Blind and Visually Impaired Community
↑
6
↓
Is there interest in another Obstacle-Detection-Devices similar to the "Sunu Band" or "Buzz Clip"? (self.Blind)
submitted by RcaCatAna
My daughter and I are not blind but make all sorts of electronic devices and were thinking of making a similar "gadget".
We're trying to find out if there is interest and "room" for another product that might work better indoors than outdoors. It might be cheaper too.
It would have a narrower detection "beam" and should not multi-reflect off walls.
We'd also be interested in what features would make it better.
Also, our initial idea is that faster and higher-resolution feedback would be obtained if user had an earphone and the pitch of a low-volume tone would indicate distance therefore allowing fast scanning with an angular rotation of the wrist. We can write more if we see interest.
Thanks,
CatAna
We're trying to find out if there is interest and "room" for another product that might work better indoors than outdoors. It might be cheaper too.
It would have a narrower detection "beam" and should not multi-reflect off walls.
We'd also be interested in what features would make it better.
Also, our initial idea is that faster and higher-resolution feedback would be obtained if user had an earphone and the pitch of a low-volume tone would indicate distance therefore allowing fast scanning with an angular rotation of the wrist. We can write more if we see interest.
Thanks,
CatAna
-shacklebolt- 4 points 4y ago
Probably not, no.
Virtually no blind people I know own these devices, and that seems unlikely to change.
Virtually no blind people I know own these devices, and that seems unlikely to change.
pokersnek 3 points 4y ago
Check out the k-sonar. It was the precursor to hand held vibrational devices. It has been discontinued. It would play a tone based on the distance of an object, but this detracts from the users own hearing when doing things.
HDMILex 2 points 4y ago
No.
RcaCatAna [OP] 1 points 4y ago
To all that are not interested, we thank you for your time. Might lower cost matter? As a toy, maybe?
We were thinking that the lack of sight is such a big sensory hole that anything that might help fill it would be welcome.
But we do understand that things that don't work well can be more frustrating than helpful.
Your answers already brought up a problem we should have considered: the tone in the ear would indeed conflict with the need to really hear the environment, but it was an important part in our "fast scanning" plan.
It would allow the user to detect distance-discontinuity (like a step/object) by a jump in the pitch that would not be discernible if it was a vibrator on the wrist (instead of the tone).
Maybe we should explain better. The plan is to point the sensor towards the area of interest (let's say down-forward) and rotate it like you might a narrow-beam flashlight if you were looking for something on the ground. As long as the ground was flat, you would hear something like a siren with the pitch going up and down continuously. If a step or other object was "scanned/pointed-at" there would be a "step" in the pitch of the sound too. Even a 5% pitch-step might be discernible. But a 5% change in vibration level would not be noticed.
If we have to use vibration instead of tone, we're thinking that we might have to implement a "step detector" in the device that would "notice" the distance "step" and vibrate somehow differently; maybe extra hard; when such step is detected. However this would not be as good as a finely tuned ear that could probably tell a lot about the nature of the obstacle after getting used to the device.
Thoughts? Maybe dual mode: vibration in general with a tone mode for fast-environment "mapping"? Eh?
We were thinking that the lack of sight is such a big sensory hole that anything that might help fill it would be welcome.
But we do understand that things that don't work well can be more frustrating than helpful.
Your answers already brought up a problem we should have considered: the tone in the ear would indeed conflict with the need to really hear the environment, but it was an important part in our "fast scanning" plan.
It would allow the user to detect distance-discontinuity (like a step/object) by a jump in the pitch that would not be discernible if it was a vibrator on the wrist (instead of the tone).
Maybe we should explain better. The plan is to point the sensor towards the area of interest (let's say down-forward) and rotate it like you might a narrow-beam flashlight if you were looking for something on the ground. As long as the ground was flat, you would hear something like a siren with the pitch going up and down continuously. If a step or other object was "scanned/pointed-at" there would be a "step" in the pitch of the sound too. Even a 5% pitch-step might be discernible. But a 5% change in vibration level would not be noticed.
If we have to use vibration instead of tone, we're thinking that we might have to implement a "step detector" in the device that would "notice" the distance "step" and vibrate somehow differently; maybe extra hard; when such step is detected. However this would not be as good as a finely tuned ear that could probably tell a lot about the nature of the obstacle after getting used to the device.
Thoughts? Maybe dual mode: vibration in general with a tone mode for fast-environment "mapping"? Eh?
KillerLag 1 points 4y ago
One of the big issues isn't the accuracy of the scanner, but how to transmit that information to someone. For example, they've been working with laser range finders on canes since the 70s, and ultrasonic sensors since the 90s.
One of the issues with using tones and sounds to indicates drop-offs is that it often interferes with listening for other important sound cues. For example, a drop-off curb is often near traffic, so listening to traffic, sound shadows (caused by bus shelters or other large objects) and other audio cues is important. A constant sound would be disruptive.
Most of the current generation of tools use haptics because it avoids the sound disruptions, but as you mentioned, it is also not as accurate.
Another issue with a gadget isn't necessarily the cost (although cost is a major factor), but the fact it is *another* gadget. For most people that would use the device your propose, they would also need a cane (to locate drop-offs, obstacles, etc). So with one hand already taken up, a second device would take up the remaining free hand. Except people often use those hands to hold coffee, press buttons, open doors, feel for objects, etc. And even if that was in their pocket, it's another item to keep track of, to charge, etc.
One of the big reasons the iPhone was such a game changer was the fact it did *so many* things. For example, previous to the iPhone, if someone wanted to bring their colour identifier, their money identifier, their audio book device, their compass, their GPS and flashlight, they could literally fill a backpack full of stuff. But for many people, that was too much. By cramming everything into a single device, it made it much simpler to carry. For the device you are proposing, such things have been attempted to be integrated into a white cane, with limited success (mostly the cost), with the UltraCane being the best example. https://www.ultracane.com/
One of the issues with using tones and sounds to indicates drop-offs is that it often interferes with listening for other important sound cues. For example, a drop-off curb is often near traffic, so listening to traffic, sound shadows (caused by bus shelters or other large objects) and other audio cues is important. A constant sound would be disruptive.
Most of the current generation of tools use haptics because it avoids the sound disruptions, but as you mentioned, it is also not as accurate.
Another issue with a gadget isn't necessarily the cost (although cost is a major factor), but the fact it is *another* gadget. For most people that would use the device your propose, they would also need a cane (to locate drop-offs, obstacles, etc). So with one hand already taken up, a second device would take up the remaining free hand. Except people often use those hands to hold coffee, press buttons, open doors, feel for objects, etc. And even if that was in their pocket, it's another item to keep track of, to charge, etc.
One of the big reasons the iPhone was such a game changer was the fact it did *so many* things. For example, previous to the iPhone, if someone wanted to bring their colour identifier, their money identifier, their audio book device, their compass, their GPS and flashlight, they could literally fill a backpack full of stuff. But for many people, that was too much. By cramming everything into a single device, it made it much simpler to carry. For the device you are proposing, such things have been attempted to be integrated into a white cane, with limited success (mostly the cost), with the UltraCane being the best example. https://www.ultracane.com/
[deleted] 1 points 4y ago
[deleted]
CassieBear99 1 points 4y ago
That sounds super cool! Let me know if you are looking for beta testers, would love to try it out
This nonprofit website is run by volunteers.
Please contribute if you can. Thank you!
Our mission is to provide everyone with access to large-
scale community websites for the good of humanity.
Without ads, without tracking, without greed.
scale community websites for the good of humanity.
Without ads, without tracking, without greed.
©2023 HumbleCat Inc • HumbleCat is a 501(c)3 nonprofit based in Michigan, USA.