Designing Smart Shoes for Obstacle Detection: Empowering Visually Challenged Users Through ICT

  • Vikram Singh ParmarEmail author
  • Krishna Sai Inkoolu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10515)


The paper presents a case of Smart Shoes that uses ultrasonic sensors to detect the obstacle in front of the user. Additionally, this shoe signals a user by tapping at the foot arch. An evaluative study of the Smart Shoes was conducted with (n = 31) users; (17) blind people, (9) low vision and (5) non-disabled users. The study was conducted to judge reliability of the Smart Shoes by evaluating it from (a) ratio of obstacles identified to total obstacles encountered, (b) distance of obstacle apprehension and (c) response time. The study was conducted in a controlled and definite environment. The results from the study illustrate this footwear to be 89.5% effective in detecting obstacles such as vehicles, people, furniture, footpaths, poles, and miscellaneous obstacles with a mean response time of 3.08 s. Users average distance of obstacle apprehension was 108 cm in regular mode and 50 cm in the crowd mode. The future research & evaluative studies will be conducted in actual operational/moving environments.


Design Blind people Low vision Non-disabled Visual Impairment New Product Development Mobility 



The research team would like to acknowledge Mr. Anip Sharma’s contribution for his support in building the prototype and assist us in conducting the field experiment.


  1. 1.
    World Health Organization. Visual Impairment and Blindness statistics: Fact sheet No. 282, August 2014Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tebo, L.R.: OTR/L. ATP, A Resource guide to assistive technology for students with visual impairmentGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Manduchi, R., Kurniawan, S.: Mobility-related accidents experienced by people with visual impairment. AERJOURNAL-D-10-00048R1, February 2011Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    NORA Neuro-Optometric Rehabilitation Association.
  6. 6.
    Biological exceptions. perspective on our senses, September 2011Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pundlik, S., Tomasi, M., Luo, G.: Evaluation of a portable collision warning device for patients with peripheral vision loss in an obstacle course. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 56, 2571–2579 (2015). doi: 10.1167/iovs.14-15935 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    World Health Organization. Occupational exposure to vibration from hand-held tools: The effects on human performance: risk assessment and prevention, vol. 03, pp. 16–20Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Velázquez, R.: Wearable assistive devices for the blind (Chap. 17). In: Lay-Ekuakille, A., Mukhopadhyay, S.C. (eds.) Wearable and Autonomous Biomedical Devices and Systems for Smart Environment: Issues and Characterization. LNEE, vol. 75, pp. 331–349. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-15687-8_17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology (DO-IT).

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Design Business IncubatorNational Institute of DesignAhmedabadIndia

Personalised recommendations