HAPTIC FEEDBACK ENHANCED MOBILITY (‘WHITE’) CANE INCREASES ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS IN THE ABSENCE OF VISION
Location
SU-215
Start Date
26-4-2024 12:30 PM
Department
Biology
Abstract
Approximately 23 million people who are blind or visually impaired (B/VI) use mobility canes. Although effective, canes cannot detect obstacles beyond the reach of their tip. We explored the possibility of increasing cane effectiveness by incorporating tip-mounted distance sensors that triggered haptic (vibratory) feedback in the cane’s handle when nearby objects were detected. In our experiment we compared four cane configurations in an obstacle-avoidance task. Canes differed in sensor type (ultrasonic vs optical), number of sensors (2 vs 3), and position of sensors ( ~45° vs 90° to the cane axis). Blindfolded volunteers (N=20) tested each configuration by walking back and forth across a room (2 total trips, approx. 40 ft./trip) between two rows of boxes using haptic feedback on alternate trips. We scored the number of box locations detected without touching (identify), prior to touching (bump), or after inadvertently touching (collision) each with the cane. Volunteers identified significantly more boxes and had fewer collisions using canes with haptic feedback. They also identified more obstacles using canes with two side- and one forward-facing than with canes that had only side-facing sensors.
Faculty Sponsor
Frederick Prete
HAPTIC FEEDBACK ENHANCED MOBILITY (‘WHITE’) CANE INCREASES ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS IN THE ABSENCE OF VISION
SU-215
Approximately 23 million people who are blind or visually impaired (B/VI) use mobility canes. Although effective, canes cannot detect obstacles beyond the reach of their tip. We explored the possibility of increasing cane effectiveness by incorporating tip-mounted distance sensors that triggered haptic (vibratory) feedback in the cane’s handle when nearby objects were detected. In our experiment we compared four cane configurations in an obstacle-avoidance task. Canes differed in sensor type (ultrasonic vs optical), number of sensors (2 vs 3), and position of sensors ( ~45° vs 90° to the cane axis). Blindfolded volunteers (N=20) tested each configuration by walking back and forth across a room (2 total trips, approx. 40 ft./trip) between two rows of boxes using haptic feedback on alternate trips. We scored the number of box locations detected without touching (identify), prior to touching (bump), or after inadvertently touching (collision) each with the cane. Volunteers identified significantly more boxes and had fewer collisions using canes with haptic feedback. They also identified more obstacles using canes with two side- and one forward-facing than with canes that had only side-facing sensors.