Usability and Accessibility of the ArtontheBrain <sup>™</sup> Virtual Recreation Activity for Older Adults With Low Vision Due to Age-Related Macular Degeneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experiencing visual art can inspire, be an overall positive leisure activity, and has been linked to improved cognition, especially in older adults. Access to artwork in a museum environment can comprise a variety of barriers, including difficulties linked to its visual experience for persons that are visually impaired. The present study explored the barriers and facilitators experienced by 15 older adults (age 65 to 93) living with age-related macular degeneration when using an iPad to access ArtontheBrain ™ , a virtual art museum recreation experience created by members of this team. Using the Concurrent Think Aloud method, participants were asked to continuously comment on their experiences with the application while being audio/video recorded. Indeed, codes were determined by identifying frequently stated and emphasized ideas or behaviors of participants using the ArtontheBrain ™ application. Transcripts underwent thematic analysis and indicated that the main access barriers were linked to control of the contrast, magnification, and the tactile interface on the tablet device. The learn and play activities as well as the text-to-speech feature were identified as facilitators for ArtontheBrain ™ engagement. The present findings should also be considered in the larger context of application development, as this study provides insight pertaining to the needs of low vision individuals regarding usability and accessibility.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".