2020
DOI: 10.1080/10400435.2020.1743381
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Smartphone-based computer vision travelling aids for blind and visually impaired individuals: A systematic review

Abstract: This survey/interview is a part of a research project titled "Complex research of augmented reality for the blind and weak-sighted people" (project No. 01.2.2-LMT-K-718-01-0060) funded by European Regional Development. The overall goal of the project is development of a functional computer vision-based travelling aid for the blind and weak-sighted people. This survey aims to identify and describe requirements and expectations visually impaired users have for such technological solutions. The survey is strictly… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
21
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 55 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 74 publications
0
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Each of these methods have their drawbacks. According to [87] representative surveys cost money and time, the thinkaloud protocol is not accurate because the environment is not natural to the user and the tasks are usually performed in a controlled environment; field experiments may not represent the correct population; remote testing needs additional tools for collecting data; and interviews do not sufficiently cover usability issues. Additionally, controlled environment testing might not consider some factors that exist in the real environment which may affect the user's experience.…”
Section: User Testingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Each of these methods have their drawbacks. According to [87] representative surveys cost money and time, the thinkaloud protocol is not accurate because the environment is not natural to the user and the tasks are usually performed in a controlled environment; field experiments may not represent the correct population; remote testing needs additional tools for collecting data; and interviews do not sufficiently cover usability issues. Additionally, controlled environment testing might not consider some factors that exist in the real environment which may affect the user's experience.…”
Section: User Testingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, they did not discuss the future work of ETAs or compare between available systems. Budrionis et al [ 18 ] compared 15 mobile navigation applications that use computer vision. A comparison was done from distinct perspectives (objectives/functions, input/output, data processing, algorithms, and evaluation of the solution).…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They identified the advantages and limitations of six smartphone applications [ 19 ]. Budrionis et al [ 18 ] and Kuriakose et al [ 19 ] included a limited number of navigation systems. This lack of included articles eliminates use of these surveys as a complete overview of the area.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…() 5 review smartphone based assistive technology, on a range of @edge algorithms, asymptotically approximating the ideal object mirror in external navigation and several tests including OCR use cases, the review indicates the success of both SLAM and DNN algorithms compared to older algorithms like SIFT, with no commercial systems like Google Lookout evaluated.…”
Section: Systematic Review Of Wearables As Assistive Technology For Low Vision or Vision Imraired Individualsmentioning
confidence: 99%