Assistive Technologies Versus Harmful Technologies

By Annabel Gabriel

Introduction

Assistive Technology (AT) is a tool that enables individuals with disabilities to be more independent and participate more fully in society. Types of AT include wheelchairs, hearing aids, and communication devices. There are many technologies that claim to be AT, but end up being more harmful than assistive. These types of devices augment the words of a user, prioritize normalization, are designed for caregivers, or are not adaptive for users with different needs. These technologies can be detrimental to the users development and are not encouraged to be used [1][2].

What is Assistive Technology?

AT is a tool that is used to increase or improve the physical capabilities of a person with disabilities. AT can be physical tools such as adaptive switches, prosthetics or positioning devices, but can also be communication devices such as screen readers and talkers. AT can aid in communication, seeing, hearing, mobility, writing, and many other tasks. AT is essential for people with disabilities because it aims to improve independence [1]. 

AT is intended to be used independently by the user. This aims to increase autonomy and enhance quality of life by providing independence that would not be possible otherwise. Increased independence can improve problem solving skills, emotional maturity, and confidence. It is essential that people with disabilities are able to act with autonomy to encourage these developmental skills. In addition, these actions have to be verified as coming from the user [2].

AT also aims to improve the quality of life of people with disabilities. By reducing barriers to communication or independence, individuals are able to interact with others without restrictions. This can improve a sense of belonging and allow individuals to feel more in control and connected with others, greatly increasing their quality of life [3]. 

Harmful Technologies

There are many different categories of technology that are advertised as AT, but do not qualify as AT because they may:

1. Aim to change or “cure” the behaviors of someone with a disability instead of enabling their independence

2. Restrict an individual’s physical, emotional, or behavioral independence

3. Are not customizable to fit an individual’s needs and use a “one size fits all” mentality

4. Are unreliable or subject to misinterpretation

5. Can bypass the user and speak for them [4]

Compliance or “Curing” Technologies

There are many technologies that aim to modify the behavior of an individual to push them towards “normal” behavior rather than supporting an individual’s access to independence. These types of devices can come largely in three different categories [4].

Compliance Technologies

The first main category is technology marketed as compliance training. These technologies are designed to change the daily behavior of an individual through negative or positive feedback. These types of training programs include:

• Shock or adverse feedback-based devices

• Apps that reward “normal” behavior

• Monitoring systems that discourage undesirable behaviors [4][5]

Shock or adverse feedback-based devices for people with disabilities have been a continued issue. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which regulates all medical devices announced an intent to ban these types of devices back in 2016. This was due to statements of mental health experts who claimed the treatment was outdated, ineffective, and unethical [5][6]. 

Shock devices have been primarily for people with autism and developmental disabilities. There have been claims that the shocks prevent self-harming or dangerous behaviors, but has since been proven to exaggerate responses and can lead to various mental and physical health issues following the treatment. Shock devices were banned by the FDA due to safety issues in 2020. This ban was then overturned in 2021 [5][6].

Apps that reward “normal” behavior, monitoring systems that discourage undesirable behaviors or applied behavior analysis (ABA) are treatments for autism or developmental disorders that encourage certain behaviors and discourage others. These systems are harmful because they can set a precedent that certain behaviors are inherently wrong [7]. 

These systems can involve a monitor or therapist that observes behaviors such as eye contact, movement, or speech. They can be harmful by discouraging behaviors that bring enjoyment or help the individual. This prioritizes an individual’s compliance based on others’ needs rather than the needs of the user [7].

These compliance technologies have been proven to be harmful because they promote conformity rather than comfort of the individual. The methods used are often also linked to long-lasting trauma or other mental health concerns which violate disability rights. These products should stop being advertised as AT and should stop being used because they limit independence and aim to change an individual’s behavior rather than helping the individual. These devices are for others’ comfort not designed with the individual in mind [4][7].

Curing Technologies

This category of technology is marketed as being able to “cure” an individual’s cognitive disability. These technologies aim to fix or normalize an individual’s disability rather than providing them proper access to the technology they may need. Many of these technologies do not have proper evidence to support claims of their effectiveness [8].

One of these technologies is brain training. Brain training is built on the brain’s ability to change and adapt over time. This is called neuroplasticity. Activities that stimulate the brain like puzzles or learning a musical instrument can stimulate cognitive improvements during neuroplasticity. These claims towards cognitive enhancement have been applied to people with cognitive disabilities as well. The idea is that if you stimulate and train the brain over time, it will adapt to the new environment. These claims have gone unproven. There have been some studies that suggest some cognitive enhancements, but many of these are misleading marketing tactics that utilize unreliable findings [9][10].

A second type of technology that claims to “cure” cognitive disabilities, more specifically autism, is neurofeedback therapy (NFT). NFT is a non-invasive technique that observes brain activity and uses it to regulate behavior. Current evidence for this technology is very limited and conclusions remain inconsistent. Additionally, NFT raises many other ethical concerns regarding the individual affected. This is because it promotes ableism and does not aim to aid the individual in their regular activities but rather it aims to “fix” them [11].

There are many other cure-oriented technologies that claim to be AT but overall, cure-oriented technologies are very harmful for individuals with cognitive disabilities because they aim to suppress, shame, or change behaviors rather than support the individual’s independence. This can promote ableism and harm the individual being affected. By suppressing activities and offering “cures”, this stigmatizes disability instead of allowing the individual to integrate into society using AT [12][13]. 

Non-Adaptive Technologies

AT is designed to be custom tailored to the user. This allows the specific needs of the user to be met to ensure proper use of the technology and allows the individual to act independently. This makes it so the technology is adapted to the individual’s abilities making it so the user can have increased productivity and a better experience using the product. By catering to individuals with all needs, this promotes diversity and inclusivity ensuring that all individuals’ needs are met [14][15]. 

Adaptability can be in physical and digital products. In physical products, this means the actual product is able to be configured to meet the individual’s needs. In digital products, this is very similar but can be used for communication, learning, and engagement. By allowing for personalization, this allows that all of a person’s needs are met [14][15].

When a product prevents personalization and forces a fixed design and static interaction, this prevents adaptability to the user. By having interfaces and physical technology that is rigid, this makes the user dependent on the vendor or caregiver when interacting with the technology. AT should be adaptive to fit the user’s needs. By having rigid models, this prevents proper interaction with the technology and becomes harmful for the user [16].

Autonomy Limiting Technologies

There are many technologies that claim to assist the user that actually speak for the user. Tools that claim to interpret or predict what the user will want or is trying to say are extremely harmful. This includes technologies and techniques that claim to read emotions or intent of the user. These types of technologies remove a sense of autonomy and agency which in turn restrict independence. The use of AT aims to increase independent activity, but by speaking for the user, this technology actually does the opposite. Additionally, these types of technology or techniques can imbue their own bias to come to incorrect conclusions or assumptions. This can override the individuals’ own preferences [17][18].

Types of technology included in this category include:

• AI systems that decide care choices

• Care platforms that use algorithm-optimized systems

• Behavioral Interpretation Technology

• Emotion Detection Technology [17][18]

These types of technology can become especially dangerous for those who have cognitive, intellectual, or speech disabilities because they tend to speak for, rather on behalf of, the user. They are unreliable and scientifically unproven and are often wrong. This can cause major miscommunications that are extremely harmful to the individual with the disability [19][20].

Why are these technologies not AT?

Overall, technologies can be considered harmful if they:

• Prioritize normalization, promoting ableism inadvertently

• Speak for the user

• Are designed for caregivers or efficiency rather than the user

• Cannot be modified to fit the user’s needs

• Limit autonomy [4]

AT’s primary goals are to:

• Improve the physical capabilities of an individual

• Enhance independence of the user

• Increase quality of life [4]

By suppressing autonomy and promoting normalization, these technologies are more harmful for the user than helpful. They do not improve the physical capabilities, rather they work around the user. They do not enhance independence, rather they limit autonomy. Since independence is limited, this corresponds with quality of life, perhaps creating an easier caregiving situation, but a worse situation for the person with disabilities [1][4].

References:

‌[1] Assistive Technology Industry Association, “What is AT?,” Assistive Technology Industry Association, 2025. https://www.atia.org/home/at-resources/what-is-at/

‌[2] Adeline, “Encouragement of Independence: A Pathway to Self-Reliance and Growth,” Parenting Tips, Sep. 06, 2024. https://parenting.ra6.org/encouragement-of-independence.htm

[3] https://www.facebook.com/bytefora, “Empowering Lives: The Role of Adaptive Switches for Individuals with Disabilities,” Bytefora, Oct. 26, 2024. https://bytefora.com/empowering-lives-the-role-of-adaptive-switches-for-individuals-with-disabilities/

[4] “The Intersection of Technology, Disability Rights and Worker Rights Final Report and Recommendations.” Available: https://www.nationaldisabilityinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/intersectionoftechnologydisabilityandworkerrights2024report.pdf

‌[5] P. News, “FDA bans shock device used on mentally disabled patients,” PBS News, Mar. 04, 2020. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/fda-bans-shock-device-used-on-mentally-disabled-patients (accessed Mar. 03, 2026).

[6] “Advocates Call on FDA to Expedite Ban on Shock Devices for People with Disabilities | ANCOR,” ANCOR, 2024. https://www.ancor.org/capitol-correspondence/advocates-call-on-fda-to-expedite-ban-on-shock-devices-for-people-with-disabilities/ (accessed Mar. 03, 2026).

‌[7] C. Geng, “What is the controversy behind ABA therapy for autism?,” Medicalnewstoday.com, Nov. 27, 2024. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/is-aba-therapy-harmful#what-are-the-issues

‌[8] J. A. Stramondo, “The Distinction Between Curative and Assistive Technology,” Science and Engineering Ethics, May 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0058-9.

‌[9] R. Abbey and R. Abbey, “Abbey Neuropsychology Clinic,” Abbey Neuropsychology Clinic, Nov. 14, 2024. https://www.abbeyneuropsychologyclinic.com/brain-training-programs-myths-and-facts-debunked/ (accessed Mar. 03, 2026).

‌[10] D. J. Simons et al., “Do ‘Brain-Training’ Programs Work?,” Psychological Science in the Public Interest, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 103–186, Oct. 2016, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100616661983.

‌[11] Y. Zhang, J.-J. Wang, H.-Y. Xing, and J. Yan, “Neurofeedback for autism spectrum disorder: Current evidence, challenges, and future directions,” World journal of psychiatry, vol. 16, no. 2, p. 114358, 2026, doi: https://doi.org/10.5498/wjp.v16.i2.114358.

‌[12] F. O’Brolcháin and B. Gordijn, “Risks of Stigmatisation Resulting from Assistive Technologies for Persons with Autism Spectrum Disorder,” Technologies, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 27, Feb. 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies6010027.

‌[13] J. A. Stramondo, “The Distinction Between Curative and Assistive Technology,” Science and Engineering Ethics, May 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0058-9.

‌[14] M. Halpin, “What is Adaptive Technology and How Does It Work?,” Recite Me, Jun. 30, 2025. https://reciteme.com/news/adaptive-technology/

‌[15] “Assistive and adaptive technology | EBSCO,” EBSCO Information Services, Inc. | www.ebsco.com, 2023. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/health-and-medicine/assistive-and-adaptive-technology

‌[16] siteadmin, “Pros and cons of adaptive user interfaces (AUIs) - Blog,” Nelson Miller Group, Feb. 08, 2024. https://nelsonmillergroup.com/pros-and-cons-of-adaptive-user-interfaces-auis/ (accessed Mar. 03, 2026).

‌[17] D. Giansanti and A. Pirrera, “Integrating AI and Assistive Technologies in Healthcare: Insights from a Narrative Review of Reviews,” Healthcare, vol. 13, no. 5, p. 556, Mar. 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13050556.

‌[18] N. Atwell, “Why Is Facilitated Communication Bad? - Uncovering The Truth,” Word SCR, Sep. 2025. https://wordscr.com/why-is-facilitated-communication-bad/ (accessed Mar. 03, 2026).

‌[19] A. Alsaleh, “The influence of artificial intelligence on individuals with disabilities,” Acta Psychologica, vol. 262, p. 106010, Nov. 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.106010.

‌[20] “A Number of Organizations Caution Against Use of FC and RPM,” American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. https://www.asha.org/slp/cautions-against-use-of-fc-and-rpm-widely-shared/