UbiBraille: Designing and Evaluating a Vibrotactile Braille-Reading Device.

  • 291 views
Uploaded on

Research paper presented at SIGACCESS ASSETS 2013

Research paper presented at SIGACCESS ASSETS 2013

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
291
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
56
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. U BI B RAILLE Designing and Evaluating a Vibrotactile Braille-Reading Device HUGO  NICOLAU   JOÃO  GUERREIRO   TIAGO  GUERREIRO   LUÍS  CARRIÇO  
  • 2. motivation :: constantly online
  • 3. blind users :: auditory feedback
  • 4. challenge :: alternative modality
  • 5. problem :: deaf-blind users
  • 6. problem :: mobile usage
  • 7. problem :: noisy environments
  • 8. problem :: privacy
  • 9. earphones?
  • 10. goal :: inconspicuous and private
  • 11. [Al-Qudah et al, 2011] [Jayant et al, 2010] [Ohtsuka et al, 2008] [Rantala et al, 2009] related work
  • 12. our approach :: UbiBraille
  • 13. inspiration :: perkins brailler
  • 14. example :: ‘a’
  • 15. example :: ‘b’
  • 16. same approach for reading
  • 17. Six rings Lilypad vibe board Vibration motor (10 mm), 3,8 Volts Arduino Mega ADK board ubibraille :: hardware
  • 18. ubibraille :: ‘b’
  • 19. advantage :: mnemonic
  • 20. advantage :: speed
  • 21. 1. Will participants be able to discriminate simultaneous stimuli?
  • 22. 2. Will participants be able to leverage Braille knowledge?
  • 23. 3. What are the most common error patterns?
  • 24. 11 blind participants (8 male, 3 female) Ages 21 – 61 (m=45, sd=16) Braille typists user study :: character recognition
  • 25. assessment :: braille proficiency
  • 26. user study :: procedure
  • 27. 26 letters x 2 blocks 1. Audio signal 2. Delay (2 seconds) 3. Random braille character (from 26 letters) 4. Answer 5. Monitor register answer user study :: procedure
  • 28. results :: character recognition
  • 29. 82% 60% 50% 40% sd=17.25% 30% 20% 10% overall accuracy 0% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z
  • 30. error rate per character 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z
  • 31. ‘novyz’ are harder 60% 55% 50% 40% 36% 32% 32% 32% 30% 20% 10% 0% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z
  • 32. ‘novyz’ are harder N O V Y Z 60% 55% 50% 40% 36% 32% 32% 32% 30% 20% 10% 0% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z
  • 33. 51.6% error pattern :: 1 finger issues
  • 34. N O Q R V 1 finger error :: insertion Y Z
  • 35. N O V Y Z Q R U X U 1 finger error :: omission
  • 36. 25.3% error pattern :: 2 finger issues
  • 37. Z X 25.3% error pattern :: 2 finger issues
  • 38. accuracy rate per participant 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11
  • 39. result :: individual differences 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11
  • 40. [rho=.571, p=.066, N=11] leverage braille knowledge :: reading
  • 41. [rho=.627, p=.039, N=11] leverage braille knowledge :: writing
  • 42. Memory
  • 43. 82% overall accuracy More fingers, more errors Mostly 1-finger errors Leverage braille knowledge character recognition :: major results
  • 44. user study #2 :: word recognition
  • 45. 7 blind participants (from study #1) Ages 21 – 62 user study :: participants
  • 46. 1. Audio signal 2 times 2. Delay (2 seconds) 3. Random word 4. Answer 5. Monitor register answer user study :: procedure
  • 47. ‘a’ ‘c’ stimulus ‘t’ interval Condition Stimulus (ms) Interval (ms) 4000ms 2000 2000 2000ms 1000 1000 1000ms 500 500 500ms 250 250 user study :: conditions ‘o’ ‘r’
  • 48. 4 conditions (randomized) 10 words per condition 280 trials 5 characters per word Commonly used words (Portuguese) user study :: design
  • 49. results :: word recognition
  • 50. recognition accuracy rate 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 93% 89% 64% 33% 4000ms 2000ms 1000ms 500ms Error bars denote 95% CI
  • 51. recognition accuracy rate No sig. diff. p>.05 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 93% 89% 64% 33% 4000ms 2000ms 1000ms 500ms Error bars denote 95% CI
  • 52. recognition accuracy rate Z=-2.041, p<.05 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 93% 89% 64% 33% 4000ms 2000ms 1000ms 500ms Error bars denote 95% CI
  • 53. recognition accuracy rate Z=-2.379, p<.05 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 93% 89% 64% 33% 4000ms 2000ms 1000ms 500ms Error bars denote 95% CI
  • 54. [rho=.805, p<.05, N=7] [rho=.543, p=.208, N=7] leverage braille knowledge :: reading and writing
  • 55. Identify through context
  • 56. Condition 4000ms 2000ms 1000ms 500ms Median 5 5 3 2 IQR 1 2 2 1 likert scale [1-5] : 5 is better word recognition :: ease of use
  • 57. Condition 4000ms 2000ms 1000ms 500ms Median 5 5 3 2 IQR 1 2 2 1 likert scale [1-5] : 5 is better longest durations are easier
  • 58. Condition 4000ms 2000ms 1000ms 500ms Median 5 5 3 2 IQR 1 2 2 1 Z=-2.530, p<.05 Z=-2.428, p<.05 likert scale [1-5] : 5 is better longest durations are easier
  • 59. 1s duration + 1s interval à 90% leverage braille knowledge 12 wpm room for improvements word recognition :: major results
  • 60. conclusion :: ubibraille
  • 61. conclusion :: inconspicuous communication
  • 62. conclusion :: leverage braille-related abilities
  • 63. conclusion :: character- and word-level results
  • 64. future work :: ubibraille
  • 65. future work :: finger discrimination
  • 66. future work :: new applications
  • 67. future work :: multi-point feedback
  • 68. The End. HUGO NICOLAU hugonicolau@computing.dundee.ac.uk paper and slides @ http:/ /web.ist.utl.pt/hugo.nicolau