Blindness and the Reliability of Downwards Sensors to Avoid Obstacles: A Study with the EyeCane
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vision loss has dramatic repercussions on the quality of life of affected people, particularly with respect to their orientation and mobility. Many devices are available to help blind people to navigate in their environment. The EyeCane is a recently developed electronic travel aid (ETA) that is inexpensive and easy to use, allowing for the detection of obstacles lying ahead within a 2 m range. The goal of this study was to investigate the potential of the EyeCane as a primary aid for spatial navigation. Three groups of participants were recruited: early blind, late blind, and sighted. They were first trained with the EyeCane and then tested in a life-size obstacle course with four obstacles types: cube, door, post, and step. Subjects were requested to cross the corridor while detecting, identifying, and avoiding the obstacles. Each participant had to perform 12 runs with 12 different obstacles configurations. All participants were able to learn quickly to use the EyeCane and successfully complete all trials. Amongst the various obstacles, the step appeared to prove the hardest to detect and resulted in more collisions. Although the EyeCane was effective for detecting obstacles lying ahead, its downward sensor did not reliably detect those on the ground, rendering downward obstacles more hazardous for navigation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".