Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 45 references

NavVI: A Telerobotic Simulation with Multimodal Feedback for Visually Impaired Navigation in Warehouse Environments

T0 review · 5 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A telerobotic simulator lets blind and low-vision users steer a warehouse robot through combined audio, haptic, and visual feedback.

desk verdict Genuine systems integration but the control flow is underspecified and the usability claim is unvalidated. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15072 v1 pith:VTSCJ5A5 submitted 2025-07-20 cs.HC cs.AI

Maisha Maimuna , Minhaz Bin Farukee , Sama Nikanfar , Mahfuza Siddiqua , Ayon Roy , Fillia Makedon This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.AI
keywords teleroboticsimulationmultimodalfeedbackvisuallyimpairednavigationhaptictext-to-speechcuesNavMeshpathplanningwarehouseroboticsaccessibleteleoperation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

NavVI is a closed-loop telerobotic simulator that lets a user with low or no vision drive a mobile robot through a warehouse using a single joystick while receiving three synchronized feedback streams: a visible high-contrast path line, voice cues that announce upcoming turns using clock-face directions, and controller vibrations that encode obstacle direction and proximity. The paper's central claim is that this combination of modalities, with periodic navigation-mesh replanning around moving forklifts and workers, constitutes a repeatable testbed for accessible teleoperation research that has so far mostly been missing for industrial settings. The authors build the case by detailing how static and dynamic obstacles are modeled, how routes are found with A* search and funnel smoothing, and how haptic intensity follows a logarithmic distance mapping. The work is a design-and-system contribution: it does not yet include a user study, and the paper explicitly defers evaluation with blind and low-vision participants to future work. If the design holds up, the simulator would let inclusive workplace robotics be prototyped cheaply and safely before hardware deployment.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the navigation mesh (NavMesh) with periodic A* replanning. The floor is discretized into walkable cells, obstacles erode navigable space by the robot's radius, and a graph whose nodes are triangle centroids is searched with A*; a funnel pass turns the triangle chain into a short polyline of waypoints. Dynamic obstacles are represented as cylindrical carved volumes that trigger an incremental mesh rebuild or a fresh search when the path is blocked or movement stalls. On top of the mesh sit the three feedback encoders: a haptic zone classifier using a 1-meter centerRange on the robot's local x-axis, a logarithmic intensity curve $H(d)=\log(1+(1-d/d_{\max}))$, and an audio module that converts the normalized destination vector into a clock-face angle via atan2 and reports it as text-to-speech. These are what carry the claim: the mesh keeps the robot safe, and the three encoders make the plan perceivable without vision.

What would settle it

A structured user study with blind and low-vision participants could settle the claim: measure completion time, collision count, and self-reported workload while navigating the warehouse with feedback on versus with visual cues only, and compare obstacle-localization accuracy using the haptic zones. If participants cannot reliably tell left from center from right vibrations, or the clock cues produce turns that are systematically late, the central usability claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core discovery is a concrete integration recipe: a navigation mesh generated for a warehouse floor can serve as the shared substrate for three feedback channels simultaneously. Waypoints from the planned path drive a visible purple line, a clock-position text-to-speech cue, and left/center/right vibration zones on a commercial game controller. Haptic intensity is a logarithmic function of distance to the nearest obstacle, grounded in the Weber-Fechner law, so intensity rises sharply as obstacles approach; a 5-meter detection radius and 1-meter center threshold partition feedback space. The pathfinding layer runs A* on a planar graph extracted from the mesh, smooths the route with a funnel algorithm, and triggers a fresh search whenever carved dynamic obstacles invalidate more than 1 percent of the mesh or the robot stalls, giving a receding-horizon replan period of about 2 seconds. The authors' claim is that this closed loop keeps the route safe and current, and the same modules align with commercial hardware so the simulator can act as a testbed and algorithmic reference for later real-robot deployment.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the chosen feedback encodings—three vibration zones, logarithmic intensity, clock-face voice cues, and a 1-meter goal threshold—are actually usable by blind and low-vision operators, since the paper presents no user study and lists one as future work.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same navigation, speech, and haptic modules can be mapped onto commercial robot hardware, making the simulator a fast feasibility testbed before real-warehouse deployment.
  • The 2-second replanning policy and haptic/audio encodings give other researchers a concrete, reproducible reference implementation for accessible teleoperation.
  • The system logs collision counts and completion time per session, which are the metrics a future blind and low-vision user study can use to judge feasibility and cognitive load.
  • The simulator supports controlled, repeatable experiments that physical warehouse settings cannot easily provide, reducing risk in early-stage assistive-robotics prototyping.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct extension would be ablating the three feedback channels in a user study to see which one carries navigation and which causes overload; the paper's architecture makes this comparison straightforward.
  • The same clock-face and logarithmic-intensity encoding could be tested on a real robot with a haptic wearable rather than a handheld controller, since the mapping is hardware-agnostic.
  • If the haptic mapping proves usable, a natural next step is to add semantic audio cues that identify the type of obstacle, such as forklift versus shelf, which the current simulator does not yet announce.
  • The paper's 1-meter waypoint progression threshold and 1-meter goal threshold may interact with the timing of the text-to-speech announcements; the latency between hearing a turn cue and executing the turn is an unaddressed parameter worth measuring.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents NavVI, a Unity-based telerobotic simulation system intended to let blind and low-vision (BLV) users navigate a warehouse robot. The system combines a Sony DualSense controller for input with three feedback channels: proximity-based haptic vibration using the controller's left/center/right motors, text-to-speech clock-direction announcements, and high-contrast visual cues. Navigation uses a pre-baked NavMesh with periodic replanning (every 2 seconds) to account for moving obstacles such as forklifts and workers. The manuscript describes the architecture, the haptic intensity model (Eq. 3), the clock-direction calculation, and the event logging (collision counts, elapsed time). It explicitly lists a user study with BLV participants as future work in Section V, and no experimental evaluation appears in the current version.

Significance. If validated, NavVI would be a useful, low-cost testbed for accessible telerobotic research in industrial environments, with design choices aligned to commercial hardware and to prior work on non-visual feedback. The paper's honest acknowledgment of limitations (Section V) is a strength. However, the central claim that the system 'enables BLV users to control' a robot is not supported by any user evaluation, simulated task-completion metrics, or comparison to baseline conditions. The paper is currently a system description with plausible design rationale but no evidence that the proposed feedback mappings are usable or that the navigation pipeline behaves as claimed. Its contribution to the literature would be significantly strengthened by even a small pilot study with blindfolded or BLV participants, or by a quantitative demonstration of collision avoidance in the simulated warehouse.

major comments (5)
  1. [III.A.3 and Algorithm 1 (III.B.3)] The control architecture is ambiguous. Section III.A.3 states that the left joystick directly regulates the robot's forward/backward motion and left/right turns, implying teleoperation. In contrast, Algorithm 1 (steps 6, 13-14) says 'Move the robot towards the next waypoint wi' and treats waypoint progression as an autonomous process without any user input. These two descriptions cannot both be true in a straightforward sense. If the joystick commands the robot directly, then the replanned path is only advisory and the claimed collision avoidance (Section III.B.3) is not guaranteed. If the planner moves the robot, then the user is not teleoperating but supervising autonomous waypoint following. The paper must specify the arbitration: is this direct teleoperation, shared autonomy with user override, or autonomous navigation with user monitoring? A control-flow diagram or pseudocode showing how joystick inputs modulate waypoint execution would resolve this.
  2. [Abstract and Section V] The abstract and conclusion claim that NavVI 'enables BLV users to control' a robot and 'maintain[s] user control over navigation,' but Section V explicitly lists a structured user study with BLV participants as future work. This is a load-bearing mismatch: the central claim is about usability by BLV operators, yet no data or even a small pilot study is provided. Without any user evaluation, the paper cannot substantiate that the feedback mappings (haptic zones, clock-based TTS, high-contrast visuals, single-joystick control) are intelligible, non-overloading, or effective. The authors should either include a user study (even with blindfolded sighted participants as a first step) or reframe the claims to describe a proposed system and testbed, with feasibility claims explicitly deferred.
  3. [III.C.1, Eq. (3)] The Weber-Fechner justification for Eq. (3) is not well supported and the formula is a design heuristic rather than a validated model. Weber-Fechner describes a relationship between physical stimulus intensity and perceived sensation, but the paper does not measure users' perceived intensity, so it cannot claim that Eq. (3) produces 'perceptible change' or a 'smooth decaying intensity curve' that is meaningful for BLV users. Additionally, the sudden-vibration issue acknowledged in Section V suggests the haptic rendering has a discontinuity at the moment an obstacle enters the detection radius, which may undermine the gradual-intensity rationale. Please either present Eq. (3) as a pragmatic design choice with justification from prior haptic interface work, or provide perceptual data showing the curve behaves as intended.
  4. [III.B.3 and Algorithm 1] The paper makes strong safety claims: 'ensuring that the robot can traverse its path avoiding collision' and 'guaranteeing that the robot always travels the best path.' These claims are not supported by any collision or task-completion data. The 2-second replan period and the 1% mesh-change threshold are heuristics that are not validated, and in a dynamic environment with fast-moving forklifts, a 2-second replan interval may be too slow to avoid collisions. At minimum, the authors should report logged collision counts from a set of simulated runs (with and without replanning), or justify the timing parameters with a formal or simulation-based analysis. The current text asserts performance that is not demonstrated.
  5. [III.C.2, Eq. (9)] The clock-direction mapping is internally inconsistent. The text says the angle is divided by 30° and 'round[ed] to the closest integer,' but Eq. (9) uses a floor function. With floor, an obstacle at 29° to the right is mapped to 12 o'clock rather than 1 o'clock, losing directional resolution. Please clarify whether the implementation uses floor or rounding, and consider that 30-degree granularity may be too coarse for negotiating narrow warehouse aisles. Also specify the reference axis used in the atan2 call (the text mentions local x and z axes, but the notation in Eq. (7) would benefit from a diagram or a concrete example).
minor comments (7)
  1. [Table I] Workers are listed under 'Dynamic' but described as 'simulated entities that work as static obstacles'; please clarify whether workers move or are statically placed.
  2. [III.C.1, Eq. (3)] Specify the logarithm base in Eq. (3) (natural logarithm is implied by the text but not stated explicitly).
  3. [III.B.3] There are typographical errors: 'staic' should be 'static' and 'and and' appears in the sentence about static obstacles.
  4. [III.A.3] The word 'enbales' should be 'enables.'
  5. [III.C.2, Eq. (6)] The spelling 'Eucledian' should be 'Euclidean.'
  6. [III.C.1] The code reference 'player.InverseTransformPoint' should likely be 'transform.InverseTransformPoint' or 'robotTransform.InverseTransformPoint'; please use Unity's actual API name.
  7. [General] No code, configuration files, or supplementary materials are provided, which limits reproducibility. Making the Unity project or at least the navigation/feedback scripts available would strengthen the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; NavVI is a design-and-description paper with no fitted predictions and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's equations are direct implementations, not fitted results. The clock-direction cue is a coordinate transform (Eqs. 4-9); the haptic intensity curve is an explicit design choice justified by an external psychophysical reference, not calibrated to data that is later 'predicted'. NavMesh/A* pathfinding is standard and cited externally. There is no parameter fitted to a subset of outcomes and then announced as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work, and no self-citation chain; indeed no reference to the authors' own prior results appears. The absence of a BLV user study and the unspecified arbitration between joystick input and Algorithm 1's waypoint-following are validity and clarity limitations, not circular derivation steps. The central contribution is a simulator design, so the claim 'enables BLV users' is an unsupported proposal for future evaluation, not a result derived from its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard robotics infrastructure (Recast, A*, SSF, Unity physics) plus several unvalidated design assumptions about haptic, audio, and visual feedback effectiveness for BLV users. Because no user data is reported, the main burden falls on these design assumptions rather than on the pathfinding mathematics.

free parameters (7)
  • dmax: haptic detection radius = 5.0 m
    Sets the range within which obstacle proximity triggers haptic vibration; user-chosen, no calibration reported.
  • centerRange = 1.0 m
    Threshold for classifying obstacles as left, center, or right in the robot's local frame; chosen by hand.
  • Replan period tau = 2 s
    Interval and trigger for NavMesh path recalculation; chosen for real-time performance, not derived from task data.
  • Mesh change replan threshold = 1% of carved area
    Triggers incremental NavMesh rebuild when dynamic obstacles alter more than 1% of the mesh; heuristic threshold.
  • Stuck detection threshold = forward velocity <0.1 m/s for >1 s
    Defines when the robot is considered obstructed and the audio stuck cue plays; arbitrary threshold.
  • Waypoint progress threshold = 1 m
    Distance below which the robot advances to the next waypoint; chosen for control granularity.
  • Goal proximity threshold = 1 m
    Radius at which navigation is considered complete; chosen by hand.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Recast NavMesh pipeline produces a valid graph G for path planning in the simulated warehouse.
    Invoked in Section III-B.1; the paper relies on Recast's rasterization, erosion, and contouring to supply a traversable-region graph, including correctness of Minkowski-style erosion.
  • standard math A* with admissible heuristic h returns shortest paths in the graph.
    Invoked in Eq. (1), Section III-B.2; standard result, but assumes edge costs and graph accurately model the environment.
  • domain assumption Unity physics colliders and Physics.OverlapSphere provide reliable collision and proximity detection.
    Invoked in Sections III-A.2 and IV-A; all obstacle sensing depends on Unity's physics engine behavior.
  • domain assumption DualSense controller can render distinguishable left, center, and right haptic zones with intensity proportional to the chosen curve.
    Invoked in Section III-C.1; no haptic perception experiment with BLV users is reported.
  • ad hoc to paper Weber-Fechner logarithmic relation justifies the proximity-to-intensity mapping in Eq. (3).
    The paper cites the law but does not fit or test it against user perception thresholds in this context.
  • ad hoc to paper Clock-position TTS announcements and high-contrast visuals are intelligible and helpful for BLV users.
    Invoked in Sections III-C.2 and III-D; usability is asserted from prior literature, not from a user study in this simulator.
  • ad hoc to paper Single-joystick control reduces cognitive burden for VI users.
    Invoked in Section III-A.3; references accessible game design, but no controlled comparison in this system.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of NavVI: A Telerobotic Simulation with Multimodal Feedback for Visually Impaired Navigation in Warehouse Environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VTSCJ5A5

@misc{pith2026250715072,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: NavVI: A Telerobotic Simulation with Multimodal Feedback for Visually Impaired Navigation in Warehouse Environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VTSCJ5A5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15072}
}
read the original abstract

Industrial warehouses are congested with moving forklifts, shelves and personnel, making robot teleoperation particularly risky and demanding for blind and low-vision (BLV) operators. Although accessible teleoperation plays a key role in inclusive workforce participation, systematic research on its use in industrial environments is limited, and few existing studies barely address multimodal guidance designed for BLV users. We present a novel multimodal guidance simulator that enables BLV users to control a mobile robot through a high-fidelity warehouse environment while simultaneously receiving synchronized visual, auditory, and haptic feedback. The system combines a navigation mesh with regular re-planning so routes remain accurate avoiding collisions as forklifts and human avatars move around the warehouse. Users with low vision are guided with a visible path line towards destination; navigational voice cues with clockwise directions announce upcoming turns, and finally proximity-based haptic feedback notifies the users of static and moving obstacles in the path. This real-time, closed-loop system offers a repeatable testbed and algorithmic reference for accessible teleoperation research. The simulator's design principles can be easily adapted to real robots due to the alignment of its navigation, speech, and haptic modules with commercial hardware, supporting rapid feasibility studies and deployment of inclusive telerobotic tools in actual warehouses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15072 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Layout of the simulated warehouse (a) Robot’s forward warehouse view, (b) Shelves with worker, (c) Forklift and pallet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Generated NavMesh showing the walkable areas (col [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of haptic feedback zones and motor intensity response based on the obstacle’s relative position to the robot. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: NavMesh struggles to detect low height obstacle i.e. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of the navigation system with high con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Turning a blind eye to employers’ discrimination? attitu- dinal barrier perceptions of vision impaired youth from oslo and delhi,

    G. Chhabra, “Turning a blind eye to employers’ discrimination? attitu- dinal barrier perceptions of vision impaired youth from oslo and delhi,” Disability & Society , vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 1688–1711, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Increasing accessibility of online board games to visually impaired people via machine learning and textual/audio feedback: The case of “quantik

    G. Gnecco, C. Battaglini, F. Biancalani, D. Bottari, A. Camurri, and B. Leporini, “Increasing accessibility of online board games to visually impaired people via machine learning and textual/audio feedback: The case of “quantik”,” in International Conference on Intelligent Technolo- gies for Interactive Entertainment . Springer, 2023, pp. 167–177

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Laser sensing and vision sensing smart blind cane: A review,

    C. Mai, D. Xie, L. Zeng, Z. Li, Z. Li, Z. Qiao, Y . Qu, G. Liu, and L. Li, “Laser sensing and vision sensing smart blind cane: A review,” Sensors, vol. 23, no. 2, p. 869, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Telepresence robots for people with special needs: A systematic review,

    G. Zhang and J. P. Hansen, “Telepresence robots for people with special needs: A systematic review,” International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, vol. 38, no. 17, pp. 1651–1667, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Intuitive robot teleoperation through multi-sensor informed mixed reality visual aids,

    S. Livatino, D. C. Guastella, G. Muscato, V . Rinaldi, L. Cantelli, C. D. Melita, A. Caniglia, R. Mazza, and G. Padula, “Intuitive robot teleoperation through multi-sensor informed mixed reality visual aids,” Ieee Access, vol. 9, pp. 25 795–25 808, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    High contrast and low vision,

    Perkins School for the Blind, “High contrast and low vision,” 2023, accessed: 2025-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://www.perkins.org/ resource/choosing-high-contrast-color-schemes-for-low-vision/

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Multimodal navigation systems for users with visual impairments—a review and analysis,

    B. Kuriakose, R. Shrestha, and F. E. Sandnes, “Multimodal navigation systems for users with visual impairments—a review and analysis,” Multimodal Technologies and Interaction , vol. 4, no. 4, p. 73, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Navigation system for the blind: Auditory display modes and guidance,

    J. M. Loomis, R. G. Golledge, and R. L. Klatzky, “Navigation system for the blind: Auditory display modes and guidance,” Presence, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 193–203, 1998

    work page 1998

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Per- sonal guidance system for people with visual impairment: A comparison of spatial displays for route guidance,

    J. M. Loomis, J. R. Marston, R. G. Golledge, and R. L. Klatzky, “Per- sonal guidance system for people with visual impairment: A comparison of spatial displays for route guidance,” Journal of visual impairment & blindness, vol. 99, no. 4, pp. 219–232, 2005

    2005

  2. [10]

    W. S. Bainbridge, Berkshire encyclopedia of human-computer interac- tion. Berkshire Publishing Group LLC, 2004

    2004

  3. [11]

    M. Kurosu, Human-Computer Interaction: Interaction Modalities and Techniques: 15th International Conference, HCI International 2013, Las Vegas, NV , USA, July 21-26, 2013, Proceedings, Part IV. Springer, 2013, vol. 8007

    2013

  4. [12]

    Computer vision for the visually impaired: the sound of vision system,

    S. Caraiman, A. Morar, M. Owczarek, A. Burlacu, D. Rzeszo- tarski, N. Botezatu, P. Herghelegiu, F. Moldoveanu, P. Strumillo, and A. Moldoveanu, “Computer vision for the visually impaired: the sound of vision system,” in Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on compu...

    2017

  5. [13]

    Bone conduction headphones: Gimmick or godsend?

    L. Katz, “Bone conduction headphones: Gimmick or godsend?” Nov 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.soundguys.com/ bone-conduction-headphones-20580/

    2024

  6. [14]

    Navigation training for persons with visual disability through multi- sensory assistive technology: Mixed methods experimental study,

    F. S. Ricci, L. Liguori, E. Palermo, J.-R. Rizzo, and M. Porfiri, “Navigation training for persons with visual disability through multi- sensory assistive technology: Mixed methods experimental study,” JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies , vol. 11, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    A multi- modal interaction scheme between a blind user and the tyflos assistive prototype,

    N. Bourbakis, R. Keefer, D. Dakopoulos, and A. Esposito, “A multi- modal interaction scheme between a blind user and the tyflos assistive prototype,” in 2008 20th IEEE international conference on tools with artificial intelligence, vol. 2. IEEE, 2008, pp. 487–494

    2008

  8. [16]

    Sensory augmentation for the blind,

    S. M. K ¨archer, S. Fenzlaff, D. Hartmann, S. Nagel, and P. K ¨onig, “Sensory augmentation for the blind,” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, vol. 6, 2012

    2012

  9. [17]

    Exploration of visual and haptic sensorial feedbacks for pedestrian navigation,

    D. S. Parshotam and K. Dressel, “Exploration of visual and haptic sensorial feedbacks for pedestrian navigation,” Adjunct Proceedings of the 2022 Nordic Human-Computer Interaction Conference , 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Towards tangible vision for the visually impaired through 2d multiarray braille display,

    S. Kim, Y . Ryu, J. Cho, and E.-S. Ryu, “Towards tangible vision for the visually impaired through 2d multiarray braille display,” Sensors, vol. 19, no. 23, p. 5319, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Use of augmented reality technology for improving visual acuity of individuals with low vision,

    S. Gopalakrishnan, S. C. Suwalal, G. Bhaskaran, and R. Raman, “Use of augmented reality technology for improving visual acuity of individuals with low vision,” Indian Journal of Ophthalmology , vol. 68, pp. 1136 – 1142, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Visual augmentation glasses for people with impaired vision,

    A. Al-Ataby, O. Younis, W. Al-Nuaimy, M. Al-Taee, Z. Sharaf, and B. Al-Bander, “Visual augmentation glasses for people with impaired vision,” 2016 9th International Conference on Developments in eSystems Engineering (DeSE), pp. 24–28, 2016

    2016

  13. [21]

    Communicating multimodal wayfinding messages for visually impaired people via wear- ables,

    J. van der Bie, S. Ben Allouch, and C. Jaschinski, “Communicating multimodal wayfinding messages for visually impaired people via wear- ables,” in Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Human- Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services , 2019, pp. 1–7

    2019

  14. [22]

    Multimodal sensing and intuitive steering assistance improve navigation and mobility for people with impaired vision,

    P. Slade, A. Tambe, and M. J. Kochenderfer, “Multimodal sensing and intuitive steering assistance improve navigation and mobility for people with impaired vision,” Science robotics , vol. 6, no. 59, p. eabg6594, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Real world haptic exploration for telep- resence of the visually impaired,

    C. H. Park and A. M. Howard, “Real world haptic exploration for telep- resence of the visually impaired,” in Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 2012, pp. 65–72

    2012

  16. [24]

    Telerobotic haptic ex- ploration in art galleries and museums for individuals with visual impairments,

    C. H. Park, E.-S. Ryu, and A. M. Howard, “Telerobotic haptic ex- ploration in art galleries and museums for individuals with visual impairments,” IEEE transactions on Haptics , vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 327– 338, 2015

    2015

  17. [25]

    Haptic visualization of real-world environmental data for individuals with visual impairments,

    C. H. Park and A. M. Howard, “Haptic visualization of real-world environmental data for individuals with visual impairments,” in Univer- sal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Design and Development Methods for Universal Access: 8th International Conference, UAHCI 2014, Hel...

    2014

  18. [26]

    Beyond omakase: Designing shared control for navigation robots with blind people,

    R. Kamikubo, S. Kayukawa, Y . Kaniwa, A. Wang, H. Kacorri, H. Takagi, and C. Asakawa, “Beyond omakase: Designing shared control for navigation robots with blind people,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21997 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Robot-assisted shopping for the blind: issues in spatial cognition and product selection,

    C. P. Gharpure and V . A. Kulyukin, “Robot-assisted shopping for the blind: issues in spatial cognition and product selection,” Intelligent Service Robotics, vol. 1, pp. 237–251, 2008

    2008

  20. [28]

    Robots to give blind warehouse workers an assist and new opportunities

    R. Gomes, “Robots to give blind warehouse workers an assist and new opportunities.” [Online]. Available: https://austinlighthouse.org/2021/04/06/ robots-to-give-blind-warehouse-workers-an-assist-and-new-opportunities/ #:∼:text=Last%20week%20four%20new%20Fetch,continue% 20worki...

    2021

  21. [29]

    Unity warehouse,

    U. T. Japan, “Unity warehouse,” https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/ 3d/environments/industrial/unity-warehouse-276394, Mar. 2024, unity Asset Store, Extension Asset, Version 1.0

    2024

  22. [30]

    Unity input system documentation,

    Unity Technologies, “Unity input system documentation,” https://docs. unity3d.com/Packages/com.unity.inputsystem@1.11/manual/index.html, 2024, version 1.11.2

    2024

  23. [31]

    Computing the minkowski sum of convex polytopes in Rd,

    S. Das and S. Sarvottamananda, “Computing the minkowski sum of convex polytopes in Rd,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.05812 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Documentation: Introduction,

    Recast Navigation, “Documentation: Introduction,” https://recastnav. com/md Docs 2 1 Introduction.html, 2023, accessed: May 5, 2025

    2023

  25. [33]

    A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths,

    P. E. Hart, N. J. Nilsson, and B. Raphael, “A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths,” IEEE transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics , vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 100–107, 1968

    1968

  26. [34]

    Tools and technologies for blind and visually impaired navigation support: A review,

    B. Kuriakose, R. Shrestha, and F. Sandnes, “Tools and technologies for blind and visually impaired navigation support: A review,” IETE Technical Review, vol. 39, pp. 1–16, 09 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Intuitive hand positional guidance using mckibben-based surface tactile sensations to shoulder and elbow,

    K. Yokoe, Y . Funabora, and T. Aoyama, “Intuitive hand positional guidance using mckibben-based surface tactile sensations to shoulder and elbow,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2025

    2025

  28. [36]

    Audio-supported reading for students who are blind or visually impaired,

    R. M. Jackson and I. Presley, “Audio-supported reading for students who are blind or visually impaired,” Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessible Instructional Materials , 2012

    2012

  29. [37]

    Audio- haptic internet browser and associated tools for blind users and visually impaired computer users,

    P. Roth, L. S. Petrucci, A. Assimacopoulos, and T. Pun, “Audio- haptic internet browser and associated tools for blind users and visually impaired computer users,” in Workshop on friendly exchanging through the net, 2000, pp. 57–62

    2000

  30. [38]

    Accessibility of audio and tactile interfaces for young blind people performing everyday tasks,

    Y . Shimomura, E. T. Hvannberg, and H. Hafsteinsson, “Accessibility of audio and tactile interfaces for young blind people performing everyday tasks,” Universal Access in the Information Society, vol. 9, pp. 297–310, 2010

    2010

  31. [39]

    Accessible smartphones for blind users: A case study for a wayfinding system,

    M. Rodriguez-Sanchez, M. Moreno-Alvarez, E. Mart ´ın, S. Borromeo, and J. A. Hernandez-Tamames, “Accessible smartphones for blind users: A case study for a wayfinding system,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 41, no. 16, pp. 7210–7222, 2014

    2014

  32. [40]

    An insight into smartphone-based assistive solutions for visually impaired and blind people: issues, challenges and opportunities,

    A. Khan and S. Khusro, “An insight into smartphone-based assistive solutions for visually impaired and blind people: issues, challenges and opportunities,” Universal Access in the Information Society , vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 265–298, 2021

    2021

  33. [41]

    Acoussist: An acoustic assisting tool for people with visual impairments to cross uncontrolled streets,

    W. Jin, M. Xiao, H. Zhu, S. Deb, C. Kan, and M. Li, “Acoussist: An acoustic assisting tool for people with visual impairments to cross uncontrolled streets,” Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 1–30, 2020

    2020

  34. [42]

    Sonification of guidance data during road crossing for people with visual impairments or blindness,

    S. Mascetti, L. Picinali, A. Gerino, D. Ahmetovic, and C. Bernareggi, “Sonification of guidance data during road crossing for people with visual impairments or blindness,” International Journal of Human- Computer Studies, vol. 85, pp. 16–26, 2016

    2016

  35. [43]

    The use of traffic sounds to make street crossings by persons who are visually impaired,

    W. Wiener, G. Lawson, K. Naghshineh, J. Brown, A. Bischoff, and A. Toth, “The use of traffic sounds to make street crossings by persons who are visually impaired,” Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness , vol. 91, no. 5, pp. 435–445, 1997

    1997

  36. [44]

    User-driven automated audio description to enhance video accessibility for blind and low vision users,

    M. S. Cheema, “User-driven automated audio description to enhance video accessibility for blind and low vision users,” Master’s thesis, Arizona State University, 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    J. F. Hughes, A. van Dam, M. McGuire, D. F. Sklar, J. D. Foley, S. K. Feiner, and K. Akeley, Computer Graphics: Principles and Practice , 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison-Wesley, 2013

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.