AbstractThis work presents the design and implementation of an.docx

Abstract
This work presents the design and implementation of an
embedded augmented reality game, called MarkerMatch.
Augmented reality is a technology that directly contributes to
the game interaction experience by enhancing user’s sense of
immersion. Current research in embedded augmented reality
enables the creation of dedicated hardware capable of executing
augmented reality applications. This favors the insertion of
augmented reality capabilities in small electronic devices, such
as cell phones, handhelds, head-mounted displays and even the
development of new ones. The ARCam framework was used for
game development, since it provides project designers with all
the basic infrastructure needed by the game. Some user tests
show that the tested subjects enjoyed the game experience and it
proves a point: it is possible to create an augmented reality
game completely in hardware with no software involved.1.
Introduction
Augmented Reality (AR) makes use of computer vision
algorithms in order to superimpose virtual information 2D or
3D, textual or pictorial - onto real world scenes in real time,
enhancing user’s perception of and interaction with the
environment [4]. Nowadays, augmented reality is applied in
different fields, such as entertainment [23], medicine [5],
manufacturing and repair [4], and training [19]. The technical
challenges lie in determining, in real time, what should be
shown where and how.
Traditionally, augmented reality systems place virtual objects in
the real world using fiducial markers. Such artificial markers
are used to support camera position and orientation tracking by
the system, and are intrusive to the environment. Figure 1
illustrates the use of such fiducial
Figure 1. Marker based augmented reality example

markers in order to place a virtual statue on the real table.
The concept of augmented reality is directly related to
augmenting users’ perception, specifically the users’ vision.
Therefore users need to wear HMDs or similar devices in order
to obtain the information enhancement previously mentioned.
More important than that, many augmented reality applications
are made to provide support to users in their daily and common
activities. Therefore, there has been an expanding tendency to
seamlessly integrate daily used equipments into common
platforms with support to mobility. Continuous advances in
device miniaturization, allied with the emergence of various
wireless communication technologies, universal plug-and-play
devices and powerful portable processing units has opened the
door for research on wearable platforms.
It’s natural the evolution of augmented reality desktop
platforms into something closer to the user. The terms mobile
and wearable must be considered part of such evolution, and for
this to happen, the miniaturization and specificity of devices
must occur. Embedded augmented reality [22] refers to the
research area that aims enabling the mentioned evolution. It
researches how augmented reality applications can fit into small
devices in a way that users can experience them seamlessly.
An embedded augmented reality application may vary from a
software running on a small processor, attached to the user’s
clothes, to a dedicated circuitry running on the user’s glasses,
for example. The later is an example of the most extreme
embedded augmented reality, since it considers the augmented
reality application being a chip that can be integrated into
existing devices, such as cell phones, PDAs, or can give birth to
new ones. The case study developed in this work, called
MarkerMatch, exemplifies this class of applications. The entire
application, after its prototipation phase, can be packed into a
single and dedicated chip and will be further detailed in Section
4.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 lists some work
related to embedded augmented reality applications and games

using augmented reality. Section 3 details the ARCam, which is
the framework used as basis of this work, explaining what is
provided and how it enables the development of pure embedded
augmented reality applications. Section 4 describes the game
used as case study, its architecture, implementation and the
results obtained. Section 5 focuses on the user tests performed.
Section 6 gives final considerations about the project and some
directions are given for future work.2 Related work
The idea of embedding devices with augmented reality
capabilities is complex, mainly due to processing power
constraints. Another factor that makes it difficult is the vast
amount of ways of programming the target device. Apart from
augmented reality desktop applications, it is not always possible
to use high level programming languages and APIs. In the case
of cell phones and PDAs, one must use the APIs provided by the
vendor in order to obtain maximum performance. When working
with FPGAs (FieldProgrammable Gate Arrays), for example,
hardware description languages are used, such as VHDL (Very
High Speed Integrated Circuits Hardware Description
Language) [3], and they normally present a higher learning
curve.
There are a lot of embedded computer vision systems capable of
recognizing input from some type of sensor, and taking actions
based on the information obtained [13]. The main difference
perceived when comparing computer vision algorithms and
augmented reality ones is that the later must complete an entire
pipeline, from information acquisition to visualization.
Computer vision algorithms are just part of the application.
Because of that, it is not so common to find embedded
augmented reality examples as embedded computer vision ones.
That being said, we will focus our related work section on
augmented reality applications developed for mobile devices,
and mobile applications that were built over dedicated
architectures.
The Wikitude World Browser application [21] presents data
about users’ surroundings, nearby landmarks, and other points

of interest by overlaying information on the real-time camera
view of a smart-phone. It currently offers support to a few cell
phone models (G1, G2 and myTouch), due to the processing
power demanded. The developers of Wikitude also made
available an API that allows the development of markerless
augmented reality applications, providing developers with the
tools to either create their own Android [10] augmented reality
applications or enhance their existing Android applications with
an augmented reality camera-view engine.
Similar to the Wikitude, there is the Layar Mobile Augmented
Reality Browser [18]. Layar is a free mobile phone application
which shows what is around the user by displaying real-time
digital information on top of reality through the camera of the
cell phone. It’s available to more phone models than the
previous Browser, such as iPhone 3GS, T-Mobile G1, HTC
Magic and other Android phones, and comes pre-installed in
some specific models.
The Augmented Reality Tower Defense [7] was developed for
Symbian OS, and is a game that uses markers to get the position
of the phone camera. The cell phone is used both as display and
3D mouse.
Another example of game that uses a mobile platform is the
ARhrrrr [14]. It is an augmented reality shooter for mobile
camera-phones. The phone provides a window into a 3D town
overrun with zombies. Pointing the camera at the game map
mixes virtual and real world content. Since it runs in a Tegra-
based device and there is no comercial device that can run the
game yet, it’s just a concept demonstration. It takes benefit of
the capabilities provided by the tegra chip in order to supply all
processing load required by the game.
The AR Drone [16] is a different example. Instead of using the
capabilities provided by some existing platform, the authors
built a dedicated one. The embedded computer system
developed includes an ARM9 RISC processor at 468MHz,
128MB of DDR RAM, wireless capabilities, 2 cameras and
other sensors, and runs Linux. The developed platform is

capable of detecting markers, calculate their position and
orientation and send this information along with visual feedback
to an iPhone. It comes with two augmented reality applications
pre-installed on the platform.
The case study performed in this work is similar to the AR
Drone in a way that both have dedicated platforms for running
the augmented reality applications. Some notable differences
are that the AR Drone uses a general purpose processor, while
the game developed in our case study makes use of a number of
different hardware modules, each one running in parallel and
performing a task of the game or a stage of the augmented
reality pipeline. Another difference is that AR Drone’s
applications have been developed in software, while the
modules in our case study were completely developed in
hardware, therefore there is no software is used.3 ARCam
framework
The MarkerMatch project was built using ARCam’s (Augmented
Reality Camera) infrastructure [11], which is an embedded
framework for development of augmented reality applications
on FPGAs using fudicial markers (similar to the ID-based ones
used by ARToolkitPlus [23]). This framework simplifies
developers work by providing several hardware modules
directly described in register transfer level, that can perform
every operation of a markerbased augmented reality pipeline,
according to Figure 2. This way, the developer doesn’t need to
concern about some infrastructure’s development details,
required by every augmented reality application, such as camera
capturing, marker detection and image displaying.
Figure 3. ARCam’s architecture
In order to achieve its goal, ARCam was designed to require the
minimum amount of hardware’s resources, enabling the
developer to succeed in creating its application even on a very
restricted environment. It is coded completly in VHDL and no
soft-core is used in its operations, therefore it is a pure

hardware solution, employing thus all its potential. ARCam’s
processing unit is an Altera Stratix II FPGA with 48,352
adaptative look-up tables (ALUTs), 2,544,192 bits of RAM, 36
DSP blocks and 144 multipliers.
The framework provides two sets of components: an algorithm
pipeline, including the most used algorithms in augmented
reality; and a group of modules to control platform-related
components, as image sensor control and video decoder
interface.
The implemented augmented reality pipeline algorithms are the
following: binarization, gray scale, labeling, mean filter, edge
detection, generic convolution, centroid estimation, square
detection, 3D object wireframe renderization, marker detection
abd pose estimation. The other modules consist of video
decoder interface, video encoder interface, image sensor
control, real/virtual selector and memory modules. A block
diagram of the platform architecture is shown in Figure 3.4
Case study: the MarkerMatch game
A guessing-game is a game in which the task is to guess some
kind of information, such as a word, a phrase, a title, or the
location of an object [25]. Many of such games are played
cooperatively. In some of them, one of the players knows the
answer but cannot tell the others; instead, he/she must help
them to guess it correctly. Some examples of famous guessing
games include Battleship [20], Charades [9], Hangman [17],
Mastermind [15], Pictionary [24] and Guess Who? [12].
The Battleship game was invented by Clifford Von Wickler in
the early 1900s, and further published by many companies. One
well-known variant of the game was produced by 3M in 1974, in
a series of eight abstract strategy and puzzle games called “3M
Paper Games for Travel & Leisure”, as illustrated in Figure 4.
Our case study, named MarkerMatch game, has as objective to
develop an embedded two-player guessing-game, similar to the
famous Battleship game, in which they compete to find the
misterious pattern chosen by the game master, which in the case
of MarkerMatch is the computer itself.

A prototype of MarkerMatch was built using an image sensor
and a monitor, both connected to an FPGA. Some ID-based
markers were also used. Figure 5 presents the components.
4.1 Mechanics
MarkerMatch is a turn-based guessing game, played by two
people, in which the winner is the one who first reaches the
maximum score defined. Its match consists of many rounds. In
each round, a marker not yet used is randomly
Figure 2. Augmented reality pipelineFigure 4. Paper game from
3M (1974)
chosen and the players, who possess a pack of cards (each one
containing a marker), will try to guess the chosen marker. The
player who correctly guesses it is considered the winner of the
round and sums one point.
In case both players fail to guess the marker, a new tip is
revealed. The concept of tip in MarkerMatch corresponds to
revealing the color and position of a randomly chosen fraction
of the correct marker. The tips continue to be given to the
players while they do not guess correctly or there are no tips
left to show. In the beginning of each round a tip is
automatically revealed.
A new round starts every time one ends, unless one of the
players has reached ten points, which is the game stop condition
that dictates who wins the match. In order to make the game
more dynamic, intuitive and fun, augmented reality is used.
This way, the players must show the markers to a camera. Using
a dedicated circuit, the marker shown is verified to be the right
one or not. Then, the information is sent to a monitor that
displays the result to the players.
Thirty-six ID-based markers are used, as shown in Figure 6.
Each marker is composed of a 6x6 grid of small binary squares
(assuming black or white color), which can be translated into a
unique ID. The marker’s image captured by the image sensor is

analyzed and further associated with its corresponding ID. This
way, markers are recognized in MarkerMatch.
The game uses the display attached to the FPGA to provide the
players with all necessary information regarding the match.
Figure 7 illustrates the game screen.
Region (1) exemplifies the augmented reality used on the game,
by adding information to the image captured by the camera. In
case the marker is guessed correctly, it is highlighted in green;
otherwise, the red color is used. This region can also be used to
display other information such as a game-over screen, for
example. Region (2) displays the partial score of both players.
In addition, it also indicates to whom belongs the turn. Such
information is highlighted by the square placed on the right of
the player’s name. Region
(3) provides the players with some tips regarding the correct
MarkerMatch was implemented and organized based on the
infrastructure provided by ARCam. This infrastructure was
slightly adapted as required by the game and the game control
module was built over it. This way, the system design is
organized into subsystems, which are: Video Capture, Video
Visualization, AR Processing and Game Control. Figure 8
shows an overview of project’s architecture.
Figure 5. FPGA board, image sensor and ID-
based markers used in MarkerMatch game
marker to be guessed.
4.2
Architecture
Figure 6. Grid related to a specific ID
Video Capture and Visualization subsystems are originally from
ARCam, with only very few changes. The Video Capture
subsystem is responsible for interfacing both image sensor and
FPGA and it also stores the real world image. It was adapted to
capture and store 240x240 pixels images, as the left-side bar is
used to supply information to the user. The Video Visualization
subsystem is responsible for multiplexing real/virtual world

images and interfaces the FPGA with the screen, via a VGA
output. The original VGA controller was modified to generate
different address signals to the many memories that store each
region of the final image.
The AR Processing subsystem is also part of ARCam and among
the available modules, MarkerMatch required Figure 7.
Information displayed on the monitor
the following ones from the augmented reality pipeline:
binarization, edge, quad and marker detection. Since the
subsystem’s main purpose is to identify markers, it was
modified to work with 240x240 pixels images. Another
important functionality is to highlight the identified markers on
the screen. This is done by masking the pixels of the identified
marker using an auxiliary memory. The Visualization subsystem
uses the stored mask to properly render the marker on the
display.
The Control subsystem functions as the brain of the game, being
responsible for coordinating and controlling the other
subsystems. The most important modules on the Control are:
Game Controller, Tip Generator and Marker Generator. The
Game Controller defines the finite state machine of the game,
illustrated in Figure 9, which consists of
Figure 8. Project’s architecture
the following states:
· game initialization
· tip generation
· player turns
· end turn/game.
Figure 9. Game state machine
On the initialization states, the Game Controller configures the
system as required by the game. Such configuration step
involves resetting both player’s scores and tips already shown
and requesting a new (not yet used) marker to the Marker
Generator along with a tip to the Tip Generator. When all the
information is ready, the game begins with player 1’s turn.
A second process, which is executed in parallel to the Game

Controller’s state machine, is responsible for verifying if the
marker identified by the AR Processing subsystem is the correct
one. This process updates the identified marker’s information at
every identification procedure execution and makes it available
to other procedures.
Players’ turns are alternate, while nobody guesses the correct
marker. When someone shows a wrong marker, Game Controller
informs AR Processing subsystem, which will fill the marker’s
mask with a red color, so that Video Visualization can paint the
marker in red on the screen. The same happens when the correct
marker is shown, but this time the color will be green. The
player can only try to guess the marker once per turn, as the
state machine will only repaint the marker’s mask until the
other player’s turn begins (and not check for marker
identification).
When a wrong marker is recognized, the Controller no longer
accepts any attempt to show a new marker on the current turn,
so that the player must press the button on the FPGA to pass
turns. Even if the player shows another marker, the Controller
and the AR Processing subsystems will not take into
consideration the ID of the marker and will fill the mask of the
marker with the red color, as for the first try. The choice for
changing turns by using the push-button was simply a way of
guaranteeing that the user acknowledges the end of his/her turn.
By pressing the FPGA button, there are two possible situations:
changing the state to the next player or requesting a new tip. It
depends on whether it is player 1’s turn or player 2’s,
respectively. In case it is player 1’s turn, then the round is not
over and player 2 gets a chance to guess. If it is player 2’s turn,
then the round is over and nobody correctly guessed the marker.
In sequence, the Controller checks if there is any tip left and, if
not, it is player 1’s turn again; otherwise, before going to player
1’s turn, the game waits while the Tip Generator provides a new
tip.
When the guessed marker is the right one, the Controller checks
whether the player of the turn has reached the score that makes

him/her the winner. If it has not, a new match is started with a
randomly chosen new marker and the tip mask is erased.
Otherwise, it has reached “game over” state, in which a picture
is shown on the screen indicating the end of the game and the
winner. Once in this state, a different FPGA button must be
pressed to start a new game.
4.3 Results
In order to analyze the characteristics of MarkerMatch as an
embedded augmented reality application, two important factors
must be taken into consideration: the processing time, because
the game is an augmented reality system and has to give a
feedback fast enough to create an immersive user experience;
and the amount of hardware used, as the resources are relatively
scarce in embedded environments.
Most of the execution time in the game is due to image
processing to correctly detect the markers. The game’s
controlling tasks, which run in parallel to image processing
tasks, are comparatively faster and consume only a few clock
cycles, thus it will be ignored in timing analysis. Using a timer
in hardware and an FPGA in-system debug tool provided by
Altera [1] (SignalTap Logic Analyzer), it was possible to
determine how many clock cycles are necessary to execute each
module procedure. The clock speed at which the entire system
runs is 25 MHz, therefore the execution time can be calculated.
Table 1 presents the number of clock cycles and the execution
time per module. However, these numbers should not be
summed, as the ARCam framework implements these functions
as a regular pipeline. Thus, in spite of the first few frames, the
execution time of the whole process is approximately the time
of the longest pipeline stage, what results in a 87 FPS (frames
per second) performance.
Table 1. Clock cycles and execution time per module.
Clock cycles
Execution time

Binarization
57,600
2.30 ms
Edge Detection
288,000
11.52 ms
Quad Detection
47,023
1.89 ms
Marker Detection
4,408
0.18 ms
The amount of hardware resources taken by the system is also a
crucial factor, because this is a very limited environment and
the smaller the system is, the faster it can be and easier will be
to produce it. As consequence, less power is dissipated. After
the compilation process, the compiler tool generates a report
with several indicators of resource usage. The most important
indicators are the amount of ALUTs, registers, memory bits and
DSP (digital signal processing) elements. Table 2 presents these
indicators per subsystem. The used resources represent 50% of
the available ALUTs, 20% of the available registers, 78% of the
available memory and 67% of the available DSP elements.
The developed case study shows the feasibility of implementing
an embedded augmented reality solution completely in
hardware, in a relatively short period of time. The use of
ARCam framework as base facilitated the development process
while decreasing the time spent. It took about 45 days to
conclude the entire embedded application, including conception
of the game, coding and testing. This period also considers the
time spent modifying the game with the suggestions gathered
from the user tests.5 User tests
A total of ten users were asked to play the game in order to
identify potential problems on the MarkerMatch gameplay. All
users were familiar to computer games and augTable 2.
Resource usage indicators.

ALUTs
Registers
Memorybits
DSPelements
Video
Capture
195
152
1036800
0
Video
Visualization
1193
185
288000
0
AR
Processing
21072
8678
529367
178
Game
Controller
1580
874
123136

16
mented reality projects, their average age was twenty four ears
old and all of them were male. For this case study, the amount
of ten users has revealed to be enough for the testing activities
due the similarity on all answers.
After introducing them to the elements on the display and to the
mechanics as well, the users were observed, two at a time,
playing against each other for at least fifteen minutes. During
the test, notes were made and opinions were taken from the
players. When the game was finished, they were asked some
questions which could provide important information about how
to balance the game.
When asked about the amount of markers that they had for
guessing the right one, the average answer was twenty two, a
significant reduction comparing to the initial thirty six
proposed. They told it would turn the game into a more active
challenge with easier matches. Based on their answers, there
was a reduction on the number of rounds needed to finish a
match as well. According to them, the ideal number of rounds
should be five, exactly half of the ten proposed. This way they
could finish the match, because all the matches observed did not
go until the end, to the winner’s screen.
Another question made was about the use of timing for each
player attempt. Except for two of all users, they told this feature
was primal for the gameplay, giving it more excitation and
reducing the duration of a match.
As regards to the number of tips given in the beginning of each
round as well as those given after the second player attempt, we
were told that one tip was appropriate for both situations.
At last, asking for a feedback about when the marker is guessed
right or not, all users informed that the green and red squares
were enough to provide feedback about the attempt performed.
Figure 10. Semantic differential scale used
Based on these opinions and answers, few tweaking and
improvements were made on the game code and mechanics, to

adequate the MarkerMatch game to user needs.
5.1 Semantic Differential Scale
Once finished the user tests, where important information about
the gameplay were collected for implementation adjustments, a
second activity with all users was made. This time, they were
asked to evaluate the game according to a semantic differential
scale [8] with sixteen subjective parameters considering three
different views about the game: (1) the gameplay, (2) the game
feel, and, (3) the use of the game as an application.
The gameplay overview comprehends aspects like the system
usability, easiness on playing and immersion. As regards to the
game feel, we considered aspects related to esthetics or user
feelings, and were evaluated parameters most related to fun.
Finally, considering the game use, the user interaction,
socialization and innovation were aspects analyzed.
All ten users filled up the scale, which can be understood as a
discrete visual analog scale [6], according to their first
experience on playing the game. We made use of a seven point
scale, since odd numbers are more suitable for this kind of scale
because it indicates the midpoint, and more than seven points
could confuse people on placing their point of view on the scale
[2]. The average result is demonstrated in Figure 10.
As it is indicated, the MarkerMatch case study obtained
satisfactory results, especially for a first test with a beta
version. The average opinion about each parameter was placed
between the first and fourth boxes (which represents the average
between good and bad) for all those three head groups discussed
above.
The worst remarks were made regarding the capacity of the
game to surprise or educate the player, which was expected, as
MarkerMatch is a guessing game. On the other hand, the best
remarks were made for the challenge and user interaction
promoted, which is usually the focus of augmented reality
projects [5].6 Conclusion and future work
This article presented MarkerMatch, a case study for the

embedded augmented reality framework ARCam, with the main
purpose of evaluating the feasibility of creating an augmented
reality application completely developed in hardware. In order
to measure the success in this task, several criteria were taken
into consideration: amount of hardware required, game frame
rate and user evaluation. For the good results presented, the
application managed to fulfill every aspect properly.
Due to the pipeline-like implementation inherited from ARCam,
the total amount of time needed by MarkerMatch to run (a
single frame time) is about 11.4 milliseconds, enabling real-
time user interaction. After synthesized, the complete game
took about 60% of the FPGA area resources. Therefore, there is
still room for enhancements in both game features and
implementation.
The user evaluation brought forth many issues that, once
implemented, richly improved the game, especially by
enhancing a critical matter in augmented reality applications,
which is the user interaction.
The case study was also useful to determine whether or not the
framework could help to implement an application in such a
challenging environment. Indeed, it helped, as the development
team composed by 3 people finished its work in about 45 days.
Although it was not tried to recreate the game without ARCam’s
support, it is believed based on our experience that such task
would have taken months to be accomplished.
As future work related to the hardware implementation, the
process of image binarization is being improved, by considering
dynamic thresholds instead of static ones. This way, the
application will suffer less from environment light variations.
As future work related to the game, embedded augmented
reality offers the possibility of using the system in outdoor
scenarios, such as treasure hunts, by using embedded augmented
reality on mobile phones or wearable devices.7
Acknowledgements
The authors want to thank MCT and CNPq, for financially
supporting this research (process [omitted for the blind

review]).References
[1] Altera. Fpga cpld and asic from altera, Jan. 2010.
[2] D. F. Alwin and J. A. Krosnick. The reliability of survey
attitude measurement: The influence of question and respondent
attributes. Sociological Methods Research, 20(1):139– 181,
August 1991.
[3] P. J. Ashenden. The Designer’s Guide to VHDL, Volume 3,
Third Edition (Systems on Silicon) (Systems on Silicon).
Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA,
2008.
[4] R. Azuma. A survey of augmented reality. Presence, 6:355–
385, 1995.
[5] R. Azuma, Y. Baillot, R. Behringer, S. Feiner, S. Julier, and
B. MacIntyre. Recent advances in augmented reality. IEEE
Comput. Graph. Appl., 21(6):34–47, 2001.
[6] E. R. Babbie. The Practice of Social Research. Wadsworth
Publishing, Feb. 2009.
[7] Cellagames. Augmented reality tower defense, Jan. 2010.
[8] P. M. Chisnall. Marketing research; analysis and
measurement [by] Peter M. Chisnall. McGraw-Hill London,
New York,, 1973.
[9] C. Cooke. Charades: A Classic Party Game. Meadowbrook,
Mar. 2003.
[10] Google. Android open source project, jan 2010.
[11] G. F. Guimaraes, J. P. S. M. Lima, J. M. X. N. Teixeira, G.
D. Silva, V. Teichrieb, and J. Kelner. Fpga infrastructure for the
development of augmented reality applications. In SBCCI ’07:
Proceedings of the 20th annual conference on Integrated circuits
and systems design, pages 336–341, New York, NY, USA, 2007.
ACM.
[12] Hasbro. Guess who? instructions, Jan. 2003.
[13] B. Kisacanin, S. S. Bhattacharyya, and S. Chai. Embedded
Computer Vision. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated,
2008.
[14] A. E. Lab. Arhrrrr!, Jan. 2010.
[15] T. Lorenzen and H.-L. Chang. Mastermind c : a predictor

of computer programming aptitude. SIGCSE Bull., 38(2):69–
71, 2006.
[16] Parrot. Parrot ar.drone, Jan. 2010.
[17] PrintActivities. Rules for hangman word game, Jan. 2008.
[18] C. B. Raimo van der Klein and M. Lens-FitzGerald. Layar
mobile augmented reality browser, Jan. 2010.
[19] B. Schwald, B. D. Laval, T. O. Sa, and R. Guynemer. An
augmented reality system for training and assistance to
maintenance in the industrial context. In In The 11th
International Conference in Central Europe on Computer
Graphics, Visualization and Computer Vision’2003, Plzen,
Czech Republic, pages 425–432, 2003.
[20] M. Sevenster. Battleships as a decision problem. ICGA
Journal, 27(3):142–149, 2004.
[21] M. M. Software. Wikitude world browser, Jan. 2010.
[22] J. M. Teixeira, V. Teichrieb, and J. Kelner. Embedded
Augmented Reality: Finding an adequate escape pod to real time
augmented reality applications. LAP Lambert Academic
Publishing, Dec. 2009.
[23] D. Wagner, T. Pintaric, F. Ledermann, and D. Schmalstieg.
Towards massively multi-user augmented reality on handheld
devices. In In Third International Conference on Pervasive
Computing, 2005.
[24] wHow.com. How to play pictionary, Jan. 2010. [25]
Wikipedia. Guessing game, Jan. 2010.
Running head: FINAL PROJECT MILESTONE
1
FINAL PROJECT MILESTONE: PYXIS MEDICATION
DISPENSING SYSTEM 4

Pyxis Medication Dispensing System
FINAL PROJECT MILESTONE: PYXIS MEDICATION
DISPENSING SYSTEM
Pyxis medstation system is a designed automated dispensing
machine that facilitates accurate medication distribution.
Medication management is decentralized and has features that
help reduce cases and incidences of loading the wrong
medication. It also alerts medical providers on the medication to
be administered which acts as a cushion for safety precautions
for risks that may be encountered, (Utech, et.al., 2017). I chose
the topic to facilitate awareness in healthcare facilities to
incorporate the program into their operations to enhance patient
safety. The machine helps in the reduction of the risks of
medication diversion. It literally helps in enhancing safety in
healthcare. Previous times drugs were dispensed into patient
units using the hybrid model and medication was supplied by
the central pharmacy. Peripheral stock located in each care unit
has overseen the dispensing of drugs to each patient
successfully. Incorporation of the Pyxis has reduced the fatigue
the healthcare personnel used to record the drugs dispensed
manually.
The machine is very crucial in all medical care centers because
it has been recommended to be the best mechanism in improving
efficiency at work and patient's safety. Patients’ safety has
been guaranteed because of the barcode verification included in
the machine. The machine has positive impacts and outcomes to
healthcare centers as it has helped minimize the time spent by

nurses in inventory management of drugs. This was to enhance
efficiency and improve the performance of urgent care needed
by the patients. It also provided pharmacists with a humble time
and had time to perform other activities at the health care
facility, (Dobson, et.al., 2018). It has also reduced drug storage
errors and efficiency in resource management. It has been used
in handling the health-related errors that occur from time to
time in healthcare. This machine facilitates patient care and
safety as it saves lives because it is accurate in the
administration of medications to patients. Therefore, it is
important to assert that these machines have high standards of
ensuring patients are safe from any harm.
References
Dobson, G., Sullivan, S., Tilson, V., & Webster, D. (2018).
Reducing Costs of Managing Medication Inventory in
Automated Dispensing System in Hospital Units.
Utech, T., Davis, K. E., & Jaskela, M. C. (2017). U.S. Patent
No. 9,842,196. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office.

AbstractThis work presents the design and implementation of an.docx

AbstractThis work presents the design and implementation of an.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to AbstractThis work presents the design and implementation of an.docx

Similar to AbstractThis work presents the design and implementation of an.docx (20)

More from bartholomeocoombs

More from bartholomeocoombs (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

AbstractThis work presents the design and implementation of an.docx