PRE2018 4 Group1

From Control Systems Technology Group
Revision as of 19:29, 19 May 2019 by S168403 (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Problem Statement

In modern society independency and mobility are of crucial value for ones everyday life. Everybody has the requirement to do whatever one wants and is able to do so. Independence and being mobile is important in everything you can depict, like having a good job, going to that job, walking to your next destination and choosing by yourself where to go next. To the majority of society mobility isn't a big issue. However, for a small part of the population this mobility and thereby independency is.

Visually impaired people have a huge disadvantage over people with visual capability. Almost all the concerns one can think of is not or slightly possible to people who can't see. But perhaps the most unpleasant concerns are the once just described; they need more resources to achieve a similar level of independence and mobility as people with regular vision. Through the ages blind people has been assisted with the design of a walking stick, assisting lines provided on public space and through Braille.

Every day people travel with public transport, as well as the visually impaired. A very specific and recent concern for visually impaired is the state of independence in public transport. There are several problems in these public areas that needs to be solved and even more problems that aren't even thought of. Over the last view years these areas have been made a little more accessible by the visual impaired user, but not as much as is required. The authorities of the Netherlands have however recently started a new campaign where is it important to keep the tactile paving free[1]. This campaign was started for society to understand the constraints visually impaired have when obstacles are placed onto these tactile paving. They wanted to show that placing obstacles can even be of danger to the visually impaired, and drew attention by promoting the campaign on two different days in over 24 municipalities in The Netherlands, including Eindhoven. It was made possible by 7 companies, including Bartiméus and the Dutch national railway company NS. Next to that, a recent study of the Dutch National TV transmitter NOS[2] has shown that the visually impaired are far from home when they collide into there almost daily concerns in public transport.

Nowadays users ask for new input for improving the independence of people through a technological perspective. Our society is forever improving and becoming more and more reliable on technology. This project aims to design a technique, protocol, prototype or system in regard with technological robotics to aid the visually impaired in public transport. Firstly, we will come up with basic and non-concrete concerns that the visually impaired might experience in these public areas. Secondly, after an interview with these potential users and the specific existing technologies that are available, a specific part of these visualized technologies will be made concrete to aid the users in a specific way. This technology will be evaluated on its costs, efficiency and other aspects which influence the way in which the user will experience and interact with it.

Group 1

Group members Student number Study Email
Lotte van Gessel 1237708 Applied Physics l.s.v.gessel@student.tue.nl
Piers da Camino Ancona Lopez Soligo 1015467 Biomedical Engineering p.h.d.camino.ancona.lopez.soligo@student.tue.nl
Sander Poot 1017804 Biomedical Engineering s.a.poot@student.tue.nl
Timon Heuwekemeijer 1003212 Software Science t.m.heukemeijer@student.tue.nl
Jan van Leeuwen 1261401 Applied Physics j.a.v.leeuwen@student.tue.nl

Brainstorm

Subject

Researching and designing a robotic protocol for aiding the visually impaired in public transport in The Netherlands.

NEW State of the Art research

If one is to design a technology for visually handicapped people, one has to take certain aspects into account. First of all, it would be wise to contact users in order to be able to discuss your thoughts and ideas with users who will use the product, rather than that you think of a problem from your engineer mindset, and provide a solution for that problem. This section discusses certain aspects of a possible technology for the visually impaired, and what the state of the art is on these aspects.

Companionship

The technology to be developed could serve as a supplement to the existing guidance tools for blind people. However, it could also be possible for the technology to replace the existing tools. One of the most used tools is the service dog. This dog is trained very well, and guides the blind user through their daily lives. It also serves, like any other dog, as a companion. If one where to design a robot that replaces these dogs, it should take into account that the robot will need to serve as a companion as well. The designer would need to take into account how the approach to the Human Robot Interaction (HRI) is performed. Several studies have looked into this. For instance [3] suggest a new approach to HRI, by looking at the uncanny valley hypothesis. On the other hand [4] uses the existing service dog as a model how HRI should be. [5] compares the use of robotic dogs to that of living dogs, and found that living dogs still have a higher likeliness than robot dogs. [6] looks into the way one could use a soft robot to improve the attachment of the user to the robot. [7] keeps it more globally, and looks into the role we give to a robot companion. Lastly, in [8] it is described what is important when one designs for HRI purposes.

Wayfinding

Another very important subject to be looked at is the wayfinding of blind people. They can either use a walker, or a service dog. There is already quite a lot of research that has investigated several technological improvements for the guidance of blind people. Since this is of a very high importance for their independence, mobility and safety, it is important research. In [9][10][11][12] there are several existing technologies that are helping the visually impaired in their everyday life. [13] on the other hand suggest using an ERobot to support blind people in structured indoor environments. They suggest that by using a robot, the user is less subjected to the load of the technologies themselves. [14] reports that current technologies concerning navigation target specific technological defects, but neglect social aspects and do not provide an integrated, multifunctional, transparent, and extensible solution that addresses the variety of challenges (such as independence) encountered in lives of blind people every day. In [15], there is a graph made which contains 31 actions that a user can take in a controlled indoor environment. This can then be used to guide a visually impaired user through a similar setting using auditory feedback. [16] proposes a robotic guide that the user can hold on to which will then guide the user. All of the above technologies are good examples of how the guidance of blind people could be improved.

Tools

As mentioned before, there are already certain tools that a blind user can help in their every day life. The most well known is the walker that helps them locate obstacles in their path. This is also a good aspect where technology can be used to improve the life of blind people. For instance, if one where to design a robotic dog, it will also need to take into account that this will need to be able to cope with unexpected events. [17] proposed a robot that is able to adapt to situations that the engineer did not foresee by storing knowledge in a behavior-performance space to make them able to react quicker. Another important aspect could be that one will want to make the robot walk, in a similar way that the user do. [18] looks into the advantages of making the robot have legs. In [19], a smart walker is proposed that helps the user take the smoothest path in order to make it comfortable for them. Research to the problems that users have with existing technologies is done in [20], and shows that users react better to physical rather than to auditory feedback. MELDOG[21] is an example of the design of a robotic guide dog that could serve as replacement for the regular service dogs. To make the robot affordable, it can be suggested that using LEGO Mindstorms NXT as a platform to implement the technology on could provide a low cost alternative[22]. HARUNOBU-6 [23] is an example of a robotic travel aid (RoTA) that can assist visually impaired users, and could potentially serve as a replacement for the service dogs. As mentioned above, there is already quite some research into robotic aid in the mobility of blind people. Finally, [24] provides an evaluation of these technologies, especially for elderly blind.


The users and their needs

Users are very important part of the design process. They are the ones who will use the product in the real world. They will find faults with the product. They will hopefully be helped by the product. To allow for a good design, it is very important to know the users.

Primary users and their needs

The primary users are (severely) visually impaired people. There are an estimated 302.000 people[25] who are visually impaired in the Netherlands . This might be only 1.8 % of the total population but these people experience great obstacles in their daily life that can be partially solved by better technology. What many see as easy tasks can be very hard for visually impaired people. Navigation, going from one place to another, can be impossible without proper planning. Even something as simple as a walk for fresh air can become impossible. To do this, they will require an aid which can be for example a white cane, a guide dog or a seeing companion. These aids chip away from their independence. An important part of transportation for blind people is public transport since they are not in control of the vehicle themselves which would be impossible. The only other option of traveling long distances for blind people is hitching rides from friends or taking 'care cabs'. So, to narrow our project a bit, we will focus on problems blind and visually impaired people have with public transport. We can take a look at the needs of blind people when using public transport. These needs can be broken down in several aspects:

  • Navigation: Public transport is about moving from one place to another. This is no different for visually impaired people but they have greater difficulties travelling with other means than public transport and thus have to rely more on it.
  • Safety: It has to be save for visually impaired people to use around several dangerous situations like train tracks and traffic.
  • Reliability: The project will have to convey certain information to the visually impaired person using it. This information has to be reliable. If it gives the wrong information, it could lead the visually impaired person into dangerous situations. This is not the desired outcome.
  • Clear communication: To help the visually impaired person, it is of highest importance that the communication is clear. For not visually impaired people, most communication is visible but this is of course impossible for people who can't see or whose sight is limited. To make the project communicate as smooth as possible, we have to do extensive research and talk with the users about how they perceive certain signals and how the noise in stations and around traffic affects them.

Secondary and tertiary users and their needs

The secondary users are the people working in or around public transport for example conductors. They will be the first to hear or to see when something goes wrong. They will have to know how the technology works and maybe how to fix it. Also, when a primary user (visually impaired people) doesn't fully understand some signal of the system, the people working in public transport will have to help them. Their needs are thus a simple system that is easy to explain and to fix. Also, it shouldn't make their job harder than it already is because then they will have negative feelings towards the system.

The tertiary users are the other people who travel with public transport. They have few needs. Mostly, the eventual design must not impede them in travelling. As few changes as possible should be made to their experience while using public transport.

User Contact

As said before, we made contact with visually impaired to ask them about their constraints regarding public transport in The Netherlands. Firstly we send a mail to three companies which are set up especially for blind and visually impaired people. We introduced ourselves, told them about the project and asked them if there would be a chance to arrange an interview, phone call or another method like the email to come in contact with these people. We contacted:

  • Bartiméus, voor mensen die slechtziend of blind zijn[26]
  • Koninklijke Visio, expertisecentrum voor slechtziende en blinde mensen[27]
  • Zichtbaar! Veldhoven[28]

At first, only Bartiméus responsed and told us that through them it was not possible to contact specific visually impaired people. They did however give us a link to a Facebook page especially for blind users. We then decided to create a questionnaire [29] containing 15 questions about how they experience public transport in The Netherlands. This questionnaire was published on the Facebook page and send to the MuZIEum[30], a museum made to experience what it is like for the visually impaired. We asked the museum if they could cooperate with us by giving the visually impaired this questionnaire when they visited the museum. Next up, we called Zichtbaar! Veldhoven on May 9th. Through this we came in contact with the chairmen of this company. It showed out that you did not receive information about the email and when we told about our project again, he became extremely enthusiastic. He received the questionnaire on a personal email and we arranged a meeting for Thursday 16th, in where we could get more information about how the user experienced public transport.

Potential Problems

Before contacting users, we came up with some problems we thought are relevant. These are expanded upon below.

Finding the right bus

Information about which bus stops where is mainly provided through visual feedback. For instance, Eindhoven station has about 10 bus stops, each having a number of busses stopping there once every few minutes. For sighted people, this is no problem. It does proposes a big problem for visually handicapped people, since they cannot see which bus is where. A possible solution could be to develop a connection between the blind user and the different busses. A similar connection has been made in Vienna, where POPTIS helps the visually handicapped to know which vehicle is incoming at their stop. When they hear a vehicle approaching, they need to turn on their remote, which then emmits a signal. When the vehicle picks up this signal, it sends the information about which line it is and where it is heading to the remote, which then gives this information to the user through audio feedback. [31] POPTIS is a good example of the connection made between users and the vehicles. However, at a station like Eindhoven this could impose problems since there will be multiple busses incoming. Therefore, it is proposed to develop a system where the blind user can look up which vehicle they need to take to reach their destination. They can then fill in the line number in their device. Once this line number is at their station, or approaches it, the device will provide the user with auditorily instructions as to where this bus is. This solution would help visually handicapped users in finding where their correct line is, and improves their independance since they will no longer need to ask it every time they want to take a bus at a bigger station.

Train Door Position

One potential problem we expect visually impaired people to have is difficulty locating the position of train doors when a train arrives. There is often a relatively small time window to get on a train, and we suspect visually impaired people may have trouble finding a door in time. This might be solved by having the doors emit a disticnt sound, though this might become very overwhelming among the general noise of a trains station. It could also be possible to facilitate markers or signals, either on the ground or otherwise, ahead of time to indicate where the train doors are/are going to be. It might be possible do accurately determine where the train doors end up by finely regulating the arrival of a train. The markers could be set, although that would require a standardized train/wagon length, as well as a set distance between the doors. Since this currently is not the case, it is probably more interesting to look at a more flexible solution. It might be possible to set up virtual markers that can communicate with the phone of the visually impaired, to avoid overwhelming travellers with sound. This might be done by measuring the signal strength of the marker.

Checking in

On the station and in buses there are placed where you have to hold your OV-card and then you can check in or check out. This however is a lot more tricky for blind/visually impaired people. At this moment they need help from other people or from a dog to help them to find these check in places. Furthermore the check-in places make a sound when the check-in/out is registered, to let the user know he is checked in/out. However these sounds are not always very loud and very deceptive to noise from the environment. Thus it is also a problem for blind/visually impaired to know if they have checked in. So a suggestion to decrease this problem is to create a device which does not use sound but rather uses vibration/shocks to communicate with the user that he/she is checked in. This device could for example be a arm bracelet. It was researched that vibration/shocks are way more reliable when it comes to communication. People react way faster to these kinds of feedback in contrast with sound. Now the problem remains to find the check in places. One option could be to create an device which starts to vibrate/ give a shock when it is pointed towards one of these check-in places. It then could also increase it's vibration when the user is closer towards the check in place. This way the visually impaired user can be guided towards the check-in place. This device should be able to detect this check in place and maybe like within 3 meters of the check in place it could start vibrating. The problem with this is that when you go towards a train station there are most of the time multiple check in places next to each other. We therefore should make the device in such a way that it only approaches the closest one. So the device should be able to receive multiple signals and has to do some calculations to determine which of these signals is closest and then guide the user towards that place.

Approach

At the end of the course and project, we want to deliver at least a design of the technology that will help visually impaired people travel with public transport. If there is enough time, we might make a (non-functional) prototype of the eventual design. We will start with looking at the user. To do this, we will approach several groups that have some sort of connection to visually impaired people for example a talk group. We will ask questions to our target audience and from the answers they will give us, we will design a system that will solve their problems. In the time that we wait for the user groups to answer our attempt at contact, we will look if we can identify certain problems ourselves. And if there is limited or no response, we will continue working on these problems. But we of course hope to involve real users as much as possible along the process of creating our final product. Then, the rest of the time will be spend on defining the concrete problem, designing a solution, making a prototype, (hopefully) doing user tests and revising.

Deliverables

As deliverables we will provide this wiki which documents our project. We will deliver a design of a bracelet that will help visually impaired people keep track of their check-in status, that is, they can use the bracelet to check whether or not they have checked in. We will also provide field data on the sound levels of Eindhoven Station that are relevant for this bracelet. We will also back up our design and decisions with relevant literature.


Planning

Week What to do Person(s)
5
  • Tutor meeting 3
  • Review of previous week
  • Finalize the deliverable and must haves
  • Find literature about how to measure sound
  • Find literature about how to let come sound out of the armband
  • Work on the appearance, visual
  • Prepare tutor meeting 4
  • All
  • All
  • Piers, Timon
  • Jan, Sander
  • Lotte
  • Lotte, Sander
  • All
6
  • Tutor meeting 4
  • Review of previous week
  • Finalize the complete technological design of product
  • Work on visual appearance
  • Design it in 3D software
  • Work on use analysis
  • Go to NS to measure frequence and db of check-in noice
  • Send final design to Users to let them review
  • Prepare tutor meeting 5
  • All
  • All
  • All
  • Sander, Lotte
  • Sander
  • Piere, Jan
  • Jan, Timon, Sander
  • Sander
  • All
7
  • Tutor meeting 5
  • Review of previous week
  • Write the discussion
  • Review User feedback
  • Change design using User feedback
  • Write ethical part
  • Finish Cost analysis
  • Write about possible improvement: Vibration
  • Write about possible improvement: implement AI
  • Prepare tutor meeting 6
  • All
  • All
  • Lotte, Piers
  • ALL
  • Sander, Lotte, Timon
  • Jan
  • Sander, Timon
  • Jan, Sander
  • Timon, Lotte, Piers
  • All
8
  • Tutor meeting 6
  • Review of previous week
  • Write presentation
  • Prepare presentation
  • Prepare tutor meeting 7
  • All
  • All
  • Jan, Lotte, Sander
  • Timon, Piers
  • All


Meeting Zichtbaar Veldhoven, 16-05-2019

In week 4 (May 16th, 2019), Jan, Timon and Piers went to Zichtbaar Veldhoven, Veldhoven, The Netherlands, to meet the users to talk about their concerns regarding the public transport in The Netherlands. There were 14 users involved in the meeting, all about 60 years old and visually impaired. None of them was completely blind. They all had different visual problems, where glaucoma, macular degeneration and retinitis pigmentosa were the most common disorders within the group. We started by introducing ourselves and explained the project. They were very happy that they could be of help to us and where very kind. We talked for over 1,5 hours strait about several aspects. Firstly, we gave them the chance to blow off about all their constrains regarding public transport. Secondly, some positive aspects were mentioned as well. Next up, we talked specifically about the potential problems we gave up with and asked them about some potential alternatives that could improve these problems, on both a technical as well as a user-friendly view. Lastly, we asked them to give their general stand of the public transport in The Netherlands and asked them if they liked helping us and if it was useful for us as well as for them. In this section we will explain the main points discussed in this meeting.

During the beginning of the meeting we let the group talk freely about all their constrains and problems they experience every day. The main problems of public transport according to the user, mainly focused on the railway and bus station in Eindhoven, The Netherlands, are stated here:

  • The numbering of the busses
  • Information screens are difficult to read due to small letters
  • There is no contrast in the busses. This one was said to be very unpleasant and a very big problem. Because there is no contrast between the chairs and the floor of the bus, it becomes dangerous for the visually impaired to find the right place to sit.
  • The red pressing buttons are still difficult to find
  • Checking in is very difficult due to a too small size of the pillar and the low volume of the tone heard when checking in
  • Busses are too far from the platform. The visually impaired cannot see the gap between it very well, which makes it dangerous
  • The tactile paving on most of the railway stations in the Netherlands is insufficient. Very often the lines suddenly stop in the middle of the path
  • In the trains, the stairs are sometimes dangerous. One of the users with a guide dog had the problem that the guide dog didn’t want to climb the stairs because of this
  • Above the busses at the bus station it is stated where that specific bus is headed, the text of this is too far and to vague and thus unreadable for the visually impaired. This is the same on the platforms at the railway station.
  • The uniformity in public transport is insufficient.
  • Overall, the railway and bus stations do not satisfy the Dutch national rules for visually impaired in public transport. Some of these users had checked this through the official laws. Mostly the help of the bus drivers, the tactile paving and the gaps between the busses and the platforms are insufficient.

There were however some positive points regarding the public transport as well. Some of these where:

  • An escort cart, with which one could get personal assistance for the visually impaired in public transport
  • The peeping sound which one hears when you check in or out. The distinguishing in this is a great improvement in this as well. 1 peep is heard when you check in, 2 when you check out, and 3 when an error occurs. This is very much appreciated.
  • In overall, the personal assistance of the employees of the NS and the busses was rated sufficient enough
  • Ongoing improvements for nowadays. They told us that Bartiméus and Visio were presently working on solving these problems regarding the public transport as well, which they found very helpful.

As one can see, there are many more negative than positive aspects regarding the public transport in the Netherlands. There were however some ethical aspects regarding the feeling and mood about public transport for the visually impaired users were discussed as well. These points tells us something about how they really think of the public transport as a human being, and how simple thinks may influence their daily life. One aspect of this was:

  • ‘we as visually impaired are dependent of the public transport every day. However, as I can speak for all of us, we do not like it. If there would be another way to be mobile for us, we would take it without doubt’.

Jan Huybers, the chairman of Zichtbaar Veldhoven, said this many times during our meeting. The visually impaired have to travel with public transport, but it is important to mention that they told us that they didn’t like it. Every one of the fourteen members that we present said that overall, public transport was insufficient, and gave it a 4 or 5 out of 10. And as can see, more negative than positive aspects where discussed during the meeting proving that the public transport really is a concern. Another ethical constrain is about the participation in the design process and the future improvements regarding public transport for the visually impaired:

  • For people who are not visually impaired, it is very difficult to precisely know how it is to be visually impaired. They will never experience what it is like to life with a handicap and bump into everyday problems, not only regarding the public transport.

Thereby, the visually impaired people in our meeting stated that because of this it is very important that they participate in the design process and get involved in every step that might aid the visually impaired in public transport. They want to be involved in companies who are responsible for these designs, such as ProRail and NS, the Dutch companies responsible for the railway network in the Netherlands. The last ethical concern they have it the need for others assistance than thereby their lack of independence. We asked them specifically about the potential problems we came up with; checking in, finding the bus and the train door position. The answer they gave us on how to find the door of the train properly, they said that they would always follow somebody else or the grout walking to a specific location, and thereby finding the door of the train. Thus the problems looks as being solved with this, but when one thinks about it, it is such a pity that these thoughts are there. It proves that society is far from finished and that the visually impaired are still very dependent in public transport even with the aspects that have already been addressed.

The main message of the meeting was public transport in the Netherlands, and mainly in Eindhoven, scored insufficient for the visually impaired. Uniformity, checking in, contrast and the lack of their involvement in design processes where some of the main aspects that came back during the whole meeting. There are however real improvements coming up and they were very glad we came to them. At the end of the meeting they thanked us, were prepared to fill in the questionnaire and asked us to send them the link of the wiki.

Requirements

From the meeting with Zichtbaar Veldhoven we gained a lot of insight on what visually impaired people would require from a product. The requirements for this product are as follows:

  • The bracelet must be able to correctly distinguish the different check-in/check-out sounds
  • The bracelet must keep the last check-in sound in memory
  • The bracelet must only register a check-in sound when the user checks in himself (it must not register the sounds of people adjacent to the user for example)
  • Different parts of the product need to be differentiated through stark (color) contrast
  • The bracelet needs to be able to play back the current check-in status through a (computer generated) voice
  • The bracelet should have a holder for one's OV Chip Card

Objectives

Primary Objectives: Must have Secondary Objectives: Should have Tertiary Objectives: Can have
  • Increase independance
  • The design must be safe for the user
  • Volume needs to be good understandable for the user
  • Bracelet needs to be comfortable
  • It needs to have a card holder so it can be used to check in
  • The device needs to be easy to use
  • Only detect the users check in status
  • It should not be expensive
  • The device needs to last at least an entire day on its battery life
  • It should not disturb other people in their travels
  • Vibrate to show the user where the check in box is
  • Have a button so the user can ask for the check in status
  • Have an integrated chip so the user will not need a seperate card


Milestones

As our milestones we have the following:

  • Must have features are researched, including ethical research where appropriate
  • Should have features are researched, including ethical research where appropriate
  • Can have features are researched, including ethical research where appropriate
  • USE analysis completed
  • Cost analysis completed
  • All features combined in one product
  • Product has a final (visual) design
  • Discussion about this product completed

Following these milestones, we believe we have made an effective planning that will allow us to finish this project in a timely fashion.


References

  1. ↑ https://www.houddelijnvrij.nl/
  2. ↑ NOS. (z.d.). Een simpele treinreis is voor veel blinden een hindernisbaan. Geraadpleegd op 9 mei 2019, van https://nos.nl/artikel/2280245-een-simpele-treinreis-is-voor-veel-blinden-een-hindernisbaan.html
  3. ↑ Miklosi, A., Korondi, P., Matellan, V., & Gacsi, M. (2017, June 9). Ethorobotics: A New Approach to Human-Robot Relationship. Retrieved May 3, 2019, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5465277/
  4. ↑ H. Nguyen, C. C. Kemp, Bio-inspired Assistive Robotics: Service Dogs as a Model for Human-Robot Interaction and Mobile Manipulation, https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/37366/biorob08_canine.pdf
  5. ↑ Banks, M. R., Willoughby, L. M., & Banks, W. A. (2008). Animal-Assisted Therapy and Loneliness in Nursing Homes: Use of Robotic versus Living Dogs. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 9(3), 173–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2007.11.007
  6. ↑ Winkle, M., Crowe, T. K., & Hendrix, I. (2011). Service Dogs and People with Physical Disabilities Partnerships: A Systematic Review. Occupational Therapy International, 19(1), 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/oti.323
  7. ↑ K. Dautenhahn, S. Woods, C. Kaouri. M. L. Walters, K. L. Koay, I. Werry What is a Robot Companion - Friend, Assitant or Butler, https://uhra.herts.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/2299/7119/901108.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  8. ↑ Arnold, T., & Scheutz, M. (n.d.). The Tactile Ethics of Soft Robotics: Designing Wisely for Human-Robot Interaction. - PubMed - NCBI. Retrieved May 3, 2019, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29182090
  9. ↑ Ye, C., Hong, S., Qian, X., & Wu, W. (2016). Co-Robotic Cane: A New Robotic Navigation Aid for the Visually Impaired. IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Magazine, 2(2), 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1109/msmc.2015.2501167
  10. ↑ Bai, J., Lian, S., Liu, Z., Wang, K., & Liu, D. (2018). Virtual-Blind-Road Following-Based Wearable Navigation Device for Blind People. IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, 64(1), 136–143. https://doi.org/10.1109/tce.2018.2812498
  11. ↑ Patil, K., Jawadwala, Q., & Shu, F. C. (2018). Design and Construction of Electronic Aid for Visually Impaired People. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 48(2), 172–182. https://doi.org/10.1109/thms.2018.2799588
  12. ↑ Shoval, S., Ulrich, I., & Borenstein, J. (2003). Robotics-based obstacle-avoidance systems for the blind and visually impaired - Navbelt and the guidecane. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 10(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1109/mra.2003.1191706
  13. ↑ V. Kulyukin, C. Gharpure, J. Nicholson, G. Osborne, Robot-assisted wayfinding for the visually impaired in structured indoor environments, https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10514-006-7223-8.pdf
  14. ↑ Bourbakis, N. (2008). Sensing Surrounding 3-D Space for Navigation of the Blind. IEEE Systems https://ieeexplore-ieee-org.dianus.libr.tue.nl/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4435653
  15. ↑ Dong, H., & Ganz, A. (n.d.). Automatic generation of indoor navigation instructions for blind users using a user-centric graph. - PubMed - NCBI. Retrieved May 3, 2019, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25570105
  16. ↑ Kulkarni, A., Wang, A., Urbina, L., Steinfeld, A., & Dias, B. (2016). Robotic assistance in indoor navigation for people who are blind. 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), . https://doi.org/10.1109/hri.2016.7451806
  17. ↑ Cully, A., Clune, J., Tarapore, D., & Mouret, J. (2015, May 28). Robots that can adapt like animals. Retrieved May 3, 2019, from https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14422
  18. ↑ Liu, J., Tan, M., & Zhao, X. (2007). Legged robots — an overview. Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control, 29(2), 185–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142331207075610
  19. ↑ S. MacNamara, G.Lacey. A smart walker for the frail visually impaired https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/844786/authors#authors
  20. ↑ Iwan Ulrich and Johann Borenstein, Member, IEEE. The Guidecane - Applying Mobile Robot Technologies to Assist the Visually Impaired http://www-personal.umich.edu/~johannb/Papers/paper72.pdf
  21. ↑ Tachi, S., & Komoriya, K. (z.d.). Tachi_Lab - Guide Dog Robot (MELDOG)https://tachilab.org/projects/meldog.html
  22. ↑ Al-Halhouli, A. (n.d.). LEGO Mindstorms NXT for elderly and visually impaired people in need: A platform. - PubMed - NCBI. Retrieved May 3, 2019, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26835733
  23. ↑ Mori, H., & Kotani, S. (1998). Robotic travel aid for the blind: HARUNOBU-6. In European Conference on Disability, Virtual Reality, and Assistive Technology.
  24. ↑ Lacey, G., & Dawson-Howe, K. (1997, July). Evaluation of robot mobility aid for the elderly blind. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Intelligent Robotic Systems (p. 25).
  25. ↑ Volksgezondheidenzorg https://www.volksgezondheidenzorg.info/onderwerp/gezichtsstoornissen/cijfers-context/prevalentie-incidentie#!node-aantal-mensen-met-gezichtsstoornissen
  26. ↑ Bartiméus. (2019, 16 mei). Bartiméus, voor mensen die slechtziend of blind zijn.. Geraadpleegd op 9 mei 2019, van https://www.bartimeus.nl/
  27. ↑ Visio. (z.d.). Koninklijke Visio - Expertisecentrum voor slechtziende en blinde mensen - Blindeninstituut - Koninklijke Visio. Geraadpleegd op 9 mei 2019, van https://www.visio.org/home/
  28. ↑ Raaijmakers, A. (z.d.). Zichtbaar! Veldhoven. Geraadpleegd op 9 mei 2019, van https://www.zichtbaarveldhoven.nl/
  29. ↑ Enquête https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSca3WMyHYoyTtGg35x1-Kff8mvmvuEprm3tU7IiqkofIPZsHA/viewform
  30. ↑ MuZIEum. (z.d.-b). MuZIEum | Het ervaringsmuseum over zien en niet zien. Geraadpleegd op 9 mei 2019, van https://muzieum.nl/
  31. ↑ Markiewicz, M., & Skomorowski, M. (2010). Public Transport Information System for Visually Impaired and Blind People. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 271–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16472-9_30
Retrieved from "https://dsdwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2018_4_Group1&oldid=75576"