April 2014
Volume 55, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2014
Tactile output as a method for communicating with the visually impaired in mobility.
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Aminat Adebiyi
    Biomedical Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
  • Shadi Bohlool
    Biomedical Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
  • Mort Arditti
    Doheny Eye Institute, Los Angeles, CA
  • James D Weiland
    Biomedical Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
    Ophthalmology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Aminat Adebiyi, None; Shadi Bohlool, None; Mort Arditti, None; James Weiland, Second Sight Medical Products, Inc (P), Second Sight Medical Products, Inc (S), Second Sight Medical Products, Inc. (F)
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2014, Vol.55, 4144. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Aminat Adebiyi, Shadi Bohlool, Mort Arditti, James D Weiland; Tactile output as a method for communicating with the visually impaired in mobility.. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2014;55(13):4144.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: This study evaluated the ability of blind subjects to navigate complex routes when guided with vibrotactile commands.

Methods: The tactile feedback system consists of six vibration motors that are attached to individual points on a subject’s upper torso through a vest. The motors are connected to a push-button microcontroller system that delivers commands to the subject when the researcher presses a button that activates the corresponding motor(s). Eight navigational commands are encoded into the six-motor array, including, ‘forward’, ‘veer left’, ‘approaching left turn’, ‘turn left’, ‘veer right’, ‘approaching right turn’, turn right’ and ‘stop’. For example, ‘approaching left turn’ is coded as a single pulse of a motor, whereas ‘turn left’ is coded as two pulses of the same motor. Ten low-vision subjects were recruited from the Braille Institute, Los Angeles. Wearing the tactile feedback system, subjects were guided through indoor and outdoor courses. As a control, the subject navigated the same course using a cane for guidance. Appropriate response to commands, time to complete a trial, and reaction time were measured. Subjects were also given an exit survey that measured the usability of the feedback system. A parallel LED-array allowed alignment of a given command to video footage recorded for each trial.

Results: Using tactile commands, subjects displayed responses consistent with 82.46% of commands and an average reaction time of 1.46 seconds. Subjects also completed routes faster than with their cane alone (p = 0.04). When using the device, subjects complained that encoding multiple commands on a single motor affected their ability to successfully comply with commands, probably stemming from a cognitive dissonance effect. They also preferred that the motors were placed closer to their skin. The device was rated 76% usable with subjects enthusiastic for its use as a street crossing guide.

Conclusions: The tactile feedback system shows promise as an alternative to verbal-assist devices as means of communicating important information to users for mobility. However, optimal motor positioning and command encoding need to be investigated further to maximize its benefit.

Keywords: 584 low vision  
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×