VIIIThe Neo-divergent Museum: Utilizing Extended Reality for Museum Visitors with Autism Spectrum Disorder

  • Matthew Lynch, The George Washington University

The American Alliance of Museums unequivocally cemented the issues of diversity, equity, accessibility, and inclusion (DEAI) as paramount priorities for the 21st century museum for in its 2016-2020 strategic plan.1 As nexuses between history and society, its imperative museums deny no one that connection. Museological progress in addressing DEAI over the past 30 years is commendable, but especially in the areas of accessibility and inclusions, achievement benefits are mainly one-sided. Efforts in expanding these areas – sparked after the landmark 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) legislation – disproportionately benefited individuals with physical differences versus individuals with learning differences (also called neurodivergent), often called the museums forgotten visitors. For several reasons, neurodivergent individuals today “do not always receive the accommodations [necessary] to be active participants within the museum setting,”2 leaving many museums and cultural institutions inaccessible for or exclusive to them. Accessibility as well as inclusion are not only physical issues, but functional ones as well, and emerging digital technologies offer enormous opportunities to garner “full participation of all users while respecting diverse and different needs.”3 By incorporating burgeoning digital technologies like extended reality (XR), museums and cultural sites can better accommodate neurodivergent needs and alchemize these individuals into “core members of the museum community.”4

The term neurodiversity references a movement that initially “articulated the needs of people with autism who did not want to be defined by a disability label,” but mushroomed to cover a number of functional or intellectual conditions that diverge from what is considered typical or normal.5 Today, it represents “a heterogeneous groups of disorders with onset in developmental age” incorporating conditions previously diagnosed as Asperger syndrome and Pervasive developmental disorder – not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS).6 Whether due to environmental reasons, genetic factors, advancements in detection, or a combination of reasons, ASD is the fastest growing condition in the world with about 1-in-54 individuals in the United States alone diagnosed with the condition.7 I will use neurodiversity – and the related term neurodivergent – to refer to individuals diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in this paper.

Despite ASD’s variability, it presents enough common manifestations to be identifiable. This symptomatologic nucleus features an “impairment of social communication” alongside “poor flexibility of interests” and “repetitive behaviors.”8 The predominate communicative challenges common among individuals diagnosed with ASD includes an “absence of reciprocity in verbal communications and the scarce or altered non-verbal communication expressions.”9 The predominate behavioral challenges common among individuals diagnosed with ASD includes a “strong resistance to contextual change, motor or verbal stereotypes, and fixation on specific objects or activities.”10 For this paper, I will focus on these unifying characteristics when referring to individuals diagnosed with ASD.

The “significant social, communication and behavioral” challenges from ASD can make visits to unfamiliar public places – like museums – difficult.11 Individuals with ASD usually fail to adequately adapt “to crowded and unpredictable social contexts where there is a large number of sensory stimuli,”12 navigate “interpersonal exchanges,” or understand “the general meaning of situations” stemming from a rigid adherence to detail which may lead “to an uncoordinated and confused perception and understanding of environments.”13 Alongside these challenges, many individuals diagnosed with ASD also suffer from what is known as sensory overload, resulting from an inability to filter sensorial stimuli (sights, sounds, smells, touch). This may turn a museum visit into a warzone as overhead lighting blitzes eyes like solar flares and surrounding conversations assault the eardrums like cannonades.

A study at Florida State University surveyed caregivers of neurodivergent children on how museums could help make their institutions more accessible for children diagnosed with ASD. They suggested providing anxiety-reducing materials, expanding ways children could “explore the museum,” reducing “lighting and audio/visual noise levels,” scheduling “accessibility times,” offering free ticketing or programming, incorporating “interactives,” and expanding ways children could “explore the museum” – the latter two suggestions I explore in this paper.14 Museums use variations on these solutions today to accommodate neurodivergent visitors. Some focus on the pre-visit anxiety-reducing materials online via containing photos and text preparing visitors for the museum experience (called social narratives) to manage stress.

The V&A Museum of Childhood, for example, offers parents of children with ASD an online packet featuring frequently asked questions (FAQ’s) and a map of busy time to avoid.15 Others manipulate the environment to help keep emotional and sensory states of individuals with ASD under control. They offer special programming, special visitation, and accessibility times to mitigate sensory overload (when one receives more sensorial input than one’s brain can handle) by limiting crowd sizes as well as dimming overhead lights. The Smithsonian Institution’s Morning at the Museum initiative, a free “sensory-friendly program for families of [individuals] with disabilities including [autism],”16 and the United Kingdom Natural History Museum’s Dawnosaurs program which frees visitors “from the hustle and bustle of the general public,”17 employ this strategy. Others in this category, like the National Children’s Museum in Washington, D.C., offer in-situ assistance like sensory backpacks (equipped with noise-canceling headphones as well as handheld distraction devices) and quiet rooms.18

Other museums see accessibility as “a technical issue,”19 and utilize digital technologies to help neurodivergent guests feel included in their pursuit of greater accessibility. The favored strategy employs mobile applications, as the technology is ubiquitous (85% of Americans own a smartphone to access these applications)20 and educational as well as psychological studies prove mobile applications are optimal scaffolding in helping neurodivergent users achieve learning objectives.21 Several Chicago museums collaborate with a local company called Infiniteach to offer “downloadable guides in the form of mobile-friendly applications, which include sensory maps and communication tools” as well as music, interactive schedules, and advice to ameliorate the museum visit for individuals diagnosed with ASD.{^22] Infinitech won the American Alliance of Museum’s (AAM) 2017 Diversity, Equity, Accessibility, and Inclusion award for its collaboration.

Building mobile applications is a good start for museums in realizing the potential of digital technologies in expanding accessibility to neurodivergent guests, but there are more digital technologies museums can exploit to this end such as extended reality (XR) devices. XR refers to technology that renders digital environments to facilitate unique experiences for users. Contemporary representative forms of XR include mixed reality (MR), augmented reality (AR), and virtual reality (VR) – the latter who I explore in this paper. All devices “include cameras, microphones, and sensors [that] help [users] interact with the real world,”22 but diverge in their immersive experience. AR takes place in the physical world. It “overlays digital content and information onto the physical world – as if they’re actually there with you, in your own space,” like Pokémon Go, a mobile friendly AR application that allows you to collect digital animals in the outside world.23 VR, on the other hand, is more immersive and takes place in the virtual world. It “is an entirely projected [computer-generated simulation] where [users] can interact with the digital information” presented, like Meta Platform’s Oculus Quest 2, a standalone (meaning not connected to a console) VR headset containing integrated mobile computing hardware.24 In each level device, sensors and cameras within the device map user movements to generate truly responsive experiences users can manipulate.

Museums use XR (AR and VR) to great success in their audience outreach efforts. The National Portrait Gallery (NPG), for example, partnered with local institutions to bring classic art to the streets in the 2018 Art of London Augmented Gallery exhibition via VR. Curators from participating institutions digitized select pieces of art from their respective historical sites, and through AR technologies, allowed the city’s pedestrians to access them along a designated walking exhibit in the middle of London. Pedestrian participants scanned special QR codes on their smartphones to digitally render famous Londoners and portraits on their phones.25 The Louvre in Paris, on the other hand, introduced VR for the first time in its history during its 2019 Mona Lisa: Beyond the Glass exhibition. Visitors explored the rendered studio of Leonardo di Vinci, flew on the polymath’s flying machine, and soared above Mona Lisa’s luxuriant home through HTC’s Vive VR headsets.26 These initiatives enabled NPG and the Louvre to engage with a wider audience and help visitors contextualize history in novel ways, which all help to maintain the institutions’ societal relevancy.

While museums find great success with XR (AR and VR) relative to their neurotypical visitors, this technology remains under theorized as a solution to help improve the museum experience for neurodivergent guests. It’s use with this community is not science fiction, frequently employed by researchers to help individuals diagnosed with ASD. Numerous educational as well as psychological studies used AR with “software, digital books, computers, and other devices [in] the treatment process for ASD”27 as well as exploited VR’s immersive capabilities prepare autistic patients for stressful situations.28 These included job interviews, neighborly disputes, dating29, public speaking30, and phobias.31 Given XR’s track record in education as well as psychology, there’s little question to its potential for museums.

Museological research, in fact, is beginning to explore this possibility. Promising research in utilizing AR to help museums become more accessible to neurodivergent museum visitors comes from the ARtis project, a mobile application navigational aid. Through the application, it’s developers hope to support “people with ASD [make] easier use of places of culture” like museums.32 It features a guide – or tutor – as well as “graphic animations, interactive characters, environmental simulations, multimedia cards, interactive and educational content” that orients and motivates the visitor to design “an appealing and interactive visit.”33 A beta-test evaluation at a Herculaneum excavation site showed the application facilitated a “deeper understanding of the site” and nurtured an “overall interest in the site” in about 20% of its neurodivergent users.34 Additionally, it allowed them to finish in half the time it took neurotypical users (the control group), illustrating AR’s potential to offer neurodivergent museum visitors not only an immersive but efficient experience as well. Promising research in utilizing VR to help museums become more accessible to neurodivergent guests comes from Italy’s Marche region and from Australia’s ACMI museum. In Italy, the University of Macerata collaborated with and São Paula State University in Brazil to launch a pilot study investigating the potential of VR within a museum environment. Researchers hoped to create an accessible experience that achieves a higher level of inclusion in cultural context for people with ASD than most can currently receive.35 Evaluations from the study showed it “allowed people with ASD to anticipate both in the external and internal environments, thus ensuring greater predictability of the [museum’s] spaces.”36 VR’s capabilities in facilitating the use of “maps of the environment with 360 images,” according to the study, decreased “stress and concern regarding entry to an unfamiliar or new environment.”37 Across the globe, Arieh Offman – ACMI’s Programmer as well as Public Programs and Curator of Videogames – echoes these findings. ACMI welcomes its neurodivergent guests to use its VR equipment, and while it has not conducted official qualitative evaluation on this endeavor, Offman notices a substantive positive reception from neurodivergent users of its VR equipment.38

While embryonic, this research already illustrates clear potential for XR to assist neurodivergent guests in their museum experiences. There are two keys to XR’s success in this context. First is operability. Research finds individuals with ASD favor “smart devices such as computers, tablets, and smartphones,”39 possibly because there is a trend in the community toward being visual rather than verbal learners where they create meanings and memorizing through pictures.40 As a mainly visual medium, XR’s operation mimics the learning style of users with ASD and so is apt to best assist them in completing learning objectives. Second is malleability, and XR’s capability to adapt to the heterogeneous needs of the autism spectrum. Augmented reality (AR) is optimal for neurodivergent individuals with low support needs who would genuinely prefer the independence AR affords them, as it places them “at the center of the experience.”41 Virtual reality (VR), contrastingly, is optimal for neurodivergent individuals with high support needs who may desire more control over their experience. VR is more equipped “for the construction of predictable and low sensorial impact services,” permitting users more power in dictating their experiences and reducing anxiety from external sources.42 XR technologies like AR and VR offer unique opportunities for cultural sites like museums to dismantle traditional barriers that made cultural sites difficult to visit for individuals with ASD by working with them in real time to manage their experiences.

Hopefully this initial research galvanizes further development into the possibility of using XR technologies to assist neurodivergent guests with their museum experience. But what would the future of this utilization look like? The next age of application rests on programming and incorporating new technological capabilities. Central to programming and implementation are the human resources who will convert dreams into realities. This includes museums collaborating with representatives of the ASD community and the frontline staff implementing the devices. Museums should include representatives of the ASD community at every step from design to application to ensure the technology will serve its purpose. Hiring frontline staff is one of “the most important step[s] a museum can take”43 as they will orient users and be their first point of contact along their individual customer journeys. As “every child on the spectrum has different needs,”44 they must be trained not only in the technology but in handling the heterogeneity of ASD manifestations. A good onboarding process will ensure loyal and return customers for the museum.

Central to the technology will be focusing on two elements, namely, interactive storytelling and making sure it is sensory friendly. The first element, interactive storytelling, is a form of digital entertainment in which the participant creates the setting, characters, and situation which the programmed narrative must address. With an undetermined storyline, the participant can experience a unique story based on their interactives. For museums, blending objects into interactive storytelling holds several advantages including strengthening memory4546, helping direct people’s attention, provoking inquiry, and motivating “deep engagement with content.”47 To be most effective with neurodivergent users, educational lessons or objectives must me addressed linearly, visually, and succinctly to ensure a greater possibility of retention.48 Museums can incorporate current event-based interactive storytelling software already in use by Disney Research.49

The second element, being sensory-friendly, encompasses helping visitors navigate spaces based on their needs (called digital wayfinding) and either reducing sensorial irritants or at least not causing additional irritation at the very least. XR technologies can incorporate digital wayfinding by featuring easily accessible digital maps of the site with restroom and quiet rooms strategically marked. This concept may also include temperature and noise-mapping, which can be observed in current technology like Shedd Aquarium’s sensor-friendly mobile application. XR technologies can ensure their sensor friendliness through software and hardware modifications to mitigate sensorial irritants. For both augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR), software modifications include granting user permissions to alter settings (i.e., screen frame rates, brightness, caption speed, translations, noise levels) and incorporating verbal text functions from technologies like the Smithsonian Institution’s AIRA technology.50 If museums are employing mobile-friendly AR technologies, software modifications to increase sensory friendliness may include ensuring a ready-to-use library of calming music is available for users and that its compatible with Bluetooth headphones, as this technology will only become more popular in the future.51 Libraries can reside within the museum’s internal systems, or rest on audio streaming services like Spotify, Apple Music, or Tidal. Hardware modifications to increase sensor friendliness of XR technologies for neurodivergent relates more to VR than AR, as VR typically features hardware from physical consoles to encompassing headgear. Modifications may include making headsets more adjustable to accommodate varying user head sizes as well as ensuring the material is comfortable.

XR technologies (AR and VR), like any other emerging technology, are not without its challenges such as hygiene, sanitation, cost, manpower, and privacy. Regarding hygiene, frontline staff should sanitize technologies typically requiring shared devices, like VR headsets. Regarding cost, museums may be able to offset it through donations, grants from institutions such as the Kellogg Foundation or Bloomberg Philanthropies, or through partnerships with VR companies. Allured by rare marketing opportunities museums provide, these companies can donate their technologies (which can serve as a tax write-off if the museum is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization52) and provide technicians to help with upkeep. Regarding manpower, it can be time consuming to keep digital maps updated for wayfinding, but as museums feature updated maps on their websites these digital maps can easily be transferred to the XR device. Regarding privacy concerns, museums must be diligent to empower users to divulge as much information as they see fit, and have a cybersecurity expert monitor data the museum stores for necessary subsequent evaluations.

Expanding access and inclusion to neurodivergent visitors is a moral and financial imperative for museums. Cultural institutions wield immense societal value as educators, forums, heritage stewards, economic engines, sources of provide, and even as contributors to public health.53 Studies reveal museum participation improves quality of life by increasing self-esteem while decreasing depressing and stress.54 Participants have “about a five-year difference in cognitive age compared to those who had little to no access to such places.”55 As the population of neurodiverse individuals grows, and our society adapts accordingly, its morally imperative museums extend their accessibility as well as who benefits from them. Once involved, these individuals typically prove lucrative supporters. When welcomed, they are often “incredibly loyal, returning regularly” for repeat visits or to elevate their involvement as “volunteers or staff members.”56 A constant struggle for most non-governmental institutions to converting passive customers into passionate fans, but by expanding museum accessibility as well as inclusion to neurodivergent individuals, museums can empower a support network that will help maintain their solvency.

Museums are still working toward being welcoming environments for neurodiverse individuals. In their efforts, the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of People with disabilities implores institutions like museums to “focus on the central role of technology in the promotion of inclusive context.”57 Accessibility is a technical issue, and by employing XR technologies like AR and VR, museums can empower their neurodivergent guests to be engaged as well as participatory members of the museum community. Due to their adaptive nature, XR technologies are primed to accommodate the heterogenous needs of neurodivergent individuals and turn the museum environment from an intimidating to a welcoming one. XR technologies allow users to access different realities, and by utilizing them to expand access to neurodivergent visitors, museums can also transcend into a new reality of being a truly communal space. If museums want to be communal spaces, they must make the whole community feel welcome, and digital technology is a way to include a long-time elusive part of museums’ communities – the neurodivergent.

Notes

  1. American Alliance of Museums. 2018. “Facing Change: Insights from the American Alliance of Museums’ Diversity, Equity, Accessibility, and Inclusion Working Group.” https://www.aam-us.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/AAM-DEAI-Working-Group-Full-Report-2018.pdf. ↩︎

  2. Tyler, William S. “Accommodating Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder in Museums.” PhD diss., State University of New York College at Buffalo – Buffalo State College, 2015. Buffalo State https://digitalcommons.buffalostate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1033&context=history_theses. ↩︎

  3. Giaconi, Catia, Arianna Taddei, Noemi Del Bianco, Aldo Caldarelli, Ilaria D’Angelo. 2020. “From the ‘Student Voice’ to the Co-Design of Inclusive Paths: A Case Study.” In Collana SIRD, Studi e ricerche sui processi di apprendimento, insegnamento e valutazione [SIRD Series, Studies and Research on Learning, Teaching and Assessment Processes], ed. Roberta Caldin, 186–193. Lecce, IT: PensaMultimedia. ↩︎

  4. “Inclusive Digital Interactives: Best Practice + Research,” Smithsonian Institution, accessed September 20, 2021, https://ihcd-api.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/file+downloads/Inclusive+Digital+Interactives+Best+Practices+%2B+Research.pdf. ↩︎

  5. Armstrong, Thomas. 2015. “The Myth of the Normal Brain: Embracing Neurodiversity.” AMA Journal of Ethics 17 (4):348-352. ↩︎

  6. Salvatore Vita, Luigi O Borelli, Floriana Canniello, Andrea Mennitto, and Luigi Iovino, “Artis: How AR supports the guided experience in museums for people with autism” (Proceedings of the Workshop on Technology Enhanced Learning Environments for Blended Education, CEUR, RWTH Technical University of Aachen, January 21-22, 2021). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2817/paper38.pdf. ↩︎

  7. Autism Speaks. “Autism Prevalence.” https://www.autismspeaks.org/autism-statistics-asd. ↩︎

  8. Hodges, Holly, Casey Fealko, and Neelkamal Soares. 2020. “Autism spectrum disorder: definition, epidemiology, causes, and clinical evaluation.” Translational Pediatrics 9(Suppl 1): S55-S65P. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32206584/. ↩︎

  9. Giaconi, Catia, Anna Ascenzi, Noemi Del Bianco, Ilaria D’Angelo, and Simone Aparecida Capellini. “Virtual and Augmented Reality for the Cultural Accessibility of People with Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Pilot Study.” 2021. The International Journal of the Inclusive Museum 14(1): 95-106. https://cgscholar.com/bookstore/works/virtual-and-augmented-reality?category_id=cgrn&path=cgrn%2F239%2F240. ↩︎

  10. APA (American Psychiatric Association). 2013. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – DSM 5. Washington, DC: APA. ↩︎

  11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “What is Autism Disorder?” https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/facts.html. ↩︎

  12. Catia Giaconi, Anna Ascenzi, Noemi Del Bianco, Ilaria D’Angelo, Simone Aparecida Capellini. “Virtual and Augmented Reality for the Cultural Accessibility of People with Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Pilot Study.” ↩︎

  13. Giaconi, Catia, and Beatriz Rodrigues. 2014. “Organization of Time and Space for the Inclusion of Subjects with Autism.” Educação & Realidade 39 (3): 687–705. https://doi.org/10.1590/S2175-62362014000300004. ↩︎

  14. Woodruff, Anthony Wayne. “Finding Museum Visitors with Autism Spectrum Disorders: Will Art Help In the Search?” PhD diss., Florida State University, 2019. ResearchGate https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331643363_Finding_Museum_Visitors_with_Autism_Spectrum_Disorders_Will_Art_Help_In_The_Search. ↩︎

  15. V&A Museum of Childhood. “Disability & Access.” https://www.vam.ac.uk/info/disability-access. ↩︎

  16. Access Smithsonian. “Morning at the Museum.” https://access.si.edu/program/morning-museum. ↩︎

  17. Natural History Museum. “Dawnosaurs: Relaxed Morning Visit.” https://www.nhm.ac.uk/events/dawnosaurs.html. ↩︎

  18. National Children’s Museum. “Frequently Asked Questions.” https://nationalchildrensmuseum.org/faqs/. ↩︎

  19. Lisney, Eleanor, Jonathan P. Bowen, Kirsten Hearn, and Maria Zedda. 2013. “Museums and Technology: Being Inclusive Helps Accessibility for All.” Curator: The Museum Journal 56 (3): 353-361. https://doi.org/10.111.cura.12034. ↩︎

  20. Pew Research Center. “Mobile Fact Sheet.” https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile. ↩︎

  21. Lucila Maria Costi Santarosa and Debora Conforto, “Educational and Digital Inclusion for Subjects with Autism Spectrum Disorders in 1:1 Technological Configuration,” Computers in Human Behavior 60, (2016): 293-300. ↩︎

  22. Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). “Extended Reality (XR). https://www.eff.org/issues/xr. ↩︎

  23. Google AR & VR. “Augmented Reality.” https://arvr.google.com/ar/. ↩︎

  24. Nowak, Maja. 2020. “Augmented Reality vs. Virtual Reality: How Are They Different?” Nomtek (blog), October 19. https://www.nomtek.com/blog/augmented-reality-vs-virtual-reality. ↩︎

  25. National Portrait Gallery. “Art of London Augmented Gallery.” https://www.npg.org.uk/visit/art-of-london-augmented-gallery. ↩︎

  26. Rea, Naomi. 2019. “The ‘Mona Lisa’ Experience: How the bl’s First-Ever VR Project, a 7-Minute Immersive da Vinci Odyssey, Works.” Artnet News, October 22. Accessed October 25, 2021. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/louvre-embraced-virtual-reality-leonardo-blockbuster-1686169. ↩︎

  27. Salvatore Vita, Luigi O Borelli, Floriana Canniello, Andrea Mennitto, and Luigi Iovino, “Artis: How AR supports the guided experience in museums for people with autism” ↩︎

  28. Roger, Sol. 2019. “How Virtual Reality Can Help Those With Autism.” Forbes April 3. Accessed October 6, 2021. https://www.forbes.com/sites/solrogers/2019/04/03/how-virtual-reality-can-help-those-with-autism/?sh=64e934d6198e. ↩︎

  29. “Carly McCullar,” Center for Brain Health at the University of Texas at Dallas, last modified 2021. https://brainhealth.utdallas.edu/personal-stories/carly-mccullar/. ↩︎

  30. William, Jarrold. 2013. “Social Attention in a Virtual Public Speaking Task in Higher Functioning Children with Autism.” Autism Research 6: 393-410. ↩︎

  31. Newcastle University, “Virtual reality therapy treats autism phobias,” news release, February 15, 2019, https://www.ncl.ac.uk/press/articles/archive/2019/02/blueroomforovercomingphobiasinautism/. ↩︎

  32. Salvatore Vitaa, Luigi O. Borrellia, Floriana Canniellob, Andrea Mennittoab and Luigi Iovinoab. “ARtis: How AR supports the guided experience in museums for people with Autism.” ↩︎

  33. Ibid. ↩︎

  34. Ibid. ↩︎

  35. Catia Giaconi, Anna Ascenzi, Noemi Del Bianco, Ilaria D’Angelo, Simone Aparecida Capellini. “Virtual and Augmented Reality for the Cultural Accessibility of People with Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Pilot Study.” ↩︎

  36. Ibid. ↩︎

  37. Ibid. ↩︎

  38. Arieh Offman, unpublished interview, November 18, 2021. ↩︎

  39. J. Vlachou and A. Drigas. 2017. “Mobile Technology for Students & Adults with Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASD)”. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM). 10.3991/ijim.v11i1.5922J. ↩︎

  40. Grandin, Temple and Richard Panek. 2014. The Autistic Brain. New York: Random House. ↩︎

  41. Salvatore Vitaa, Luigi O. Borrellia, Floriana Canniellob, Andrea Mennittoab and Luigi Iovinoab. “ARtis: How AR supports the guided experience in museums for people with Autism.” ↩︎

  42. Catia Giaconi, Anna Ascenzi, Noemi Del Bianco, Ilaria D’Angelo, Simone Aparecida Capellini. “Virtual and Augmented Reality for the Cultural Accessibility of People with Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Pilot Study.” ↩︎

  43. Shrikant, Aditi. 2018. “How Museums Are Becoming More Sensory-Friendly For Those With Autism.” Smithsonian Magazine, January 5. Accessed October 4, 2021. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/how-museums-are-becoming-more-sensory-friendly-for-those-with-autism-180967740/. ↩︎

  44. Ibid. ↩︎

  45. Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ↩︎

  46. Sloane, S. (2000). Digital fictions: storytelling in a material world. Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing Corporation. ↩︎

  47. Wong, Amelia. 2015. “The whole story, and then some: ‘digital storytelling’ in evolving museum practice.” MW 2015: Museums and Web 2015 (blog). https://mw2015.museumsandtheweb.com/paper/the-whole-story-and-then-some-digital-storytelling-in-evolving-museum-practice/. ↩︎

  48. Lucila Maria Costi Santarosa and Debora Conforto, “Educational and Digital Inclusion for Subjects with Autism Spectrum Disorder in 1:1 Technological Configuration” ↩︎

  49. Mander, Michael. 2018. “Disney Research develops interactivity solutions.” booploop. December 11. Accessed October 13, 2021. https://blooloop.com/technology/news/disney-research-develops-interactivity-solutions/. ↩︎

  50. Mitchel, Bea. 2019. “Smithsonian Museums Roll Out Aira Accessibility Technology.” booploop, March 7. Accessed October 13, 2021. https://blooloop.com/technology/news/smithsonian-museum-aira-technology-visitors-blind-vision-loss/. ↩︎

  51. Grand View Research. 2019. “Bluetooth Headphones Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report By Product (Over Ear, In Ear), By Distribution Channel (Multi-branded Store, Online Retail), By Region, And Segment Forecasts, 2019 – 2025.” July. https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/bluetooth-headphones-market. ↩︎

  52. IRS. 2021. “Charitable Contribution Deductions.” https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/charitable-contribution-deductions. ↩︎

  53. AAM. “Museums, Health, and Wellness Compendium.” https://www.aam-us.org/programs/about-museums/museums-health-and-wellness-compendium/. ↩︎

  54. America for the Arts. 2012. “Arts & Healing: Exploring the potential of the arts in healthcare settings.” https://www.americansforthearts.org/by-topic/arts-and-healing. ↩︎

  55. Ibid. ↩︎

  56. Madge, Claire. 2019. “Autism in Museums: a revolution in the making.” AAM (blog), July 16. https://www.aam-us.org/2019/07/16/autism-in-museums-a-revolution-in-the-making/. ↩︎

  57. United Nations. 2006. “Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional Protocol.” New York: UN. https://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf. ↩︎