Page 34 - Fister jr., Iztok, Andrej Brodnik, Matjaž Krnc and Iztok Fister (eds.). StuCoSReC. Proceedings of the 2019 6th Student Computer Science Research Conference. Koper: University of Primorska Press, 2019
P. 34
CONCLUSIONS 7. REFERENCES
The glasses detected all the obstacles, but the number of [1] STMicroelectronics ht-
sensors detecting the obstacle decreased with the distance. tps://www.st.com/resource/en/datasheet/vl53l1x.pdf.
Circle and square were detected better than triangle. This
suggests that different shapes trigger different responses of [2] Adafruit HUZZAH32 - ESP32 Feather.
sensors on glasses. https://cdn-learn.adafruit.com/downloads/pdf/adafruit-
huzzah32-esp32-feather.pdf. May
We have also demonstrated that the optimal distance for the 2019.
sensors to recognize the shapes is somewhere between 30 and
90 cm. At the distance of 60 cm the triangle was successfully [3] K. Stopar. Naprava za vizualno-kinestetiˇcno
discriminated from circle and rectangle, whereas the latter navigacijoslepih in slabovidnih. September 2019
two were not easy to discriminate. The biggest discrimina- (submitted for review).
tive power of glasses likely lies at the distances between 30
and 60 cm. However, additional tests are required to ana- [4] C. M. Bauer, G. V. Hirsch, L. Zajac, B. Koo, O.
lyse the performance at different points in this interval (for Collignon, L. B.
example at 40 and 50 cm). Merabet Multimodal MR-imaging reveals large-scale
structural and functional connectivity changes in
The problem with misdetection of more distant obstacles is a profound early blindness PLOSjONE. March 22, 2017.
consequence of detection principle used in our design. Emit-
ted light cone is 27◦ wide and it expands with the distance.
As a result, the obstacle takes up smaller part of the cone
and that affects its detection. There are two solutions of this
problem. The first one is to narrow the emitted light cone
width by software or hardware. The second one includes
adding the video camera for better object recognition.
Our experiments further showed that some of the materials
are poorly detected. For example plexi glass and glass pre-
sent a substantial detection challenge. On the other hand,
aluminium foil, white paper and micro polyester are easily
detected. In conclusion, the more reflective the material, the
more sensors detect it. Further tests are required to analyse
whether or not the problem of glass detection could be ad-
dressed by the use of video camera. As an alternative, an
ultrasonic sensor could also be used.
At the moment our glasses perform best in open enviro-
nments while detecting materials which are better at reflec-
ting infrared light. The test justifies that the glasses could
be used in everyday environments, because materials tested
make up most of potential obstacles, glass and other similar
materials being the exception.
Plasticity of the brain allows blind and visually impaired
people to have significantly increased perception of touch
[4]. Because of that, we would like to additionaly test if
they can feel the difference between various shapes.
6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank prof. dr. Aleˇs Holobar (University of Maribor)
and M.S. Jernej Kranjec (University of Maribor) for their as-
sistance in writing the article and all the professional advises
they provided. We also thank Tomaˇz Ferbeˇzar (Secondary
school of electronics and technical gymnasium) and Boris
Plut (Secondary school of electronics and technical gymna-
sium) for their help in the early stages of development.
StuCoSReC Proceedings of the 2019 6th Student Computer Science Research Conference 34
Koper, Slovenia, 10 October
The glasses detected all the obstacles, but the number of [1] STMicroelectronics ht-
sensors detecting the obstacle decreased with the distance. tps://www.st.com/resource/en/datasheet/vl53l1x.pdf.
Circle and square were detected better than triangle. This
suggests that different shapes trigger different responses of [2] Adafruit HUZZAH32 - ESP32 Feather.
sensors on glasses. https://cdn-learn.adafruit.com/downloads/pdf/adafruit-
huzzah32-esp32-feather.pdf. May
We have also demonstrated that the optimal distance for the 2019.
sensors to recognize the shapes is somewhere between 30 and
90 cm. At the distance of 60 cm the triangle was successfully [3] K. Stopar. Naprava za vizualno-kinestetiˇcno
discriminated from circle and rectangle, whereas the latter navigacijoslepih in slabovidnih. September 2019
two were not easy to discriminate. The biggest discrimina- (submitted for review).
tive power of glasses likely lies at the distances between 30
and 60 cm. However, additional tests are required to ana- [4] C. M. Bauer, G. V. Hirsch, L. Zajac, B. Koo, O.
lyse the performance at different points in this interval (for Collignon, L. B.
example at 40 and 50 cm). Merabet Multimodal MR-imaging reveals large-scale
structural and functional connectivity changes in
The problem with misdetection of more distant obstacles is a profound early blindness PLOSjONE. March 22, 2017.
consequence of detection principle used in our design. Emit-
ted light cone is 27◦ wide and it expands with the distance.
As a result, the obstacle takes up smaller part of the cone
and that affects its detection. There are two solutions of this
problem. The first one is to narrow the emitted light cone
width by software or hardware. The second one includes
adding the video camera for better object recognition.
Our experiments further showed that some of the materials
are poorly detected. For example plexi glass and glass pre-
sent a substantial detection challenge. On the other hand,
aluminium foil, white paper and micro polyester are easily
detected. In conclusion, the more reflective the material, the
more sensors detect it. Further tests are required to analyse
whether or not the problem of glass detection could be ad-
dressed by the use of video camera. As an alternative, an
ultrasonic sensor could also be used.
At the moment our glasses perform best in open enviro-
nments while detecting materials which are better at reflec-
ting infrared light. The test justifies that the glasses could
be used in everyday environments, because materials tested
make up most of potential obstacles, glass and other similar
materials being the exception.
Plasticity of the brain allows blind and visually impaired
people to have significantly increased perception of touch
[4]. Because of that, we would like to additionaly test if
they can feel the difference between various shapes.
6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank prof. dr. Aleˇs Holobar (University of Maribor)
and M.S. Jernej Kranjec (University of Maribor) for their as-
sistance in writing the article and all the professional advises
they provided. We also thank Tomaˇz Ferbeˇzar (Secondary
school of electronics and technical gymnasium) and Boris
Plut (Secondary school of electronics and technical gymna-
sium) for their help in the early stages of development.
StuCoSReC Proceedings of the 2019 6th Student Computer Science Research Conference 34
Koper, Slovenia, 10 October
