); Remove (peach). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FocusView Caption Customization Features: (A1-A4) Color options; (B) Bionic reading font style; (C1-C3) Size options: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The interface design of FocusView, with the video player (A) on the left and the customization features (B-E) on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Examples of speaker, television and overlay recognition and segmentation. (A) Speaker; (B) Television; (C) Presentation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Videos and Interface Used in Long Video Segmentation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Likert scale comparison of video viewability for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Participants’ background customization choices [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Participants’ audio customization choices for dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

130 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Elie Abdelnour, Madeline O Jansen, and Jessica A Gold. 2022. ADHD diagnostic trends: Increased recognition or overdiagnosis? Mo. Med. 119, 5 (Sept. 2022), 467–473

    2022

  2. [2]

    Francisco Aboitiz, Tomás Ossandón, Francisco Zamorano, Bárbara Palma, and Ximena Carrasco. 2014. Irrelevant stimulus processing in ADHD: catecholamine dynamics and attentional networks. Frontiers in psychology 5 (2014), 183

    2014

  3. [3]

    Byungik Ahn. 2015. Real-time video object recognition using convolutional neu- ral network. In 2015 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) . IEEE, 1–7

    2015

  4. [4]

    Preetam Amrit and Amit Kumar Singh. 2022. Survey on watermarking methods in the artificial intelligence domain and beyond. Computer Communications 188 (2022), 52–65

    2022

  5. [5]

    Inge Antrop, Herbert Roeyers, Paulette Van Oost, and Ann Buysse. 2000. Stimu- lation seeking and hyperactivity in children with ADHD. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines 41, 2 (2000), 225–231

    2000

  6. [6]

    L Eugene Arnold, Paul Hodgkins, Jennifer Kahle, Manisha Madhoo, and Geoff Kewley. 2020. Long-term outcomes of ADHD: academic achievement and performance. Journal of attention disorders 24, 1 (2020), 73–85

    2020

  7. [7]

    Archer Library at University of Regina. 2022. https://library.uregina.ca/c.php? g=716890&p=5114329

    2022

  8. [8]

    Rob Barrett, Paul P Maglio, and Daniel C Kellem. 1997. How to personalize the Web. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing systems. 75–82

    1997

Show all 130 references
  1. [9]

    Mathias Bärtl. 2018. YouTube channels, uploads and views: A statistical analysis of the past 10 years. Convergence 24, 1 (2018), 16–32

    2018

  2. [10]

    Concepción Batanero-Ochaíta, Luis De-Marcos, Luis Felipe Rivera, Jaana Holvikivi, José Ramón Hilera, and Salvador Otón Tortosa. 2021. Improving accessibility in online education: comparative analysis of attitudes of blind and deaf students toward an adapted learning platform. ...

    2021

  3. [11]

    BBC. 2025. Adaptive Podcasting. https://www.bbc.co.uk/makerbox/tools/ adaptive-podcasting. Accessed: 2025-07-17

    2025

  4. [12]

    Alessio Bellato, John Perna, Preethi S Ganapathy, Marco Solmi, Andrea Zampieri, Samuele Cortese, and Stephen V Faraone. 2023. Association between ADHD and vision problems. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Molecular Psychiatry 28, 1 (2023), 410–422

    2023

  5. [13]

    Gal Ben-Yehudah and Adi Brann. 2019. Pay attention to digital text: The impact of the media on text comprehension and self-monitoring in higher-education students with ADHD. Research in developmental disabilities 89 (2019), 120–129

    2019

  6. [14]

    Stefanie C Biehl, Ann-Christine Ehlis, Laura D Müller, Andrea Niklaus, Paul Pauli, and Martin J Herrmann. 2013. The impact of task relevance and degree of distraction on stimulus processing. Bmc Neuroscience 14 (2013), 1–11

    2013

  7. [15]

    D Bijlenga, JYM Tjon-Ka-Jie, F Schuijers, and JJS Kooij. 2017. Atypical sensory profiles as core features of adult ADHD, irrespective of autistic symptoms. European Psychiatry 43 (2017), 51–57

    2017

  8. [16]

    Rina Blomberg, Henrik Danielsson, Mary Rudner, Göran BW Söderlund, and Jerker Rönnberg. 2019. Speech processing difficulties in attention deficit hyper- activity disorder. Frontiers in psychology 10 (2019), 1536

    2019

  9. [17]

    Rina Blomberg, Andrea Johansson Capusan, Carine Signoret, Henrik Danielsson, and Jerker Rönnberg. 2021. The effects of working memory load on auditory distraction in adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 15 (2021), 771711

    2021

  10. [18]

    Born2Root. 2025. Born2root/fast-font: This font provides faster reading through facilitating the reading process by guiding the eyes through text with artificial fixation points. https://github.com/Born2Root/Fast-Font

    2025

  11. [19]

    Valeria Borsotti, Andrew Begel, and Pernille Bjørn. 2024. Neurodiversity and the accessible university: exploring organizational barriers, access labor and op- portunities for change. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 8, CSCW1 (2024), 1–27

    2024

  12. [20]

    Bettina Boy, Hans-Jürgen Bucher, and Katharina Christ. 2020. Audiovisual science communication on TV and YouTube. How recipients understand and evaluate science videos. Frontiers in Communication 5 (2020), 608620

    2020

  13. [21]

    Gary Bradski. 2000. The opencv library. Dr. Dobb’s Journal: Software Tools for the Professional Programmer 25, 11 (2000), 120–123

    2000

  14. [22]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77–101

    2006

  15. [23]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2022. Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing aknowingresearcher. International Journal of Transgender Health 24, 1 (Oct. 2022), 1–6. doi:10.1080/ 26895269.2022.2129597

    2022

  16. [24]

    XERXES M Budomo, ECW Pamaran, LOUIEGIE MALLO F So, REYLAN G Ca- puno, NRTD Reyes, LILIBETH C Pinili, and MARJORIE B Añero. 2023. The Im- pact of Bionic Reading on the Reading Motivation and Self-Efficacy of Students with Learning Disabilities. International Journal of Advanced...

    2023

  17. [25]

    Hanoch Cassuto, Anat Ben-Simon, and Itai Berger. 2013. Using environmental distractors in the diagnosis of ADHD. Frontiers in human neuroscience 7 (2013), 805

    2013

  18. [26]

    Stephanie Castillo, Karisa Calvitti, Jeffery Shoup, Madison Rice, Helen Lubbock, and Kendra H Oliver. 2021. Production processes for creating educational videos. CBE—Life Sciences Education 20, 2 (2021), es7

    2021

  19. [27]

    Ya-Liang Chang, Zhe Yu Liu, and Winston Hsu. 2019. Vornet: Spatio-temporally consistent video inpainting for object removal. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops . 0–0

    2019

  20. [28]

    Gail D Chermak, Erin K Somers, and J Anthony Seikel. 1998. Behavioral signs of central auditory processing disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 9, 1 (1998)

    1998

  21. [29]

    Claudia Chiorean, Claudia Crisan, Simona Malaiescu, Anisoara Pavelea, Vasileia Petronikolou, Alexandra Anagnostopoulou, Despoina Petsani, Konstantinos Tagaras, Konstantinos Mitsopoulos, Panagiotis Antoniou, et al. 2024. ADHD and text comprehension: Comparing virtual reality an...

    2024

  22. [30]

    Konstantinos Chorianopoulos. 2018. A taxonomy of asynchronous instructional video styles. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 19, 1 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Jacob Cohen. 2013. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences . rout- ledge

    2013

  24. [32]

    Isabelle Cuber, Juliana G Goncalves De Souza, Irene Jacobs, Caroline Lowman, David Shepherd, Thomas Fritz, and Joshua M Langberg. 2024. Examining the Use of VR as a Study Aid for University Students with ADHD. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Compu...

    2024

  25. [33]

    Maitraye Das, John Tang, Kathryn E Ringland, and Anne Marie Piper. 2021. Towards accessible remote work: Understanding work-from-home practices of neurodivergent professionals. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–30

    2021

  26. [34]

    Ellen Doernberg and Eric Hollander. 2016. Neurodevelopmental disorders (asd and adhd): Dsm-5, icd-10, and icd-11. CNS spectrums 21, 4 (2016), 295–299

    2016

  27. [35]

    Yunus Emre Dönmez, Özlem Özel Özcan, Cem Cankaya, Merve Berker, Pamuk Betül Ulucan Atas, Pelin Nazlı Güntürkün, and Osman Melih Ceylan. 2020. Is contrast sensitivity a physiological marker in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder? Medical hypotheses 145 (2020), 110326

    2020

  28. [36]

    It was something I naturally found worked and heard about later

    Tessa Eagle, Leya Breanna Baltaxe-Admony, and Kathryn E Ringland. 2024. “It was something I naturally found worked and heard about later”: An Investigation of Body Doubling with Neurodivergent Participants. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing 17, 3 (2024), 1–30

    2024

  29. [37]

    Laurent Filliettaz, Stéphanie Garcia, and Marianne Zogmal. 2022. Video-based interaction analysis: A research and training method to understand workplace learning and professional development. In Methods for researching professional learning and development: Challenges, applic...

    2022

  30. [38]

    Sergio Flesca, Sergio Greco, Andrea Tagarelli, and Ester Zumpano. 2005. Mining user preferences, page content and usage to personalize website navigation. World Wide Web 8, 3 (2005), 317–345

    2005

  31. [39]

    John M Gaspar and John J McDonald. 2014. Suppression of salient objects prevents distraction in visual search. Journal of neuroscience 34, 16 (2014), 5658–5666

    2014

  32. [40]

    Ahmad Ghanizadeh. 2010. Sensory processing problems in children with ADHD, a systematic review. Psychiatry investigation 8, 2 (2010), 89

    2010

  33. [41]

    Jamey Graham. 1999. The reader’s helper: a personalized document reading envi- ronment. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 481–488

    1999

  34. [42]

    Yvonne Groen, Ulrike Priegnitz, Anselm BM Fuermaier, Lara Tucha, Oliver Tucha, Steffen Aschenbrenner, Matthias Weisbrod, and Miguel Garcia Pimenta

  35. [43]

    Jonathan Hernández-Capistrán, Giner Alor-Hernández, Laura Nely Sánchez- Morales, and Isaac Machorro-Cano. 2025. A decade of apps for ADHD manage- ment: a scoping review. Behaviour & Information Technology (2025), 1–28

    2025

  36. [44]

    M Ibrahim, PWC Prasad, Abeer Alsadoon, and L Pham. 2016. Synchronous virtual classroom for student with ADHD disorder. In 2016 13th International Joint Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering (JCSSE) . IEEE, 1–6

    2016

  37. [45]

    JaidedAI. 2025. Jaidedai/EasyOCR: Ready-to-use OCR with 80+ supported languages and all popular writing scripts including Latin, Chinese, Arabic, Devanagari, cyrillic and etc.. https://github.com/JaidedAI/EasyOCR. Accessed: 2025-07-17

    2025

  38. [46]

    Lucy Jiang, Woojin Ko, Shirley Yuan, Tanisha Shende, and Shiri Azenkot. 2025. Shifting the Focus: Exploring Video Accessibility Strategies and Challenges for People with ADHD. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25) . Associati...

    2025

  39. [47]

    Matthew Kay and Jacob O Wobbrock. 2016. Package ‘ARTool’.CRAN Repository 2016 (2016), 1–13

    2016

  40. [48]

    Rahima Khanam and Muhammad Hussain. 2024. Yolov11: An overview of the key architectural enhancements. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.17725 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Dahun Kim, Sanghyun Woo, Joon-Young Lee, and In So Kweon. 2019. Deep Video Inpainting. In CVPR ’19

    2019

  42. [50]

    Jeongyeon Kim, Yubin Choi, Minsuk Kahng, and Juho Kim. 2022. Fitvid: Re- sponsive and flexible video content adaptation. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–16

    2022

  43. [51]

    Soyeon Kim, Samantha Chen, and Rosemary Tannock. 2014. Visual function and color vision in adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Journal of optometry 7, 1 (2014), 22–36

    2014

  44. [52]

    René F Kizilcec, Jeremy N Bailenson, and Charles J Gomez. 2015. The instructor’s face in video instruction: Evidence from two large-scale field studies. Journal of Educational Psychology 107, 3 (2015), 724

    2015

  45. [53]

    Judith Kolberg. 2020. Making Choices: Decision Strategies for Adults with ADHD . https://www.additudemag.com/making-choices-adhd-decisions/ Accessed on April 14, 2025

    2020

  46. [54]

    Himanshi Lalwani, Mira Saleh, and Hanan Salam. 2025. A Study Companion for Productivity: Exploring the Role of a Social Robot for College Students with ADHD. In Proceedings of the 2025 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human- Robot Interaction (Melbourne, Australia) (HRI ’2...

    2025

  47. [55]

    Patricia G Lange. 2019. Informal learning on YouTube. The international ency- clopedia of media literacy (2019), 1–11

    2019

  48. [56]

    Ariella Levenberg and Suzan Abu Reesh. 2023. Learning from recorded lectures: Perceptions of students with ADHD. Journal of attention disorders 27, 9 (2023), 960–972

    2023

  49. [57]

    Kai Li, Cheng Zhou, Xin (Robert) Luo, Jose Benitez, and Qinyu Liao. 2022. Impact of information timeliness and richness on public engagement on social media during COVID-19 pandemic: An empirical investigation based on NLP and machine learning. Decision Support Systems 162 (No...

    2022

  50. [58]

    Mengyu Li, Gaofei Li, and Sijia Yang. 2024. Correction by distraction: how high-tempo music enhances medical experts’ debunking TikTok videos. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 29, 5 (2024), zmae007

    2024

  51. [59]

    Xiaoguang Li, Qing Guo, Di Lin, Ping Li, Wei Feng, and Song Wang. 2022. Misf: Multi-level interactive siamese filtering for high-fidelity image inpainting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 1869–1878

    2022

  52. [60]

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. 2024. Visual instruction tuning. NeurIPS ’24 (2024)

    2024

  53. [61]

    Shu-Chiu Liu. 2018. Environmental education through documentaries: Assessing learning outcomes of a general environmental studies course. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 14, 4 (2018), 1371–1381

    2018

  54. [62]

    Irene M Loe and Heidi M Feldman. 2007. Academic and educational outcomes of children with ADHD. Journal of pediatric psychology 32, 6 (2007), 643–654

    2007

  55. [63]

    Jianxun Lou, Hanhe Lin, David Marshall, Dietmar Saupe, and Hantao Liu. 2022. TranSalNet: Towards perceptually relevant visual saliency prediction. Neuro- computing (2022). doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2022.04.080

    2022 doi

  56. [64]

    Yi Luo and Nima Mesgarani. 2018. Tasnet: time-domain audio separation net- work for real-time, single-channel speech separation. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 696–700

    2018

  57. [65]

    Lori McCay-Peet, Mounia Lalmas, and Vidhya Navalpakkam. 2012. On saliency, affect and focused attention. In Proceedings of the sigchi conference on human factors in computing systems . 541–550

    2012

  58. [66]

    Lorna McKnight. 2010. Designing for ADHD in search of guidelines. In IDC 2010 digital technologies and marginalized youth workshop , Vol. 30

    2010

  59. [67]

    Daniel Michelsanti, Zheng-Hua Tan, Shi-Xiong Zhang, Yong Xu, Meng Yu, Dong Yu, and Jesper Jensen. 2021. An overview of deep-learning-based audio-visual speech enhancement and separation. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing 29 (2021), 1368–1396

    2021

  60. [68]

    Shunji Mori, Ching Y Suen, and Kazuhiko Yamamoto. 1992. Historical review of OCR research and development. Proc. IEEE 80, 7 (1992), 1029–1058

    1992

  61. [69]

    Kathleen G Nadeau. 2005. Career choices and workplace challenges for individ- uals with ADHD. Journal of Clinical Psychology 61, 5 (2005), 549–563

    2005

  62. [71]

    Ha Nguyen and Morgan Diederich. 2023. Facilitating knowledge construction in informal learning: A study of TikTok scientific, educational videos. Computers & Education 205 (2023), 104896

    2023

  63. [72]

    Sanne W. C. Nikkelen, Patti M. Valkenburg, Mariette Huizinga, and Brad J. Bush- man. 2014. Media use and ADHD-related behaviors in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Developmental psychology (2014). https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:15418721

    2014

  64. [73]

    Amy O’Connell, Ashveen Banga, Jennifer Ayissi, Nikki Yaminrafie, Ellen Ko, Andrew Le, Bailey Cislowski, and Maja Mataric. 2024. Design and Evaluation of a Socially Assistive Robot Schoolwork Companion for College Students with ADHD. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE Internat...

    2024

  65. [74]

    2024.Americans’ Social Media Use

    Pew Research Center. 2024.Americans’ Social Media Use. Technical Report. https: //www.pewresearch.org/internet/2024/01/31/americans-social-media-use/

    2024

  66. [75]

    Samira Pulatova and Lawrence H Kim. 2024. Co-Designing Programmable Fid- geting Experience with Swarm Robots for Adults with ADHD. In Proceedings of the 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibil- ity (St. John’s, NL, Canada) (ASSETS ’24). Associat...

    2024

  67. [76]

    Lisa Purvis, Steven Harrington, Barry O’Sullivan, and Eugene C Freuder. 2003. Creating personalized documents: an optimization approach. In Proceedings of the 2003 ACM symposium on Document engineering . 68–77

    2003

  68. [77]

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Tao Xu, Greg Brockman, Christine McLeavey, and Ilya Sutskever. 2022. Robust Speech Recognition via Large-Scale Weak Supervision. arXiv:2212.04356 [eess.AS] https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.04356

    2022 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Shwetha Rajaram, Nels Numan, Balasaravanan Thoravi Kumaravel, Nicolai Marquardt, and Andrew D Wilson. 2024. BlendScape: Enabling End-User Cus- tomization of Video-Conferencing Environments through Generative AI. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface...

    2024

  70. [79]

    Ashwin Ram, Han Xiao, Shengdong Zhao, and Chi-Wing Fu. 2023. VidAdapter: Adapting Blackboard-Style Videos for Ubiquitous Viewing. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 7, 3 (2023), 1–19

    2023

  71. [80]

    Sebastián Ramírez. 2025. FastAPI. https://fastapi.tiangolo.com FastAPI frame- work, high performance, easy to learn, fast to code, ready for production

    2025

  72. [81]

    Nikhila Ravi, Valentin Gabeur, Yuan-Ting Hu, Ronghang Hu, Chaitanya Ryali, Tengyu Ma, Haitham Khedr, Roman Rädle, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, et al. 2024. Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00714 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  73. [82]

    React Team. 2025. React. https://react.dev/. Accessed: 2025-07-17

    2025

  74. [83]

    Laura Reale, Beatrice Bartoli, Massimo Cartabia, Michele Zanetti, Maria An- tonella Costantino, Maria Paola Canevini, Cristiano Termine, and Maurizio Bonati. 2017. Comorbidity prevalence and treatment outcome in children and adolescents with ADHD. European Child &amp; Adolesce...

    2017 doi

  75. [84]

    Bryan Reimer, Bruce Mehler, Lisa A D’Ambrosio, and Ronna Fried. 2010. The impact of distractions on young adult drivers with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Accident Analysis & Prevention 42, 3 (2010), 842–851

    2010

  76. [85]

    Luz Rello and Jeffrey P. Bigham. 2017. Good Background Colors for Readers: A Study of People with and without Dyslexia. In Proceedings of the 19th Interna- tional ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Baltimore, Maryland, USA) (ASSETS ’17). Association for C...

    2017

  77. [86]

    ResembleAI. 2025. https://huggingface.co/ResembleAI/resemble-enhance

    2025

  78. [87]

    Walter Roberts, Richard Milich, and Mark T Fillmore. 2012. Constraints on information processing capacity in adults with ADHD. Neuropsychology 26, 6 (2012), 695

    2012

  79. [88]

    Peter Ross and Justus Randolph. 2016. Differences between Students with and without ADHD on Task Vigilance under Conditions of Distraction. Journal of educational research and practice 4, 1 (2016), 1–10

    2016

  80. [89]

    Julia J Rucklidge and Rosemary Tannock. 2002. Neuropsychological profiles of adolescents with ADHD: Effects of reading difficulties and gender. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry 43, 8 (2002), 988–1003

    2002

  81. [90]

    Marija Sablić, Ana Mirosavljević, and Alma Škugor. 2021. Video-based learning (VBL)—past, present and future: An overview of the research published from 2008 to 2019. Technology, Knowledge and Learning 26, 4 (2021), 1061–1077

    2021

  82. [91]

    Andreas Sackl, Franziska Graf, Raimund Schatz, and Manfred Tscheligi. 2020. Ensuring Accessibility: Individual Video Playback Enhancements for Low Vision Users. In Proceedings of the 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Virtual Event, Gre...

    2020

  83. [92]

    Neelima Sailaja, Andy Crabtree, Thomas Lodge, Alan Chamberlain, Paul Coul- ton, Matthew Pilling, and Ian Forrester. 2024. Making of an Adaptive Podcast that Engenders Trust through Data Negotiability. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM International Conference on Interactive Media ...

    2024

  84. [93]

    Nader Salari, Hooman Ghasemi, Nasrin Abdoli, Adibeh Rahmani, Moham- mad Hossain Shiri, Amir Hossein Hashemian, Hakimeh Akbari, and Masoud Mohammadi. 2023. The global prevalence of ADHD in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Italian Journal of Pedia...

    2023 doi

  85. [94]

    George Savulich, Emily Thorp, Thomas Piercy, Katie A Peterson, John D Pickard, and Barbara J Sahakian. 2019. Improvements in attention following cognitive training with the novel “decoder” game on an iPad. Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience 13 (2019), 2

    2019

  86. [95]

    Andreas Schellewald. 2021. On getting carried away by the TikTok algorithm. AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research (2021)

    2021

  87. [96]

    Stephen Schepman, Lisa Weyandt, Sarah Diane Schlect, and Anthony Swentosky

  88. [97]

    Alexander Schneidt, Aiste Jusyte, Karsten Rauss, and Michael Schönenberg

  89. [98]

    Chris C Sexton, Heather L Gelhorn, Jill A Bell, and Peter M Classi. 2012. The co-occurrence of reading disorder and ADHD: Epidemiology, treatment, psy- chosocial impact, and economic burden. Journal of learning disabilities 45, 6 (2012), 538–564

    2012

  90. [99]

    Mohammad Javad Shafiee, Brendan Chywl, Francis Li, and Alexander Wong

  91. [100]

    Rebecca Shaw and Vicky Lewis. 2005. The impact of computer-mediated and traditional academic task presentation on the performance and behaviour of children with ADHD. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 5, 2 (2005), 47–54

    2005

  92. [101]

    Zixing Shen, Songxin Tan, and Michael J Pritchard. 2022. Understanding the effects of visual cueing on social media engagement with YouTube educational videos. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 65, 2 (2022), 337–350

    2022

  93. [102]

    Silva, Franceli L

    Lucas M. Silva, Franceli L. Cibrian, Clarisse Bonang, Arpita Bhattacharya, Ae- hong Min, Elissa M Monteiro, Jesus Armando Beltran, Sabrina Schuck, Kim- berley D Lakes, Gillian R. Hayes, and Daniel A. Epstein. 2024. Co-Designing Situated Displays for Family Co-Regulation with A...

    2024

  94. [103]

    Silva, Franceli L

    Lucas M. Silva, Franceli L. Cibrian, Elissa Monteiro, Arpita Bhattacharya, Jesus A. Beltran, Clarisse Bonang, Daniel A. Epstein, Sabrina E. B. Schuck, Kimberley D. Lakes, and Gillian R. Hayes. 2023. Unpacking the Lived Experiences of Smart- watch Mediated Self and Co-Regulatio...

    2023

  95. [104]

    Esther Sobanski. 2006. Psychiatric comorbidity in adults with attention- deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). European Archives of Psychiatry and Clin- ical Neuroscience 256, S1 (Sept. 2006), i26–i31. doi:10.1007/s00406-006-1004-4

    2006 doi

  96. [105]

    Tobias Sonne and Mads Møller Jensen. 2016. ChillFish: A Respiration Game for Children with ADHD. InProceedings of the TEI ’16: Tenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (Eindhoven, Netherlands) (TEI ’16). Association for Computing Machinery...

    2016

  97. [106]

    Feger, Paul Marshall, Yvonne Rogers, and Jasmin Niess

    Evropi Stefanidi, Johannes Schöning, Sebastian S. Feger, Paul Marshall, Yvonne Rogers, and Jasmin Niess. 2022. Designing for Care Ecosystems: a Literature Review of Technologies for Children with ADHD. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Confe...

    2022

  98. [107]

    Woźniak, Gun- nar Spellmeyer, Yvonne Rogers, and Jasmin Niess

    Evropi Stefanidi, Jonathan Luis Benjamin Wassmann, Paweł W. Woźniak, Gun- nar Spellmeyer, Yvonne Rogers, and Jasmin Niess. 2024. MoodGems: Designing for the Well-being of Children with ADHD and their Families at Home. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Interaction Design an...

    2024

  99. [108]

    Jared D Stokes, Albert Rizzo, Joy J Geng, and Julie B Schweitzer. 2022. Measuring attentional distraction in children with ADHD using virtual reality technology with eye-tracking. Frontiers in virtual reality 3 (2022), 855895

    2022

  100. [109]

    Mohan Sunkara, Yash Prakash, Hae-Na Lee, Sampath Jayarathna, and Vikas Ashok. 2023. Enabling customization of discussion forums for blind users. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, EICS (2023), 1–20

    2023

  101. [110]

    Roman Suvorov, Elizaveta Logacheva, Anton Mashikhin, Anastasia Remizova, Arsenii Ashukha, Aleksei Silvestrov, Naejin Kong, Harshith Goka, Kiwoong Park, and Victor Lempitsky. 2021. Resolution-robust Large Mask Inpainting with Fourier Convolutions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07161 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  102. [111]

    Roman Suvorov, Elizaveta Logacheva, Anton Mashikhin, Anastasia Remizova, Arsenii Ashukha, Aleksei Silvestrov, Naejin Kong, Harshith Goka, Kiwoong Park, and Victor Lempitsky. 2022. Resolution-robust large mask inpainting with fourier convolutions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF...

    2022

  103. [112]

    Tien Tran, Hae-Na Lee, and Ji Hwan Park. 2024. Discovering Accessible Data Visualizations for People with ADHD. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–19

    2024

  104. [113]

    Lara Tucha, Anselm BM Fuermaier, Janneke Koerts, Rieka Buggenthin, Steffen Aschenbrenner, Matthias Weisbrod, Johannes Thome, Klaus W Lange, and Oliver Tucha. 2017. Sustained attention in adult ADHD: time-on-task effects of various measures of attention. Journal of neural trans...

    2017

  105. [114]

    General Services Administration

    U.S. General Services Administration. 2025. Understanding Accessible Fonts and Typography for Section 508 Compliance. https://www.section508.gov/develop/ fonts-typography/. https://www.section508.gov/develop/fonts-typography/ Accessed: 2025-04-15

    2025

  106. [115]

    Srinivasan P Vijyeta Bhasin, Uma J Deaver, and Jyoti Sarin. 2020. Effect of Video based Teaching on Knowledge and Attitude regarding ADHD of Children among Primary School Teachers. Medico Legal Update 20, 3 (2020), 381–388

    2020

  107. [116]

    William Villegas-Ch, Joselin García-Ortiz, and Santiago Sánchez-Viteri. 2024. Personalization of learning: Machine learning models for adapting educational content to individual learning styles. IEEE Access (2024)

    2024

  108. [117]

    Krzysztof Wach, Cong Doanh Duong, Joanna Ejdys, R¯uta Kazlauskait˙e, Pawel Korzynski, Grzegorz Mazurek, Joanna Paliszkiewicz, and Ewa Ziemba. 2023. The dark side of generative artificial intelligence: A critical analysis of controversies and risks of ChatGPT. Entrepreneurial B...

    2023

  109. [118]

    Timothy E Wilens and Thomas J Spencer. 2010. Understanding attention- deficit/hyperactivity disorder from childhood to adulthood. Postgrad. Med. 122, 5 (Sept. 2010), 97–109

    2010

  110. [119]

    Tappin, Adam J

    Chloe Wittenberg, Ben M. Tappin, Adam J. Berinsky, and David G. Rand. 2021. The (minimal) persuasive advantage of political video over text. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, 47 (Nov. 2021). doi:10.1073/pnas. 2114388118

    2021 doi

  111. [120]

    Haijun Xia, Hui Xin Ng, Chen Zhu-Tian, and James Hollan. 2022. Millions and billions of views: Understanding popular science and knowledge communication on video-sharing platforms. In Proceedings of the ninth ACM conference on learning@ scale. 163–174

    2022

  112. [121]

    Danni Xu, Shaojing Fan, and Mohan Kankanhalli. 2023. Combating misin- formation in the era of generative AI models. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia . 9291–9298

    2023

  113. [122]

    Rui Yao, Guosheng Lin, Shixiong Xia, Jiaqi Zhao, and Yong Zhou. 2020. Video object segmentation and tracking: A survey. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST) 11, 4 (2020), 1–47

    2020

  114. [123]

    YouTube Help. 2025. Video Chapters. https://support.google.com/youtube/ answer/9884579?hl=en Accessed on April 14, 2025

    2025

  115. [124]

    Sydney S Zentall and Thomas R Zentall. 1983. Optimal stimulation: a model of disordered activity and performance in normal and deviant children. Psycholog- ical bulletin 94, 3 (1983), 446

    1983

  116. [125]

    Han Zhang, Tessa R Abagis, Clara J Steeby, and John Jonides. 2024. Lingering on distraction: Examining distractor rejection in adults with ADHD. Visual Cognition (2024), 1–15

    2024

  117. [126]

    Kaidong Zhang, Jingjing Fu, and Dong Liu. 2022. Inertia-guided flow completion and style fusion for video inpainting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 5982–5991

    2022

  118. [127]

    Zoom. 2025. Zoom. https://www.zoom.com/en/products/virtual-meetings/ features/virtual-background-library/. Accessed: 2025-07-17

    2025

  119. [2012]

    Journal of Attention Disorders 16, 1 (2012), 3–12

    The relationship between ADHD symptomology and decision making. Journal of Attention Disorders 16, 1 (2012), 3–12

    2012

  120. [2017]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.05943 (2017)

    Fast YOLO: A fast you only look once system for real-time embedded object detection in video. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.05943 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  121. [2018]

    Cortex 101 (2018), 206–220

    Distraction by salient stimuli in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Evidence for the role of task difficulty in bottom-up and top-down processing. Cortex 101 (2018), 206–220

    2018

  122. [2020]

    Testing the relation between ADHD and hyperfocus experiences.Research in Developmental Disabilities 107 (2020), 103789

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.