MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Vision-Based Low-Cost Power Wheelchair Assistive Driving System for Smartphones

2022· article· en· W4361732991 on OpenAlexaff
Zhiwei Wang, Kevin Liu, Jeffrey Wang, Jingye Xu, Jingjing Chen, Yufang Jin, Rocky Slavin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceAndroid (operating system)WheelchairEmbedded systemMobile deviceRobotProcess (computing)Mobile phoneHuman–computer interactionSimulationArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Power wheelchairs (PWC) are essential for people with mobility impairment, and many research studies have been reported to ease their operations. However, the existing approaches either rely on extra hardware components or demand complex software that incurs high costs. In this work, we propose a low-cost, computer-vision-based assistive driving system that runs on a smartphone with the objective of safely driving a PWC in a hands-free manner with reduced attention in an indoor environment to relieve the arduous operations of disabled users and reduce their stress. The system adopts a modified and pre-trained ResNet-50 model running on a smartphone to derive the driving instructions using the images captured in real-time with its built-in camera. The smartphone interacts with a control interface to send the driving instructions to the PWC. A prototype of the proposed driving assistive system is implemented on a Pixel-6 Android phone and evaluated on a mobile robot as the proof-of-concept design. The experiments show that the smartphone can process input at up to 3.4 images per second to generate driving instructions in time to safely navigate the mobile robot at reasonable speeds in the testing environment with minimal intervention from the user.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyFrench-language works237,207