| Literature DB >> 35009914 |
Shah Khusro1, Babar Shah2, Inayat Khan3, Sumayya Rahman1.
Abstract
Feedback is one of the significant factors for the mental mapping of an environment. It is the communication of spatial information to blind people to perceive the surroundings. The assistive smartphone technologies deliver feedback for different activities using several feedback mediums, including voice, sonification and vibration. Researchers 0have proposed various solutions for conveying feedback messages to blind people using these mediums. Voice and sonification feedback are effective solutions to convey information. However, these solutions are not applicable in a noisy environment and may occupy the most important auditory sense. The privacy of a blind user can also be compromised with speech feedback. The vibration feedback could effectively be used as an alternative approach to these mediums. This paper proposes a real-time feedback system specifically designed for blind people to convey information to them based on vibration patterns. The proposed solution has been evaluated through an empirical study by collecting data from 24 blind people through a mixed-mode survey using a questionnaire. Results show the average recognition accuracy for 10 different vibration patterns are 90%, 82%, 75%, 87%, 65%, and 70%.Entities:
Keywords: assistive technologies; contextual information; indoor environment; smartphone; vibration patterns
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35009914 PMCID: PMC8749676 DOI: 10.3390/s22010361
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Overview of vibration patterns feedback for blind people.
Tasks performed by blind people in an indoor environment.
| S. No | Navigational Task | Risky Task | Task Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Walk Forward | Upward ramp | Fall |
| 2 | Walk Backward | Downward ramp | Fall |
| 3 | Turn Left | Upward Elevator | Fall |
| 4 | Turn Right | Downward Elevator | Fall |
| 5 | Turn Around | Elevator Door | Fall |
| 6 | Hold this Side | Upward Escalator | Fall |
| 7 | Forward | Downward Escalator | Fall |
| 8 | Enter | Upward Stairs | Fall |
| 9 | Exit | Downward Stairs | Fall |
| 10 | Stop | Rout Deviation | Fall |
| 11 | Enter | In contact with sharp things (e.g., blades, scissors, knife, and glass) | Cut |
| 12 | Exit | Fire Safety Risk | Burn causing |
| 13 | Stop | Hot water | Burn causing |
| 14 | Corridors | Hot iron | Burn causing |
| 15 | Door (sliding or push) | Obstacles in front | Collision |
| 16 | Destination | Slippery/wet floor | Fall |
| 17 | Landmarks | Smooth tiles | Fall |
| 18 | Floor # | Fast Moving object | Hit |
Figure 2Classes of Taxonomy.
Figure 3Feedback sets after the first, second, and third iteration.
Figure 4Downstairs Patterns.
Figure 5Left Movement Patterns.
Figure 6Walking Patterns.
Figure 7Patterns bit combination using Morse code.
Pattern for Floor-changing feedback set.
| Property | Value | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pattern Name | Floor-Changing |
| 2 | Number of Pattern-Bits | Three |
| 3 | Pattern-Bit Type | Stairs down |
| 4 | Pattern-Bit Length | [short, silence, normal] |
| 5 | Pattern-Bit Duration | [3400 ms, 200 ms, 600 ms] |
| 6 | Vibration Pattern | [Stairs down—Silence gap—Normal] |
| 7 | Pattern Duration | 3400 + 200 + 600 = 4200 ms |
Technologies adopted by the participants.
| Technology | Q Mobile Linq l15 | iPhone | Samsung Galaxy S5 | Regular Phone | RP01 GPS Tracker |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participants | N = 04 | N = 02 | N = 12 | N = 04 | N = 02 |
Figure 8Attitude towards usage of the proposed solution.
Figure 9Intention to Use.
Figure 10Perceived Usefulness after using the proposed vibration patterns.
Figure 11Understandability and Learnability.
Figure 12Ease of Use.
Data reliability test (Cronbach alpha).
| Measurement Items | Observations | Item-Test Correlation | Item-Rest Correlation | Average Inter-Item Correlation | Cronbach Alpha |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AT1 | 24 | 0.2520 | 0.4809 | 0.0351 | 0.8081 |
| AT2 | 24 | 0.3014 | 0.0067 | 0.0431 | 0.8441 |
| AT3 | 24 | 0.4815 | 0.1911 | 0.0402 | 0.8305 |
| AT4 | 24 | 0.5102 | 0.1173 | 0.0494 | 0.8360 |
| ITU1 | 24 | 0.6879 | 0.5205 | 0.0303 | 0.8050 |
| ITU2 | 24 | 0.4606 | 0.2741 | 0.0394 | 0.8242 |
| ITU3 | 24 | 0.5314 | 0.2433 | 0.0938 | 0.8266 |
| ITU4 | 24 | 0.2702 | 0.0763 | 0.0143 | 0.8390 |
| PDU1 | 24 | 0.3653 | 0.0714 | 0.0452 | 0.8394 |
| PDU2 | 24 | 0.2956 | 0.0009 | 0.0436 | 0.8445 |
| PDU3 | 24 | 0.0394 | 0.1474 | 0.0455 | 0.8338 |
| UAL1 | 24 | 0.5501 | −0.0446 | 0.0494 | 0.8478 |
| UAL2 | 24 | 0.0147 | 0.2258 | 0.0353 | 0.8279 |
| EU1 | 24 | 0.1644 | 0.2782 | 0.0395 | 0.8239 |
| EU2 | 24 | 0.2261 | 0.3439 | 0.0313 | 0.8189 |
| EU3 | 24 | 0.3280 | 0.3460 | 0.0313 | 0.8187 |
| EU4 | 24 | 0.1534 | 0.1618 | 0.0432 | 0.8327 |
| EU5 | 24 | 0.3241 | 0.3418 | 0.0312 | 0.8190 |
| EU6 | 24 | 0.4337 | 0.1415 | 0.0463 | 0.8342 |
| EU7 | 24 | 0.5384 | 0.0441 | 0.0484 | 0.8414 |
| SUS1 | 24 | 0.4184 | 0.1258 | 0.0485 | 0.8354 |
| SUS2 | 24 | 0.3973 | 0.0026 | 0.0432 | 0.8444 |
| SUS3 | 24 | 0.4179 | 0.2291 | 0.0393 | 0.8276 |
| SUS4 | 24 | 0.0104 | 0.0158 | 0.0421 | 0.8434 |
| SUS5 | 24 | 0.3324 | −0.0623 | 0.0432 | 0.8491 |
| SUS6 | 24 | 0.3636 | 0.0697 | 0.0413 | 0.8395 |
| SUS7 | 24 | 0.4689 | −0.0259 | 0.0422 | 0.8464 |
Principal Component Factor Analysis.
| Measurement Items | Factor | Eigen Value | Variable | Factors | Uniqueness | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fact1 | Fact2 | Fact3 | |||||
|
| Fact 1 | 0.5114 | AT1 | 0.6211 | 0.1612 | - | 0.2116 |
| Fact 2 | 1.2723 | AT2 | 0.8123 | −0.5745 | 0.2145 | ||
| Fact 3 | 0.9015 | AT3 | 0.4211 | 0.7034 | 0.5433 | ||
| Fact 4 | 0.5035 | AT4 | 0.5122 | −0.2446 | 0.3311 | ||
|
| Fact 1 | 1.3334 | ITU1 | 0.6235 | 0.6673 | - | 0.4509 |
| Fact 2 | 1.1622 | ITU2 | 0.6835 | −0.4034 | 0.6307 | ||
| Fact 3 | 0.7835 | ITU3 | 0.2853 | 0.6877 | 0.1244 | ||
| Fact4 | 0.7154 | ITU4 | 0.6355 | −0.4847 | 0.4745 | ||
|
| Fact 1 | 1.6714 | EU1 | −0.2723 | 0.1357 | 0.7911 | 0.2534 |
| Fact 2 | 1.3124 | EU2 | 0.6845 | −0.3524 | 0.0923 | 0.1122 | |
| Fact 3 | 1.0615 | EU3 | 0.0552 | 0.5634 | 0.0822 | 0.5643 | |
| Fact 4 | 0.9711 | EU4 | −0.4455 | 0.9245 | −0.2634 | 0.1912 | |
| Fact 5 | 0.7913 | EU5 | 0.8062 | 0.1345 | 0.1522 | 0.4412 | |
| Fact 6 | 0.6545 | EU6 | −0.5224 | −0.6547 | 0.1834 | 0.3666 | |
| Fact 7 | 0.5134 | EU7 | 0.0145 | 0.4877 | 0.5355 | 0.4756 | |
|
| Fact 1 | 1.4013 | SUS1 | 0.7867 | 0.1279 | 0.0756 | 0.2233 |
| Fact 2 | 1.3145 | SUS2 | 0.6068 | 0.1878 | −0.1865 | 0.1936 | |
| Fact 3 | 1.1514 | SUS3 | 0.4589 | −0.0178 | −0.6744 | 0.1146 | |
| Fact 4 | 1.0853 | SUS4 | 0.0790 | 0.0554 | 0.1134 | 0.8874 | |
| Fact 5 | 0.8453 | SUS5 | 0.1887 | 0.6964 | 0.3456 | 0.1445 | |
| Fact 6 | 0.6813 | SUS6 | 0.2767 | −0.6065 | 0.2144 | 0.1955 | |
| Fact 7 | 0.5243 | SUS7 | 0.3478 | 0.2288 | 0.6855 | 0.1466 | |
Figure 13Recognition Accuracy among the proposed patterns after a field test.
Figure 14Average Reaction time per action of the user.
Figure 15Errors occurring by participants while recognition.