4.6 Article

An investigation into the effectiveness of using acoustic touch to assist people who are blind

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 18, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290431

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This research explores the potential of acoustic touch as a wearable spatial audio solution for assisting blind individuals in finding objects. The study shows that the wearable device effectively aids in object recognition and reaching, without significantly increasing the user's cognitive workload.
Wearable smart glasses are an emerging technology gaining popularity in the assistive technologies industry. Smart glasses aids typically leverage computer vision and other sensory information to translate the wearer's surrounding into computer-synthesized speech. In this work, we explored the potential of a new technique known as acoustic touch to provide a wearable spatial audio solution for assisting people who are blind in finding objects. In contrast to traditional systems, this technique uses smart glasses to sonify objects into distinct sound auditory icons when the object enters the device's field of view. We developed a wearable Foveated Audio Device to study the efficacy and usability of using acoustic touch to search, memorize, and reach items. Our evaluation study involved 14 participants, 7 blind or low-visioned and 7 blindfolded sighted (as a control group) participants. We compared the wearable device to two idealized conditions, a verbal clock face description and a sequential audio presentation through external speakers. We found that the wearable device can effectively aid the recognition and reaching of an object. We also observed that the device does not significantly increase the user's cognitive workload. These promising results suggest that acoustic touch can provide a wearable and effective method of sensory augmentation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available