Improved Blind Navigation

Kevin Spehar, Suchith De Silva, Frank Zhang

November 30, 2018

 1

Overview 2

Changes to Preliminary Report 2

Need Statement and Project Scope 2

Design Specifications 2

Team Responsibilities 2

Statement of Design Alternatives 3

Sensor Type 3

Feedback Type 7

Portability Design 10

Other Aspects 12

Analysis performed to choose solution 12

Solution Overview 16

Budget 16

Appendix A: Revised Need Statement 17

Appendix B: Revised Project Scope 17

Appendix C: Revised Design Specifications 18

Appendix D: Revised Team Responsibilities 19

Appendix E: Sensor Pugh Chart 20

Appendix F: Feedback Pugh Chart 21

Appendix G: Portability Pugh Chart 22

Appendix H: Budget Justification 23

References 23
 2

Overview:
There are over 253 million people with visual impairment around the world according to

the World Health Organization,1 and, according to the BBC, the number of blind individuals is

expected to triple from 36 million to 115 million by 2050 due to a fast-growing elderly population

around the world.2 Therefore, there is a glaring need for a device that improves navigation for

blind individuals and people with visual impairment (BIVI) to help them avoid overhanging and

surrounding objects. The device has three main considerations: the detection system, the

feedback system, and the portability design for the greatest comfort, aesthetic, and ease of use.

Changes to Preliminary Report:

The preliminary report in October detailed the need statement, project scope, design

specifications, design schedule, and team responsibilities. While there were no changes to the

design schedule, there were changes in every other section.

Need Statement and Project Scope:

The use of first-person was removed from both the need statement and the project

scope as detailed in Appendix A and B.

Design Specifications:
Changes and revisions were made to the design specifications in the preliminary report

to include additional specifications and to clarify existing criteria. The full revised design

specifications table can be found in Appendix C with italicized text indicating revisions from the

preliminary report.

Team Responsibilities:

To better distribute future workload for product design, specific responsibilities were

assigned to individual team members. Kevin will be in charge of the coding and software

component of the prototyping, Frank will be in charge of the hardware and ordering the parts,
 3

and Suchith will be responsible for the ergonomics and appeal of the design for the user. The

full organizational table can be found in Appendix D.

Statement of Design Alternatives:

The main aspects of the device were broken down into the sensor, feedback system,

and portability design.

Sensor Type:
The main alternatives for the technology used in the device’s sensors were optical,

laser-guided, ultrasonic, and infrared.

a) Optical: The optical system consists of a camera, a processing unit, and a feedback

system. While the processing and feedback system can range from using a smartphone

to having every component built into one system, the main distinguishing feature of this

system is the camera. The camera presents distinct features which separates it from the

other sensor types in that it has the capability to recognize objects and map out the

surroundings in great detail. An example of this capability is shown in Figure 1. However,

most of these capabilities restrict the feedback mechanism to audio feedback and often

require smartphone integration with internet connection for processing power.

Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the mechanism of the optical guidance system detecting objects
by using a camera and computer vision and machine learning algorithms.3

While these additional capabilities provide exciting future potential, the current

abilities of this system are fairly limited.4,5 Current literature demonstrates systems that
 4

can recognize a total of seven types of objects with ~60% accuracy which, while

impressive, is very limited in its use. In addition, the machine learning algorithms

required to process and recognize these objects require a great deal of computing which

delays the feedback, thereby reducing the effectiveness of a real-time navigation

system. In addition, the restriction to audio feedback to use this type of system reduces

the amount of information BIVIs can obtain from their environment, which is a vital

component of how BIVIs obtain information from their environment.

Overall, the optical navigation system does provide exciting future prospects, but

it is limited by computational power and early developmental stages in the algorithms

required to recognize objects. However, it still provides a powerful method to understand

the environment and navigate surroundings.

b) Laser Guidance: Laser guidance systems revolve around tracking lasers and their

deflections using a camera system as depicted in Figure 2. This type of navigation

system is an elegant solution to BIVI navigation due to its high accuracy, with studies

reporting less than 6 cm error in detection6 and ease of use.

However, this system also poses major concerns as a navigational tool. While

lasers are high precision instruments and theoretically, the ideal candidate for navigation,

they also pose the highest safety risk of any technology. Many of the laser systems are

handheld or attached to the arm and can lead to exposing other people to lasers that are

extremely harmful to the eye.6-9 Due to this concern, laser-guidance systems cannot

detect overhanging objects due to safety concerns, greatly limiting the functionality of

this system. In addition, laser-tracking becomes difficult in high illumination conditions

due to the low contrast of the laser and its surroundings. This makes laser guidance

systems less reliable in all conditions. Illumination also affects the detection range of the
 5

system. Some studies report a range of approximately 2 m before the accuracy becomes

very poor.6 Other sources show that many of the laser guidance systems can be large,

bulky, and expensive, presenting serious flaws for the purposes of navigation.7-9

Figure 2. Schematic illustration of the mechanism of the laser guidance system detecting objects by
laser deflection.

The laser guidance system demonstrates a high accuracy system that is

compatible with smartphones, audio feedback, and haptic feedback systems. However, it

is hindered by safety concerns, a lack of overhead detection, variable performance

under different illuminations, and size.

c) Ultrasonic Technology: An ultrasonic sensor is an active sensor that emits mechanical

waves at certain frequencies, which in turn require a continuous supply of energy for the

sensor. The ultrasonic system is comprised of a circuit board, a transmitting transducer,

and a receiving transducer. The traveling time of each pulse will be recorded and

processed by Arduino (preliminarily) or other processing chips as depicted in Figure 3.

The distance between transducer and object is calculated based on wave traveling time.

The calculated distance will be sent to the feedback system to warn users. The system

presents an affordable yet accurate method of detection. A detecting window is set to

average the calculated distances for each trial to prevent false alarms. Therefore, the
 6

ultrasound sensor can detect the distance of objects in the surroundings accurately and

conveniently. However, the sensor is only able to detect spatial position and cannot

distinguish humans from other objects. These transducers can detect objects within the

range of 10 cm to 400 cm away with 0.3 cm resolution, which is sufficient for

overhanging obstacle detection.

Figure 3: Schematic illustration of the mechanism of ultrasonic technology detecting surrounding

object.

d) Infrared: As a passive sensor, the infrared sensor does not emit energy itself. It detects

motion by measuring changes in received energy as depicted in Figure 4.10 A Fresnel len

covers the sensor, and the sensor is made of pyroelectric elements, such that changes

in heat can be converted to electrical signals. When the subject moves in front of the

sensor, the electrical signal is transmitted to the feedback system to provide users of

appropriate warnings. The sensor is especially effective for the BIVI community when

they are waiting in lines, as the ultrasound system does not efficiently provide movement

of the queue. Implementing an infrared sensor in the device would allow the user to

recognize hot surfaces, such as a stovetops, and distinguish animals and other people

from inanimate objects. Although this functionality may seem trivial on the surface, this

task is not as mundane for BIVIs.

 7

Figure 4: Schematic illustration of the mechanism of PIR technology detecting surrounding live
objects by sensing heat changes.

Feedback Type:

To convey feedback to the user after the device detects the surroundings, a variety of methods

were considered: audial signals, a Braille interface, haptic sensation by vibration, and haptic

sensation by pressure.

a) Audio: Audio feedback serves as the most detailed method of feedback. Any level of

information can be communicated through audio feedback, making it the most flexible

feedback system. Audio systems can relay precise detailed information about detected

objects, and can be integrated to give navigational instructions using a smartphone’s

navigational capabilities. However, audio feedback systems do suffer from additional

drawbacks compared to other feedback mechanism.

One of the major concerns with audio feedback in real-time navigation is

response time. Audio feedback systems relay information at a slower rate than other

methods, thus resulting a longer response time.5 Based on previous studies, audio

system response can take take over a second to relay a single verbal message. This can
 8

be problematic if there are multiple messages that need to be relayed, or if there is a fast

moving object approaching the user.

Another concern with audio feedback is sound interference from the environment.

In a busy city or street, there could be too much ambient noise to understand the audio

feedback at its normal volume. If the volume is turned up to compensate for the noisy

environment, hearing damage becomes a concern for the user.

Feedback from the BIVI community have also voiced concerns about audio

feedback systems. Sound is one of the most critical means by which BIVIs obtain

information from the environment. Having additional audio input from a navigational

system interferes with the information BIVIs get from their environment, making it a less

desirable method of feedback for many users.

b) Braille: Braille is a tactile writing system that has long been used by low vision people to

read and collect information that they would otherwise have difficulty accessing. A

Body-Braille system has also been developed to deliver similar signals using 6 micro

vibration motors to different body surfaces as shown in Figure 5.12 This type of feedback

interface is especially useful if the user is already familiar with the Braille system.

However, giving information using Braille in real-time may be hard to achieve and

integrating such a system is expensive.

 9

Figure 5. Schematic of a braille display feedback system and how the user would obtain information
from the device.11

c) Haptic/Vibrational: By taking advantage of the many mechano-tactile receptors across

the surface of the body, sensory substitution can be used to relay messages by static

indentations, vibrations, or sliding across the skin.13 Such messages are represented in

the form of tactons, which are designed to be easily memorized. These tactons carry

various pieces of information depending on the type of tactile pulse that is transmitted.

Many parameters of the tactile pulse can be varied, including frequency, intensity, and

duration of the pulse pattern. A point of contention to this system is that different

vibration types may be more difficult to distinguish for BIVIs. However, this feedback

system can notify users instantly, which is crucial in helping users avoid surrounding

obstacles.

Vibrating motors are commonly applied in haptic feedback systems. They

operate based on a non-symmetric or eccentric mass attached to the shaft of a DC

motor.14 The result is a driven harmonic vibration at the same frequency of the excitation

applied to the system.

d) Haptic/Pressure: Similar to Haptic/Vibration feedback, except the signals are delivered

as applications of constant pressure to the body rather than a pattern of vibration pulses.
 10

Overall, this feedback system is less optimal since pressure signals might cause more

discomfort and can sometimes be misinterpreted. In addition, the more constant

pressure may cause the user to habituate to the signal and become less sensitive to it.

Portability Design:
The final design should be visually inconspicuous, allowed freedom of movement, and

comfortable. To satisfy these conditions, the major portability design options considered were a

set of glasses/visor over the eyes, a wristband on the arm that does not hold a white cane,

wristbands on both arms, a handheld device that could fit in the palm, a belt around the waist, a

necklace, and a white cane attachment.

a) Glasses (G): The device is in the form of a set of glasses or visor in front of the user’s

eyes. Detection takes place at the lens or in the front of the glasses while the feedback

interface is along the frame, with its contact point (potentially the ear or the temples)

dependent on the feedback mechanism. It can also be transmitted by an additional

earpiece. With the advent of techwear, this type of navigational technology in the form of

glasses would be inconspicuous. This works best with audio feedback, but is not ideal

for delivering signals with other methods of feedback to the body.

b) 1 Wristband (1W): The device is in the form of a wristband on the user’s wrist that is not

holding a white cane. Detection takes place through sensors located around the

circumference of the wristband for most sensor types. Feedback takes place on the

inside of the wristband in contact with the skin, or by an additional earpiece. This works

best and mostly with haptic feedback (vibration and pressure), and is quite inexpensive

to produce. However, this design might cause some error when users move their arms

while walking and may be confusing for the user when obstacles are being detected on

the side opposite of the arm which is wearing the device.

 11

c) 2 Wristbands (2W): Similar to the 1 Wristband design, except that the user wears two

wristbands, including one on the wrist that holds a white cane. Compared to the 1

Wristband design, the user may find that wearing wristbands on both arms may be

somewhat of a nuisance, even though the additional wristband would likely better inform

the user about obstacles on both sides. From a coding and interpretation standpoint, it is

also easier to encode directionality with both wristbands.

d) Handheld (HH): The device fits in the palm of the user’s hand that is not carrying a white

cane, and it is easy to carry. Detection takes place through sensors located on the

device and feedback occurs through haptic feedback or Braille by contact with the skin,

or by an additional earpiece. This works best with haptic feedback and does not cause

discomfort to the user. A significant concern is that the handheld device would

essentially prohibit the user from having any reasonable functionality with the hand used

to hold the device.

e) Belt: In this format, the device is a belt positioned around the waist through the user’s

pants, and it can be worn over or under a top piece of clothing. Detection takes place

around the exterior of the belt. Feedback is transmitted back to the user by haptic

feedback through the interior of the belt, which is in close contact with the skin or only 1

layer of clothing above it. It can also be transmitted by an additional earpiece. While the

belt can be quite visually inconspicuous if it is covered under other layers of clothing, the

user may definitely experience discomfort with signalling around the waist.

f) Cane-Attachment (Cane-A): The device is an attachment to the standard white cane

many low vision people use on a daily basis. The attachment appears as a modified

handle to the cane. Detection takes place through this attachment and feedback is

delivered through the interface with the hand through the handle by haptic feedback,
 12

Braille, or by an additional earpiece. This works best with haptic feedback, but many

existing devices use this design. Since many BIVIs already use a white cane, the

cane-attachment does not feel as an added burden to the user. The main drawback of

the cane-attachment is that the cane-attachment would needed to be built around the

cane’s handle without negatively affecting the function of the white cane itself.

g) Necklace: The device is in the format of a necklace around the user’s neck such that it

makes contact with the user’s skin. Detection takes place through the chain holding the

necklace, and the user receives feedback either haptically through contact with the

neck/high chest area or by an additional earpiece. This portability design serves as a

fairly inexpensive, lightweight, and aesthetically inconspicuous choice. However,

receiving signals around the neck area through most feedback methods may be

uncomfortable to the user. It likely has to be worn under a top piece of clothing to reduce

the high variability in the device’s motion as the user moves around, but this also makes

the device harder to calibrate if it is under clothing, especially during winter in colder

regions.

Other Aspects:

Other aspects of the device that were determined to be not as significant as those detailed

above include whether or not the device pairs with a smartphone and how the processing would

be performed by the device (microchip, arduino, Raspberry Pi, etc.)

Analysis performed to choose solution:

Three Pugh charts were made to compare the possible design alternatives for the

sensor, the feedback system, and the portability design. The sensor and the feedback system

were evaluated independently of the other Pugh charts while the portability design was

constructed based on the chosen feedback system as that directly affected the strengths and
 13

weaknesses of a particular design. For example, a vibrational feedback system on a wristband

would be less distracting than the same system on a pair of glasses due to eye irritation and

general facial discomfort. The accuracy parameter is a combination of the minimum size

detection and the Type I and II error specifications evaluated together, since it is difficult to

establish many of these parameters accurately without testing.

Table 1: Sensor Pugh Chart

Sensor Types
Criterion (1-10) Weight Optical Laser Ultrasound Infrared
Cost 5 2 1 10 10
Range 3 10 4 6 8
Accuracy of Detection 3 8 9 6 4
Consistency in Quality 2 6 2 8 4
Feasibility of 2 2 4 8 8
Technological
Implementation
Overhead Detection 2 10 1 10 1
Feedback and Sensing 2 6 7 9 9
Frequency
Object Recognition 2 8 1 1 3
Comfort 1 10 6 10 10
Durability 1 7 5 10 10
Recharge Time 1 7 5 10 10
Total Max: 240 152 90 188 166

Based on the evaluation of the 5 types of sensors discussed in the earlier section, the

abbreviated Pugh chart shown in Table 1 was constructed. The full sensor Pugh chart can be

found in Appendix E. Cost, range, and accuracy were the considered to be the three most

important categories when selecting a sensor. The importance of cost was due to a limited

prototyping budget and to keep the price on the final product as low as possible for wider

access by the BIVI community. High Accuracy and sufficient range are required for the product

to work as intended, so the sensor chosen must be able to detect objects between 0 and 4

meters in front of the user and as small as 3 cm in width.

 14

The evaluated parameters were scored based on the advantages and disadvantages

discussed in the design alternatives section. Ultimately the ultrasound sensor was chosen as

the main navigational sensor, but it is unable to distinguish humans from other objects while the

infrared sensor is able to. In addition, the infrared sensor is cheap and easily implementable, so

it can easily be incorporated in conjunction with the ultrasound sensor. Therefore, the final

sensor chosen was the ultrasound sensor with an auxiliary infrared sensor.

Table 2: Feedback Pugh Chart

Feedback Types
Criterion (1-10) Weight Audio Braille Vibrational Pressure
Accuracy of Interpretation 5 8 8 6 3
Cost 3 8 7 9 9
Response Time 3 7 3 10 8
Interference with Daily 3 4 7 9 5
Life
Consistency in Quality 2 6 2 8 4
Feasibility of 2 2 4 8 8
Technological
Implementation
Feedback and Sensing 2 5 4 9 9
Frequency
Learnability 1 10 8 7 7
Total Max: 200 133 119 171 130

In the analysis of feedback type as shown in the abbreviated Pugh Chart in Table 2, the

accuracy of interpretation was the most critical parameter, since it is the goal of effective

feedback. The full Pugh Chart can be found in Appendix F. However, even though audio

signalling and Body-Braille are better in this aspect, it was determined that they fell short in

other considerations relative to vibrations. Response time and interference with daily life were

two important parameters in which vibrational feedback is clearly superior. Vibrations are

already processed fairly quickly by the human body and do not interfere with any of the major

senses predominantly used by the body, such as the auditory system. Pressure feedback
 15

scored at an equal or lower level in all aspects compared to vibrational feedback, which was

expected since the group envisioned that the pressure signals would be applied similarly to

longer, more intense pulse forms of vibration which would be interpreted poorly by the user.

Table 3: Portability Pugh Chart

Portability Type
Criterion (1-10) Weight G 1W 2W HH Belt Cane-A Necklace
Interference With 3 9 9 9 5 5 9 7
Daily Life
Interpretation of 3 5 8 10 8 7 8 8
Vibrations
Comfort 3 4 8 7 7 5 8 5
Aesthetic 3 5 9 8 6 9 10 9
Feasibility of 3 7 8 9 8 8 6 6
Technological
Implementation
Feasibility of 2 5 9 8 8 6 7 8
Physical
Implementation
Cost 1 8 10 9 8 8 9 8
Portability 1 7 9 8 7 8 9 8
Total Max: 190 115 163 162 133 130 155 137

Once vibrations were chosen as the ideal method of feedback, it was necessary to

evaluate the compatibility and effectiveness of delivering vibrations to different parts of the body

as shown in the abbreviated Pugh Chart for portability in Table 3. The full Pugh Chart can be

found in Appendix G. Comparing each of the portability designs with this qualitative parameter

in mind made glasses an especially poor choice. Such a result was expected because glasses

in the field of navigational assistance for BIVIs have generally been used in devices utilizing

some sort of optical sensor with audio or potentially enhanced visual feedback. The options of a

handheld device, a belt, and a necklace also proved to fall short relative to the top design ideas

due to how they interfered with daily life and caused discomfort by delivering vibrations to

undesired places such as the neck and waist.

 16

The designs of 1 Wristband, 2 Wristbands, and cane attachment scored highly in the

majority of the categories. The main source of distinction between them was found after

considering the feasibility of each. Wristbands were the design for which the best code could be

envisioned for a functional detection and vibrational feedback system. As depicted in the

abbreviated Pugh Chart in Table 3 for portability, the 1 Wristband format grades slightly higher

than the 2 Wristband design which ultimately gave the 1 wristband design the highest score.

Solution Overview:
We chose ultrasound and infrared as our final sensor type. Ultrasound scored the

highest for overhead detection and cost, and scored sufficiently for most other parameters

except human recognition. This deficit was mediated by including an auxiliary infrared sensor to

the design which only minimally increased the cost. The ultrasound and infrared sensor will be

incorporated into a single wristband design with vibrational motors within the band.

The vibrational motors will serve to generate vibrations along the band to communicate

object location to the user. The intensity of the vibrations will indicate how far an object is and

human recognition by the infrared sensor will be communicated by a high frequency vibration.

The wristband will be worn on the arm opposite to the cane using arm to minimize

interference with the information obtained from using a white cane. The coding and hardware for

the sensors and feedback motors will be done through Arduino.

Budget:
We are requesting $49 worth of funding for constructing the prototype. This includes 5

ultrasound transducers, 3 PIR sensors, and one pack of wristbands. The budget is detailed in

Appendix H with justifications for each item.

 17

Appendix A: Revised Need Statement

The aim is to improve the quality of existing assistive technology devices available for

independent mobility that are designed for the visually impaired population by helping them

navigate better and distinguish humans and non-humans.

Appendix B: Revised Project Scope

There is a need for a device that improves navigation for the blind and visually impaired

to help them avoid overhanging and surrounding objects. A portable device to help blind or

visually impaired people accurately locate nearby objects in real-time, identify the object as

human or not, and have enough power to function for at least 8 hours is proposed. The aim is to

deliver a device that is comfortable and easy to use by a visually impaired person in a useful

form by April 19th.

 18

Appendix C: Revised Design Specifications:

Appendix C Table: Full Revised Design Specifications
(Italicized text indicates a revision from the preliminary report)
Category Specifications

Performance
Parameter Specifications

Range 0-4m in front of the user

Vertical Detection 15 cm above the user’s head

Operational Temperature -20 - 50℃

Feedback Frequency 2 Hz

Sensing Frequency 30 Hz

Minimum Size Detection 3 cm width

False Positive Rate (Type I) < 2%

False Negative Rate (Type II) < 1%

● Can detect overhanging objects and objects on the ground often
missed by the white cane.
● Ignores continuous alarms such as hallway walls.
● Able to differentiate whether approaching objects are human.
Cost ● < $600
Useability ● Users are able to learn it within two weeks.
● Does not cause discomfort to user.
● Easy to charge for BIVIs.
● < 3 hour recharge time to fully recharge.
● Easily indicates power level for BIVIs.
● Easy to calibrate for BIVIs.
● Does not distract others.
Portability ● < 500 grams
Durability ● Functions effectively for 8 hours on full charge.
Implementation ● Feasible to implement the physical design
● Feasible to implement the technological design
 19

Appendix D: Revised Team Responsibilities:

Appendix D Table: Organization of Team Responsibilities:
Task Kevin Suchith Frank
Contacting Potential Clients X
Research X X X
Prototyping X X X
Testing X X X
Paper Writing and Editing X X X
Preliminary Presentation X
Progress Presentation X
V&V Presentation X
Website X
Coding/Software X
Ordering Parts/Hardware X
Ergonomics/Design X
 20

Appendix E: Sensor Pugh Chart:

Table Appendix E: Sensor Pugh Chart
Sensor Types
Criterion (1-10) Weight Optical Laser Ultrasound Infrared
Cost 5 2 1 10 10
Range 3 10 4 6 8
Accuracy of Detection 3 8 9 6 4
Consistency in Quality 2 6 2 8 4
Feasibility of 2 2 4 8 8
Technological
Implementation
Overhead Detection 2 10 1 10 1
Feedback and Sensing 2 6 7 9 9
Frequency
Object Recognition 2 8 1 1 3
(3 for alive object only)
Comfort 1 10 6 10 10
Durability 1 7 5 10 10
Recharge Time 1 0 0 0 0
Accuracy of Interpretation 0 0 0 0 0
Response Time 0 0 0 0 0
Aesthetic 0 0 0 0 0
Interference With Daily 0 0 0 0 0
Life
Feasibility of Physical 0 0 0 0 0
Implementation
Operational Temperature 0 0 0 0 0
Continuous Alarm 0 0 0 0 0
Ignoring
Learnability 0 0 0 0 0
BIVI Accessible 0 0 0 0 0
Portability 0 0 0 0 0
Total Max: 230 145 85 178 156
 21

Appendix F: Feedback Pugh Chart:

Table Appendix F: Feedback Pugh Chart
Feedback Types
Criterion (1-10) Weight Audio Braille Vibrational Pressure
Accuracy of Interpretation 5 8 8 6 3
Cost 3 8 7 9 9
Response Time 3 7 3 10 8
Interference with Daily 3 4 7 9 5
Life
Consistency in Quality 2 6 2 8 4
Feasibility of 2 2 4 8 8
Technological
Implementation
Feedback and Sensing 2 5 4 9 9
Frequency
Learnability 1 10 8 7 7
Aesthetic 0 0 0 0 0
Range 0 0 0 0 0
Overhead Detection 0 0 0 0 0
Feedback and Sensing 0 0 0 0 0
Frequency
Accuracy of Detection 0 0 0 0 0
Object Recognition 0 0 0 0 0
Comfort 0 0 0 0 0
Feasibility of Physical 0 0 0 0 0
Implementation
Operational Temperature 0 0 0 0 0
Continuous Alarm 0 0 0 0 0
Ignoring
BIVI Accessible 0 0 0 0 0
Recharge Time 0 0 0 0 0
Portability 0 0 0 0 0
Total Max: 200 133 119 171 130
 22

Appendix G: Portability Pugh Chart:

Table Appendix G: Portability Pugh Chart
Portability Type

Criterion (1-10) Weight G 1W 2W HH Belt Cane-A Necklace

Interference With 3 9 9 9 5 5 9 7
Daily Life
Interpretation of 3 5 8 10 8 7 8 8
Vibrations
Comfort 3 4 8 7 7 5 8 5
Aesthetic 3 5 9 8 6 9 10 9
Feasibility of 3 7 8 9 8 8 6 6
Technological
Implementation
Feasibility of 2 5 9 8 8 6 7 8
Physical
Implementation
Cost 1 8 10 9 8 8 9 8
Portability 1 7 9 8 7 8 9 8
Accuracy of 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detection
Consistency in 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Quality
Overhead 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detection
Feedback and 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sensing Frequency
Object Recognition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(3 for alive object
only)
Durability 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Recharge Time 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Accuracy of 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Interpretation
Response Time 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Range 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Operational 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Temperature
Continuous Alarm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ignoring
Learnability 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BIVI Accessible 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Max: 190 115 163 162 133 130 155 137
 23

Appendix H: Budget Justification:

Table Appendix H: Approximate Budget
Item Quantity Price ea. Total Source
HC-SR04 Ranging 5 5 25 Amazon15
Detector
5 Pack HC-SR501 PIR 5 2 10 Amazon16
Motion IR Sensor
Rubber Wristband 2 7 14 Amazon17
Arduino 1 0 0 Widder’s Lab
Wires 50 0 0 Widder’s Lab
3D Printed Pieces 3 0 0 Widder’s Lab
Velcro Adjustments 2m 0 0 Widder’s Lab
Vibration motor 3 0 0 Widder’s Lab
Total - - 49 -

We are asking for more than one ultrasound transducer and PIR sensor because they are

fragile, and damage of these sensors are expected. We are requesting an Arduino for

processing the sensors and vibration motors, wires for connecting all electronic pieces, velcro

for adjusting the size of the wristband, and 3-D printed pieces for holding all electronic pieces for

prototyping. These are all available for free in Professor Widder’s Lab.

References:
1) “Blindness and Visual Impairment.” World Health Organization, World Health
Organization, 11 Oct. 2017,
www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/blindness-and-visual-impairment.
2) Mazumdar, Tulip. “Global Blindness Set to 'Triple by 2050'.” BBC News, BBC, 3 Aug.
2017, www.bbc.com/news/health-40806253.
3) Lin, Qing, and Youngjoon Han. “A Dual-Field Sensing Scheme for a Guidance System
for the Blind.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,
The Royal Society, 11 May 2016, doi.org/10.3390/s16050667.
4) Lin, Bor-Shing, et al. “Simple Smartphone-Based Guiding System for Visually Impaired
People.” Sensors, vol. 17, no. 6, 2017, p. 1371., doi:10.3390/s17061371.
5) Lin, Qing, and Youngjoon Han. “A Context-Aware-Based Audio Guidance System for
Blind People Using a Multimodal Profile Model.” Sensors, vol. 14, no. 10, Sept. 2014,
pp. 18670–18700., doi:10.3390/s141018670.
 24

6) Dang, Quoc, et al. “A Virtual Blind Cane Using a Line Laser-Based Vision System and
an Inertial Measurement Unit.” Sensors, vol. 16, no. 1, 2016, p. 95.,
doi:10.3390/s16010095.
7) Dikariev, Mykola. “VIZORRO - Laser Navigation for the Blind.” Indiegogo, 8 July 2016,
www.indiegogo.com/projects/vizorro-laser-navigation-for-the-blind--3#/.
8) “Hand-Held Laser Tool Assists the Blind.” Laser Focus World, 1 Feb. 2005,
www.laserfocusworld.com/articles/print/volume-41/issue-2/world-news/hand-held-laser-t
ool-assists-the-blind.html.
9) Lin, Qing, and Youngjoon Han. “A Context-Aware-Based Audio Guidance System for
Blind People Using a Multimodal Profile Model.” Sensors, vol. 14, no. 10, Sept. 2014,
pp. 18670–18700., doi:10.3390/s141018670.
10) “How to Bias PIR Sensors to Prolong Battery Life in Wireless Motion Detectors.” TI
E2E™ Community,
e2e.ti.com/blogs_/b/analogwire/archive/2017/05/30/how-to-bias-pir-sensors-to-prolong-b
attery-life-in-wireless-motion-detectors.
11) Hardesty, Larry, and MIT News Office. “Wearable System Helps Visually Impaired Users
Navigate.” MIT News, 31 May 2017,
news.mit.edu/2017/wearable-visually-impaired-users-navigate-0531.
12) Ohtsuka, Satoshi, et al. “Body-Braille System for Disabled People.” Lecture Notes in
Computer Science Computers Helping People with Special Needs, pp. 682–685.,
doi:10.1007/978-3-540-70540-6_98.
13) Sorgini, Francesca, et al. “Haptic-Assistive Technologies for Audition and Vision
Sensory Disabilities.” Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, vol. 13, no. 4,
Oct. 2017, pp. 394–421., doi:10.1080/17483107.2017.1385100.
14) “Application Notes.” Recision Microdrives,
www.precisionmicrodrives.com/content/ab-004-understanding-erm-vibration-motor-char
acteristics/.
15) “SainSmart HC-SR04 Ranging Detector Mod Distance Sensor (Blue).” Amazon,
Amazon,
www.amazon.com/SainSmart-HC-SR04-Ranging-Detector-Distance/dp/B004U8TOE6.
16) “DIYmall 5 Pack HC-SR501 Pir Motion IR Sensor Body Module Infrared for Arduino.”
Amazon, Amazon,
www.amazon.com/DIYmall-HC-SR501-Motion-Infrared-Arduino/dp/B012ZZ4LPM.
17) “POY Compatible Bands Replacement for Fitbit Alta/Fitbit Alta HR, Adjustable Sport
Wristbands for Women Men.” Amazon, Amazon,
www.amazon.com/POY-Compatible-Replacement-Adjustable-Wristbands/dp/B07C9TM
5RP/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1543546524&sr=8-5&keywords=adjustable rubber
wristband&th=1&psc=1.