Back to all available

Design and evaluation of a culturally adapted signing avatar framework (CASAF) for deaf communities in Pakistan: A technology acceptance model approach

human-computer-interaction
artificial-intelligence
computer-education
software-engineering
visual-analytics

Abstract

Background. Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing (DHH) individuals in Pakistan face persistent communication barriers, limiting equitable access to digital content, education, and public services. While globally, virtual signing avatars have merged as a scalable accessibility tool, their adoption in low-resource and linguistically diverse contexts remains underexplored.

Methods. This study investigates acceptance of signing avatars with cultural adaptations among 475DHHparticipants engaged in special education across Pakistan using an extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Key constructs, including perceived usefulness, ease of use, trust, user experience, and design quality, were evaluated through a structured questionnaire.

Results. Results indicate that while DHH users hold positive attitudes towards avatar-based solutions, preference for human interpreters remains dominant due to concerns around avatar realism, gesture accuracy, and cultural contextualization. The findings offer localized insights and practical implications for inclusive digital accessibility tools, particularly in South Asian contexts.

Conclusions. The study contributes to the adaptation of TAMSA (Technology Acceptance Model for Sign ing Avatars) to Pakistan’s unique socio-cultural and landscape, providing evidence-based recommendations for culturally sensitive digital assistive technologies.

Assistive technology, cultural adaptation, deaf education, inclusive learning, signing avatars, Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].