Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 134 references

AR that ranks objects by importance steers low-vision attention toward what matters most, but cluttering the scene with many marks costs overall recall.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-14 08:24 UTC pith:GVZV2IQN

load-bearing objection Solid ASSETS-style HCI paper: multi-object AR distinction for low vision produces a clear attention-recall tradeoff and concrete clutter failure modes that prior single-target systems never measured. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.10902 v1 pith:GVZV2IQN submitted 2026-07-12 cs.HC

What to Distinguish and How? Opportunities and Challenges of Augmenting Multiple, Cluttered Objects in Complex Scenes for People with Low Vision

Yuheng Wu , Ruijia Chen , Jaewook Lee , Jia Li , Kexin Zhang , Mengfong Lio , Weibing Wang , Sanbrita Mondal
show 3 more authors
Jon E. Froehlich Yapeng Tian Yuhang Zhao
This is my paper
classification cs.HC
keywords AccessibilityAugmented RealityLow VisionVision EnhancementMulti-object AugmentationComplex ScenesAttention Allocation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

People with low vision struggle in busy kitchens and crowded streets because residual vision cannot quickly pick out the few objects that matter amid clutter and motion. Prior AR tools either boost low-level edges everywhere or highlight only one task target in tidy settings. This paper argues that complex scenes need a different approach: detect multiple important objects and visually distinguish them by importance so attention can be guided without equal-weight overload. SceneGlance implements that idea on a head-mounted display using outlines, solid overlays, and icon labels whose form, color, or extra information signal primary versus secondary importance. In a controlled kitchen study and an outdoor street walk, importance distinction shifted first looks and recall ratios toward primary-important objects and enabled strategies such as building a mental snapshot from the spatial pattern of marks and scanning hierarchically. The same multi-object marks reduced total scene recall relative to bare vision, and introduced new confusions when adjacent marks merged, partially occluded objects looked incomplete, or outdoor lighting washed out color differences. The result is a concrete map of what multi-object AR can buy and what it costs when scenes are dense and dynamic.

Core claim

Visually distinguishing objects by importance level (primary versus secondary) with AR shifts people with low vision’s attention toward higher-importance objects, supports new perception strategies such as mental snapshots from augmentation distribution and hierarchical scanning, and at the same time reduces overall scene recall compared with no augmentation—an attention–recall tradeoff—while surfacing specific design failures when many marks collide in cluttered or dynamic scenes.

What carries the argument

AR distinction: the deliberate use of different base augmentations (static outline, solid overlay, icon label) and/or different visual dimensions (form, color, extra information) so that primary-important objects are rendered more saliently than secondary-important ones, implemented in the SceneGlance wearable system.

Load-bearing premise

The primary/secondary importance labels and augmentation guidelines drawn from a formative study of only six people with low vision transfer well enough to new users and to uncontrolled real scenes that the measured attention shifts and design problems remain valid.

What would settle it

A replication of the kitchen countertop task in which the same objects are randomly reassigned to primary versus secondary importance (or left undistinguished) and neither the first-noticed primary rate nor the primary recall ratio rises under the AR-distinction condition relative to bare vision and equal-augmentation baselines.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper investigates multi-object AR augmentation with importance-based visual distinction for people with low vision (PLV) in complex scenes. A formative study with six PLV characterizes important objects (safety-related, visually challenging, frequently used) and two importance factors (risk severity, visual difficulty), yielding design guidelines. The authors build SceneGlance, a HoloLens system that detects and segments important objects with fine-tuned RTMDet models and renders three base augmentations and three AR distinction methods (by form, color, additional visual information), with customization. Study I (N=12, Latin-square counterbalanced kitchen countertop with 30–33 objects) compares Reality baseline, equal AR augmentation, and SceneGlance; Study II (N=13 outdoor think-aloud on a ~335 m route) probes dynamic outdoor use. Main claims: AR distinction shifts attention toward primary-important objects (higher primary recall ratio and first-noticed rate vs. Reality), supports mental-snapshot and hierarchical-scanning strategies, but multi-object augmentation reduces overall scene recall (attention–recall tradeoff), and complex scenes introduce challenges such as adjacent-augmentation blending, occlusion amplification, surface-outline interference, and lighting-dependent preference shifts.

Significance. The work addresses a clear gap: prior AR for low vision either enhances low-level features globally or augments few task-relevant objects in simple settings, whereas complex multi-object scenes are underexplored. The controlled kitchen experiment is carefully designed (counterbalancing, LME/ART ANOVA with Bonferroni, chi-square on first-noticed objects, order-effect disclosure) and yields a concrete, actionable finding—the attention–recall tradeoff—plus qualitative strategies and design challenges (adjacent blending, icon misalignment, continuous surfaces, path-crossing importance for dynamic objects). Technical evaluation reports mAP, latency (~176 ms, ~28.6 FPS), and outdoor false-negative/false-positive rates. Design implications (spatial-relation-aware distinction, anchor support, trajectory-based importance, adaptive granularity) are grounded in the data and useful for the accessibility/AR community even if the formative taxonomy is provisional.

major comments (2)
  1. The primary/secondary importance taxonomy and object lists that drive SceneGlance labeling and augmentation (formative §3.2; kitchen/outdoor class lists in §4.2.1) rest on N=6. The paper does not claim universality and scopes claims to measured within-study effects under its own labels, so this is not a circularity problem. Still, for the design implications in §7.1 to travel, the manuscript should more explicitly bound external validity: state that importance cutoffs are formative-derived and free parameters, and either report sensitivity of the attention-shift results to alternative primary/secondary assignments or recommend a lightweight personalization step before deployment.
  2. Study I reports a significant Condition effect on overall recall and non-important recall (both p=0.003 after Bonferroni) with no significant difference between AR baseline and SceneGlance, while primary-important recall ratio and first-noticed distribution favor SceneGlance over Reality. The attention–recall tradeoff is therefore well supported for multi-object augmentation vs. no augmentation, but the incremental benefit of distinction over equal AR is carried mainly by first-noticed distribution and qualitative strategies, not by recall of important objects. The abstract and §5.3.2–5.3.3 should state this nuance more precisely so readers do not over-read distinction as improving recall of important objects.
minor comments (6)
  1. Table 1 and §4.3.2: report confidence intervals or standard errors for mAP/AP@50/AP@75, and note the IoU/confidence thresholds used at deployment (Appendix C uses 0.3 IoU / 0.45 confidence) so recognition claims are fully reproducible.
  2. §5.2.1: order effects on overall and non-important recall are disclosed; briefly discuss whether they could attenuate or inflate the Condition contrast on those measures, or report Condition effects with Order as a covariate if already fitted.
  3. Figure 7 and Figure 9 captions are informative; ensure in-text callouts name the specific failure mode (e.g., “merged outlines misread as a pitcher”) so readers can map qualitative themes to images without hunting.
  4. §4.2.1: the outdoor primary/secondary split lists many safety-related classes as primary; a short sentence on how borderline cases (e.g., sidewalk vs. curb) were resolved would help others reuse the labeling scheme.
  5. Limitations (§7.2) already note modest N and free-form outdoor design; add one sentence that recognition false negatives on curb cuts/crosswalks (Appendix C) remain a safety-critical deployment risk even when false positives are less harmful.
  6. Minor polish: ensure consistent hyphenation of “primary-important” / “secondary-important” and fix any residual “likelihood of their likelihood” phrasing in §6.2.2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: formative taxonomy is an independent design input; evaluation metrics are measured on held-out participants and conditions, not defined by construction from those inputs.

full rationale

This is an empirical HCI systems paper, not a first-principles derivation. The load-bearing claims (attention shift toward primary-important objects via higher recall ratio and first-noticed rate vs. Reality baseline; attention-recall tradeoff with lower overall recall under multi-object AR; qualitative strategies and outdoor challenges) rest on controlled kitchen trials (N=12, counterbalanced conditions, LME/ART with Bonferroni correction, chi-square on first-noticed objects) and a free-form outdoor think-aloud (N=13). Importance categories and AR distinction guidelines come from a separate formative sample (N=6) and are used as a technology-probe scaffold to label objects and choose designs; they are not re-derived from, nor statistically forced by, the evaluation outcomes. Recognition models are fine-tuned and reported with standard mAP/AP metrics against baselines; system latency is measured, not fitted to the human-subject results. Self-citations (e.g., CookAR, CueSee, ForeSee, VisiMark) appear as related prior systems or baselines, not as uniqueness theorems or load-bearing premises that force the present results. No equation equates a fitted parameter to a claimed prediction; no outcome is definitionally identical to its input. The paper is self-contained against its own experimental contrasts. Score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 3 invented entities

The central empirical claims rest on formative-derived importance categories, a fine-tuned detector whose accuracy is independently measured, and standard HCI experimental assumptions. No free parameters are fitted to the main attention/recall outcomes; design parameters are user-customizable. Invented constructs (AR distinction, primary/secondary labels) are operationalized and tested rather than postulated as unobservable entities.

free parameters (3)
  • primary vs secondary importance cutoffs
    Objects are manually partitioned into primary/secondary/non-important from formative ratings; the partition is a design choice that directly determines which augmentations appear and therefore the measured attention shift.
  • detection confidence and IoU thresholds (0.45 / 0.3)
    Deployment thresholds used for outdoor false-positive/negative analysis; chosen for the prototype rather than derived.
  • augmentation visual parameters (color, opacity, outline thickness, icon size)
    User-customizable defaults (yellow primary, blue secondary, etc.) that affect visibility and therefore preference and strategy reports.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption People with low vision prefer residual-vision visual enhancements over purely audio descriptions for complex scene perception.
    Stated in Related Work and used to justify AR over MLLM audio systems; drawn from cited preference studies.
  • domain assumption Object importance for PLV is primarily determined by risk severity and visual difficulty (plus frequent use).
    Derived from formative study (§3.2.2) and used to label all training and evaluation objects.
  • domain assumption HoloLens environmental mesh + raycast yields sufficiently accurate 3D placement for the studied static and slow-moving objects.
    Implementation premise in §4.2.2; latency compensation is described but mesh error is not quantified.
  • ad hoc to paper A mock kitchen countertop with 30–33 objects and a 335 m pre-planned outdoor route are adequate proxies for complex real-world scenes.
    Apparatus choices in §5.1.2 and §6.1.2 that bound the ecological validity of the attention and challenge findings.
invented entities (3)
  • AR distinction no independent evidence
    purpose: Visually differentiate objects of different importance levels via form, color, or additional visual information so that multi-object augmentation does not create uniform clutter.
    Core design construct introduced after formative study; operationalized in three methods and evaluated against uniform AR baseline.
  • SceneGlance no independent evidence
    purpose: Wearable AR prototype that detects, localizes, and renders importance-distinguished augmentations in real time.
    Technology probe used to surface opportunities and challenges; not claimed as a production system.
  • primary-important / secondary-important object categories no independent evidence
    purpose: Two-level taxonomy that drives which base augmentation and visual weight each detected object receives.
    Constructed from formative ratings; used both for model labels and for experimental conditions.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 40313 in / 3131 out tokens · 41068 ms · 2026-07-14T08:24:37.659797+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

People with low vision (PLV) struggle to perceive complex scenes like busy kitchens and crowded streets, which contain many objects, visual clutter, and dynamic elements. Prior AR systems for low vision either enhance low-level visual features or augment task-relevant objects for single tasks in simple settings, leaving multi-object augmentation in complex scenes underexplored. Informed by a formative study characterizing important objects and their perceived importance for PLV, we built SceneGlance, a wearable AR system that recognizes important objects and visually distinguishes them by importance level. Through a controlled lab study with 12 PLV in a mock-up kitchen scene and a free-form think-aloud study with 13 PLV navigating an outdoor route, we found that AR distinction on object importance shifted PLV's attention toward objects of higher importance, and supported perception strategies such as building mental snapshots from the augmentation distribution and hierarchical scanning by importance. However, this attention shift came with a tradeoff, as augmenting many objects reduced overall scene recall. The studies also surfaced challenges posed by AR augmentations in complex scenes, such as adjacent augmentations blending or interfering with each other, yielding design implications for more practical AR vision enhancement systems in the complex real world.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.10902 by Jaewook Lee, Jia Li, Jon E. Froehlich, Kexin Zhang, Mengfong Lio, Ruijia Chen, Sanbrita Mondal, Weibing Wang, Yapeng Tian, Yuhang Zhao, Yuheng Wu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: We explore the opportunities and design challenges of augmenting and distinguishing multiple objects in complex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Research method overview. A formative study with six PLV characterized important objects, their perceived importance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: An illustration of the three AR distinction methods in SceneGlance. (A) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: System pipeline of SceneGlance: the HoloLens (frontend) streams video to the backend; the backend runs the fine-tuned [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example inference results of the two fine-tuned models on test images in the kitchen (A) and outdoor environment (B, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Kitchen Countertop Perception Task. (A) Participants sat at a mock-up kitchen table with 30–33 kitchen objects, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Examples of perception challenges in Study I. (A) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The route for the outdoor navigation study, which [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Examples of perception challenges identified in Study II. (A) Outlines of the sidewalk and a railway track crossed the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Example scenarios and augmentation designs in the formative study design probe. (A)-(B) Two example kitchen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Example distinction methods in the formative study design probe. (A) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

134 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Walid I Al-Atabany, Muhammad A Memon, Susan M Downes, and Patrick A Degenaar. 2010. Designing and testing scene enhancement algorithms for patients with retina degenerative disorders.Biomedical engineering online9, 1 (2010), 27

    2010

  2. [2]

    Alexandre Alahi, Kratarth Goel, Vignesh Ramanathan, Alexandre Robicquet, Li Fei-Fei, and Silvio Savarese. 2016. Social lstm: Human trajectory prediction in crowded spaces. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 961–971. ASSETS ’26, October 25–28, 2026, Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal Wu et al

    2016

  3. [3]

    George A Alvarez and Patrick Cavanagh. 2004. The capacity of visual short- term memory is set both by visual information load and by number of objects. Psychological science15, 2 (2004), 106–111

    2004

  4. [4]

    Anastasios Nikolas Angelopoulos, Hossein Ameri, Debbie Mitra, and Mark Humayun. 2019. Enhanced depth navigation through augmented reality depth mapping in patients with low vision.Scientific reports9, 1 (2019), 11230

    2019

  5. [5]

    Richard A Armstrong. 2014. When to use the B onferroni correction.Ophthalmic and physiological optics34, 5 (2014), 502–508

    2014

  6. [6]

    American Optometric Association. 2023. Legal blindness in America — aoa.org. https://www.aoa.org/news/clinical-eye-care/diseases-and-conditions/ legal-blindness-in-america?sso=y. [Accessed 12-03-2025]

    2023

  7. [7]

    Marie Claire Bilyk, Jessica M Sontrop, Gwen E Chapman, Susan I Barr, and Linda Mamer. 2009. Food experiences and eating patterns of visually impaired and blind people.Canadian Journal of Dietetic practice and research70, 1 (2009), 13–18

    2009

  8. [8]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology3, 2 (2006), 77–101

    2006

  9. [9]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2024. Thematic analysis. InEncyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. Springer, 7187–7193

    2024

  10. [10]

    Xiaoqian J Chai, Noa Ofen, Lucia F Jacobs, and John DE Gabrieli. 2010. Scene complexity: influence on perception, memory, and development in the medial temporal lobe.Frontiers in human neuroscience4 (2010), 1021

    2010

  11. [11]

    Ruei-Che Chang, Yuxuan Liu, and Anhong Guo. 2024. Worldscribe: Towards context-aware live visual descriptions. InProceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1–18

    2024

  12. [12]

    Xiaojun Chang, Pengzhen Ren, Pengfei Xu, Zhihui Li, Xiaojiang Chen, and Alex Hauptmann. 2021. A comprehensive survey of scene graphs: Generation and application.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence45, 1 (2021), 1–26

    2021

  13. [13]

    Ruijia Chen, Junru Jiang, Pragati Maheshwary, Brianna R Cochran, and Yuhang Zhao. 2025. VisiMark: Characterizing and Augmenting Landmarks for People with Low Vision in Augmented Reality to Support Indoor Navigation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.10561(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    2013.Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences

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

    2013

  15. [15]

    Dima Damen, Hazel Doughty, Giovanni Maria Farinella, Sanja Fidler, Antonino Furnari, Evangelos Kazakos, Davide Moltisanti, Jonathan Munro, Toby Perrett, Will Price, and Michael Wray. 2018. Scaling Egocentric Vision: The EPIC- KITCHENS Dataset. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)

    2018

  16. [16]

    Raghavendra Singh Dasila, Meet Trivedi, Shubham Soni, M Senthil, and M Narendran. 2017. Real time environment perception for visually impaired. In 2017 IEEE Technological Innovations in ICT for Agriculture and Rural Development (TIAR). IEEE, 168–172

    2017

  17. [17]

    Johanne Desrosiers, Marie-Chantal Wanet-Defalque, Khatoune Témisjian, Jacques Gresset, Marie-France Dubois, Judith Renaud, Claude Vincent, Jacque- line Rousseau, Mathieu Carignan, and Olga Overbury. 2009. Participation in daily activities and social roles of older adults with visual impairment.Disability and rehabilitation31, 15 (2009), 1227–1234

    2009

  18. [18]

    Juan C Dibene and Enrique Dunn. 2022. HoloLens 2 Sensor Streaming.arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.02648(2022)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    Olive Jean Dunn. 1961. Multiple comparisons among means.Journal of the American statistical association56, 293 (1961), 52–64

    1961

  20. [20]

    Martin Eckert, Matthias Blex, Christoph M Friedrich, et al. 2018. Object detection featuring 3D audio localization for Microsoft HoloLens. InProc. 11th Int. Joint Conf. on Biomedical Engineering Systems and Technologies, Vol. 5. 555–561

    2018

  21. [21]

    Elkin, Matthew Kay, James J

    Lisa A. Elkin, Matthew Kay, James J. Higgins, and Jacob O. Wobbrock. 2021. An Aligned Rank Transform Procedure for Multifactor Contrast Tests. InThe 34th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology(Virtual Event, USA)(UIST ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 754–768. doi:10.1145/3472749.3474784

    doi:10.1145/3472749.3474784 2021

  22. [22]

    Niklas Elmqvist and Philippas Tsigas. 2008. A taxonomy of 3d occlusion manage- ment for visualization.IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 14, 5 (2008), 1095–1109

    2008

  23. [23]

    MR Everingham, BT Thomas, T Troscianko, et al. 1999. Head-mounted mobility aid for low vision using scene classification techniques.The International Journal of Virtual Reality3, 4 (1999), 3

    1999

  24. [24]

    Mark Everingham, Luc Van Gool, Christopher KI Williams, John Winn, and Andrew Zisserman. 2010. The pascal visual object classes (voc) challenge. International journal of computer vision88 (2010), 303–338

    2010

  25. [25]

    Fox, Ahmad Ahmadzada, Clara T

    Dylan R. Fox, Ahmad Ahmadzada, Clara T. Friedman, Shiri Azenkot, Marlena A. Chu, Roberto Manduchi, and Emily A. Cooper. 2023. Using augmented reality to cue obstacles for people with low vision.Opt. Express31, 4 (Feb 2023), 6827–6848. doi:10.1364/OE.479258

    work page doi:10.1364/oe.479258 2023

  26. [26]

    Bhanuka Gamage, Nicola McDowell, Dijana Kovacic, Leona Holloway, Thanh- Toan Do, Arthur James Lowery, Nicholas Price, and Kim Marriott. 2025. Smart Glasses for CVI: Co-Designing Extended Reality Solutions to Support Environ- mental Perception by People with Cerebral Visual Impairment. InProceedings of the 27th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Com...

    2025

  27. [27]

    Yun Gao, Dan Wu, Jie Song, Xueyi Zhang, Bangbang Hou, Hengfa Liu, Junqi Liao, and Liang Zhou. 2025. A wearable obstacle avoidance device for visually impaired individuals with cross-modal learning.Nature Communications16, 1 (2025), 2857

    2025

  28. [28]

    Google. 2025. Protocol Buffers. https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers. Accessed: 2025-03-30

    2025

  29. [29]

    Tenen- baum, Antonio Torralba, Florian Shkurti, and Liam Paull

    Qiao Gu, Alihusein Kuwajerwala, Sacha Morin, Krishna Murthy Jatavallab- hula, Bipasha Sen, Aditya Agarwal, Corban Rivera, William Paul, Kirsty El- lis, Rama Chellappa, Chuang Gan, Celso Miguel de Melo, Joshua B. Tenen- baum, Antonio Torralba, Florian Shkurti, and Liam Paull. 2023. Concept- Graphs: Open-Vocabulary 3D Scene Graphs for Perception and Plannin...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    Fangli Guan, Zhixiang Fang, Lubin Wang, Xucai Zhang, Haoyu Zhong, and Haosheng Huang. 2022. Modelling people’s perceived scene complexity of real-world environments using street-view panoramas and open geodata.ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing186 (2022), 315–331

    2022

  31. [31]

    Agrim Gupta, Justin Johnson, Li Fei-Fei, Silvio Savarese, and Alexandre Alahi

  32. [32]

    InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Social gan: Socially acceptable trajectories with generative adversarial networks. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2255–2264

  33. [33]

    Yu Hao, Alexey Magay, Hao Huang, Shuaihang Yuan, Congcong Wen, and Yi Fang. 2024. ChatMap: A Wearable Platform Based on the Multi-modal Foun- dation Model to Augment Spatial Cognition for People with Blindness and Low Vision. In2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 129–134

    2024

  34. [34]

    Yu Hao, Fan Yang, Hao Huang, Shuaihang Yuan, Sundeep Rangan, John-Ross Rizzo, Yao Wang, and Yi Fang. 2024. A multi-modal foundation model to assist people with blindness and low vision in environmental interaction.Journal of Imaging10, 5 (2024), 103

    2024

  35. [35]

    Sharon A Haymes, Alan W Johnston, and Anthony D Heyes. 2002. Relationship between vision impairment and ability to perform activities of daily living. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics22, 2 (2002), 79–91

    2002

  36. [36]

    John M Henderson, Myriam Chanceaux, and Tim J Smith. 2009. The influence of clutter on real-world scene search: Evidence from search efficiency and eye movements.Journal of vision9, 1 (2009), 32–32

    2009

  37. [37]

    John M Henderson, Taylor R Hayes, Candace E Peacock, and Gwendolyn Rehrig

  38. [38]

    Meaning and attentional guidance in scenes: A review of the meaning map approach.Vision3, 2 (2019), 19

    2019

  39. [39]

    Marion Hersh. 2022. Wearable travel aids for blind and partially sighted people: A review with a focus on design issues.Sensors22, 14 (2022), 5454

    2022

  40. [40]

    Stephen L Hicks, Iain Wilson, Louwai Muhammed, John Worsfold, Susan M Downes, and Christopher Kennard. 2013. A depth-based head-mounted visual display to aid navigation in partially sighted individuals.PloS one8, 7 (2013), e67695

    2013

  41. [41]

    Jonathan Huang, Max Kinateder, Matt J Dunn, Wojciech Jarosz, Xing-Dong Yang, and Emily A Cooper. 2019. An augmented reality sign-reading assistant for users with reduced vision.PloS one14, 1 (2019), e0210630

    2019

  42. [42]

    Alex D Hwang and Eli Peli. 2014. An augmented-reality edge enhancement application for Google Glass.Optometry and vision science91, 8 (2014), 1021– 1030

    2014

  43. [43]

    National Eye Institute. 2025. Low Vision | National Eye Institute — nei.nih.gov. https://www.nei.nih.gov/learn-about-eye-health/eye-conditions- and-diseases/low-vision. [Accessed 19-06-2024]

    2025

  44. [44]

    Md Touhidul Islam, Imran Kabir, Elena Ariel Pearce, Md Alimoor Reza, and Syed Masum Billah. 2024. Identifying Crucial Objects in Blind and Low-Vision Individuals’ Navigation. InProceedings of the 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 1–8

    2024

  45. [45]

    Watthanasak Jeamwatthanachai, Mike Wald, and Gary Wills. 2019. Indoor navigation by blind people: Behaviors and challenges in unfamiliar spaces and buildings.British Journal of Visual Impairment37, 2 (2019), 140–153. doi:10. 1177/0264619619833723

    2019

  46. [46]

    Nabila Jones, Hannah Elizabeth Bartlett, and Richard Cooke. 2019. An analysis of the impact of visual impairment on activities of daily living and vision-related quality of life in a visually impaired adult population.British Journal of Visual Impairment37, 1 (2019), 50–63

    2019

  47. [47]

    Amy A Kalia, Gordon E Legge, and Nicholas A Giudice. 2008. Learning building layouts with non-geometric visual information: The effects of visual impairment and age.Perception37, 11 (2008), 1677–1699

    2008

  48. [48]

    Avyay Ravi Kashyap. 2020. Behaviors, Problems and Strategies of Visually Impaired Persons During Meal Preparation in the Indian Context: Challenges and Opportunities for Design. InProceedings of the 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 101, ...

    arXiv 2020

  49. [49]

    Liam Kettle and Yi-Ching Lee. 2022. Augmented reality for vehicle-driver communication: a systematic review.Safety8, 4 (2022), 84. SceneGlance ASSETS ’26, October 25–28, 2026, Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal

    2022

  50. [50]

    Doaa Khattab, Julie Buelow, and Donna Saccuteli. 2015. Understanding the barriers: Grocery stores and visually impaired shoppers.Journal of accessibility and design for all: JACCES5, 2 (2015), 157–173

    2015

  51. [51]

    Daniel Killough, Justin Feng, Zheng Xue Ching, Daniel Wang, Rithvik Dyava, Yapeng Tian, and Yuhang Zhao. 2025. VRSight: An AI-Driven Scene Description System to Improve Virtual Reality Accessibility for Blind People. InProceedings of the 38th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, Ne...

    doi:10.1145/3746059.3747641 2025

  52. [52]

    Benjamin Kommey, Kumbong Herrman, and Ernest Ofosu Addo. 2019. A smart vision based navigation aid for the visually impaired.Asian Journal of Research in Computer Science4, 3 (2019), 1–8

    2019

  53. [53]

    Masaki Kuribayashi, Kohei Uehara, Allan Wang, Shigeo Morishima, and Chieko Asakawa. 2025. Wanderguide: Indoor map-less robotic guide for exploration by blind people. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–21

    2025

  54. [54]

    Alexandra Kuznetsova, Per B Brockhoff, and Rune HB Christensen. 2017. lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models.Journal of statistical software82 (2017), 1–26

    2017

  55. [55]

    MiYoung Kwon, Chaithanya Ramachandra, PremNandhini Satgunam, Bartlett W Mel, Eli Peli, and Bosco S Tjan. 2012. Contour enhancement benefits older adults with simulated central field loss.Optometry and vision science89, 9 (2012), 1374– 1384

    2012

  56. [56]

    Cameron Kyle-Davidson, Elizabeth Yue Zhou, Dirk B Walther, Adrian G Bors, and Karla K Evans. 2023. Characterising and dissecting human perception of scene complexity.Cognition231 (2023), 105319

    2023

  57. [57]

    Mikko Kytö, Barrett Ens, Thammathip Piumsomboon, Gun A Lee, and Mark Billinghurst. 2018. Pinpointing: Precise head-and eye-based target selection for augmented reality. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–14

    2018

  58. [58]

    Florian Lang and Tonja Machulla. 2021. Pressing a button you cannot see: evaluating visual designs to assist persons with low vision through augmented reality. InProceedings of the 27th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology. 1–10

    2021

  59. [59]

    Jaewook Lee, Yang Li, Dylan Bunarto, Eujean Lee, Olivia H Wang, Adrian Rodriguez, Yuhang Zhao, Yapeng Tian, and Jon E Froehlich. 2024. Towards ai-powered ar for enhancing sports playability for people with low vision: An exploration of arsports. In2024 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct). IEEE, 228–233

    2024

  60. [60]

    Jaewook Lee, Andrew D Tjahjadi, Jiho Kim, Junpu Yu, Minji Park, Jiawen Zhang, Jon E Froehlich, Yapeng Tian, and Yuhang Zhao. 2024. CookAR: Affordance Augmentations in Wearable AR to Support Kitchen Tool Interactions for People with Low Vision. InProceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1–16

    2024

  61. [61]

    Meesung Lee, Heerim Lee, Sungjoo Hwang, and Minji Choi. 2021. Under- standing the impact of the walking environment on pedestrian perception and comprehension of the situation.Journal of Transport & Health23 (2021), 101267

    2021

  62. [62]

    Franklin Mingzhe Li, Jamie Dorst, Peter Cederberg, and Patrick Carrington. 2021. Non-Visual Cooking: Exploring Practices and Challenges of Meal Preparation by People with Visual Impairments. InProceedings of the 23rd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, ...

    arXiv 2021

  63. [63]

    Ke Li and Jitendra Malik. 2016. Amodal instance segmentation. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 677–693

    2016

  64. [64]

    Zhipeng Li, Christoph Gebhardt, Yves Inglin, Nicolas Steck, Paul Streli, and Christian Holz. 2024. Situationadapt: Contextual ui optimization in mixed reality with situation awareness via llm reasoning. InProceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1–13

    2024

  65. [65]

    Haozhe Lin, Jiangtao Gong, Yu Wang, Jinsong Zhang, Bing Bai, Yan Zhang, Luyao Wang, Chenyu Wei, Yancheng Cao, Kun Li, et al . 2025. AI system facilitates people with blindness and low vision in interpreting and experiencing unfamiliar environments.npj Artificial Intelligence1, 1 (2025), 7

    2025

  66. [66]

    Lawrence Zitnick, and Piotr Dollár

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, Lubomir Bourdev, Ross Girshick, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, C. Lawrence Zitnick, and Piotr Dollár

  67. [67]

    arXiv:1405.0312 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0312

    Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Context. arXiv:1405.0312 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0312

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  68. [68]

    David Lindlbauer, Anna Maria Feit, and Otmar Hilliges. 2019. Context-aware online adaptation of mixed reality interfaces. InProceedings of the 32nd annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology. 147–160

    2019

  69. [69]

    Alice Lo Valvo, Daniele Croce, Domenico Garlisi, Fabrizio Giuliano, Laura Giarré, and Ilenia Tinnirello. 2021. A navigation and augmented reality system for visually impaired people.Sensors21, 9 (2021), 3061

    2021

  70. [70]

    Gang Luo and Eli Peli. 2006. Use of an augmented-vision device for visual search by patients with tunnel vision.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science47, 9 (2006), 4152–4159

    2006

  71. [71]

    Chengqi Lyu, Wenwei Zhang, Haian Huang, Yue Zhou, Yudong Wang, Yanyi Liu, Shilong Zhang, and Kai Chen. 2022. Rtmdet: An empirical study of designing real-time object detectors.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.07784(2022)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  72. [72]

    Márcio CF Macedo and Antonio L Apolinario. 2021. Occlusion handling in augmented reality: Past, present and future.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics29, 2 (2021), 1590–1609

    2021

  73. [73]

    Sean P MacEvoy and Russell A Epstein. 2011. Constructing scenes from objects in human occipitotemporal cortex.Nature neuroscience14, 10 (2011), 1323–1329

    2011

  74. [74]

    Alexey Magay, Dhurba Tripathi, Yu Hao, and Yi Fang. 2024. A Light and Smart Wearable Platform with Multimodal Foundation Model for Enhanced Spatial Reasoning in People with Blindness and Low Vision. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 323–339

    2024

  75. [75]

    Florian Mathis and Johannes Schöning. 2025. LifeInsight: Design and Evaluation of an AI-Powered Assistive Wearable for Blind and Low Vision People Across Multiple Everyday Life Scenarios. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–25

    2025

  76. [76]

    2017.Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective

    Scott E Maxwell, Harold D Delaney, and Ken Kelley. 2017.Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective. Routledge

    2017

  77. [77]

    Microsoft. 2017. Seeing AI - Talking Camera for the Blind — seeingai.com. https://www.seeingai.com/. [Accessed 09-09-2025]

    2017

  78. [78]

    Margrain, Yu-Kun Lai, and Parisa Eslambolchilar

    Hein Min Htike, Tom H. Margrain, Yu-Kun Lai, and Parisa Eslambolchilar. 2021. Augmented reality glasses as an orientation and mobility aid for people with low vision: a feasibility study of experiences and requirements. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–15

    2021

  79. [79]

    Aliaksei Miniukovich and Antonella De Angeli. 2014. Quantification of interface visual complexity. InProceedings of the 2014 international working conference on advanced visual interfaces. 153–160

    2014

  80. [80]

    Karin Müller, Christin Engel, Claudia Loitsch, Rainer Stiefelhagen, and Gerhard Weber. 2022. Traveling more independently: a study on the diverse needs and challenges of people with visual or mobility impairments in unfamiliar indoor environments.ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (TACCESS)15, 2 (2022), 1–44

    2022

Showing first 80 references.