MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306761536 · doi:10.3390/s22207888

Review of Navigation Assistive Tools and Technologies for the Visually Impaired

2022· review· en· W4306761536 on OpenAlex
Mohamed Dhiaeddine Messaoudi, Bob-Antoine J. Ménélas, Hamid Mcheick

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsVisually impairedAssistive technologyHuman–computer interactionField (mathematics)Computer scienceAssistive deviceFace (sociological concept)MultimediaPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The visually impaired suffer greatly while moving from one place to another. They face challenges in going outdoors and in protecting themselves from moving and stationary objects, and they also lack confidence due to restricted mobility. Due to the recent rapid rise in the number of visually impaired persons, the development of assistive devices has emerged as a significant research field. This review study introduces several techniques to help the visually impaired with their mobility and presents the state-of-the-art of recent assistive technologies that facilitate their everyday life. It also analyses comprehensive multiple mobility assistive technologies for indoor and outdoor environments and describes the different location and feedback methods for the visually impaired using assistive tools based on recent technologies. The navigation tools used for the visually impaired are discussed in detail in subsequent sections. Finally, a detailed analysis of various methods is also carried out, with future recommendations.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.541

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.157
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it