Using Tactile Features to Help Functionally Blind Individuals Denominate Banknotes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study, which was conducted for the Bank of Canada, assessed the feasibility of presenting a raised texture feature together with a tactile denomination code on the next Canadian banknote series ($5, $10, $20, $50, and $100). Adding information accessible by hand would permit functionally blind individuals to independently denominate banknotes. In Experiment 1, 20 blindfolded, sighted university students denominated a set of 8 alternate tactile feature designs. Across the 8 design series, the proportion of correct responses never fell below .97; the mean response time per banknote ranged from 11.4 to 13.1 s. In Experiment 2, 27 functionally blind participants denominated 4 of the previous 8 candidate sets of banknotes. The proportion of correct responses never fell below .92; the corresponding mean response time per banknote ranged from 11.7 to 13.0 s. The Bank of Canada selected one of the four raised-texture designs for inclusion on its new banknote series. Other potential applications include designing haptic displays for teleoperation and virtual environment systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".