Obstacle Identification and Avoidance Using the ‘EyeCane’: a Tactile Sensory Substitution Device for Blind Individuals

  • Galit Buchs
  • Shachar Maidenbaum
  • Amir AmediEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8619)


One of the main challenges facing the blind and visually impaired is independent mobility without being obtrusive to their environment. We developed a tactile low-cost finger-size sensory substitution device, the EyeCane, to aid the Blind in obstacle identification and avoidance in an unobtrusive manner. A simplified version of the EyeCane was tested on 6 sighted blindfolded participants who were naïve to the device. After a short (2–3 min) training period they were asked to identify and avoid knee-to-waist-high (Side) and sidewalk-height (Floor) obstacles using the EyeCane. Avoidance included walking around or stepping over the obstacles. We show that in the fifth trial, participants correctly identified 87 ± 13.6 % (mean ± SD) and correctly avoided 63 ± 15 % of the side obstacles compared to 14 % in the control condition (p < 4E-10 and p < 1.1E-05 respectively). For Floor obstacles, participants correctly identified 79 ± 18.8 % and correctly avoided 41 ± %37.6 compared to the control’s 10 % (p < 0.002 and p < 0.06 respectively).


Sensory substitution Obstacle avoidance Mobility Blind Assistive technology 



We would like to thank Shlomi Hannasy for help in developing the EyeCane and in running the experiments. This work was supported by a European Research Council grant to AA (grant number 310809); The Charitable Gatsby Foundation; The James S. McDonnell Foundation scholar award (to AA; grant number 220020284); The Israel Science Foundation (grant number ISF 1684/08).


  1. 1.
    Christy, B., Nirmalan, P.K.: Acceptance of the long cane by persons who are blind in south india. J. Vis. Impair. Blind. 100(2), 115–119 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gold, D., Simson, H.: identifying the needs of people in canada who are blind or visually impaired preliminary results of a nation widestudy. Int. Congr. Ser. 1282, 139–142 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Russell, J.N., Hendershot, G.E., LeClere, F., Howie, L.J., Adler, M.: Trends and differential use of assistive technology devices: United States, 1994. Adv. Data 292, 1–9 (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    La Graw, S.: The use of sonic pathfinder as a secondary mobility aid for travel in buisness environments: a single- subject design. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 36(4), 333–340 (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Penrod, W., Corbett, M.D., Blasch, B.: A master trainer class for professionals in teaching the ultracane electronic travel device. J. Vis. Impair. Blind. 99(11), 696–706 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dakopoulos, D., Bourbakis, N.G.: Wearable obstacle avoidance electronic travel aids for blind: A survey. IEEE Trans. 40(1), 25–35 (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Roentgen, U.R., Gelderblom, G.J., Soede, M., De Witte, L.P.: Inventory of electronic mobility aids for persons with visual impairments: A literature review. J. Vis. Impair. Blind. 102(11), 702–724 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maidenbaum, S., Levy-Tzedek, S., Chebat, D.-R., Amedi, A.: Increasing accessibility to the blind of virtual environments, using a virtual mobility aid based on the ‘EyeCane’: feasibility study. PLoS ONE 8(8), e72555 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Innet, S., Ritnoom, N.: An application of infrared sensors for electronic white stick. In: International Symposium on Intelligent Signal Processing and Communication Systems, pp. 1–4 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rodgers, M.D., Emerson, R.W.: Materials testing in long cane design: sensitivity, fiexibility, and transmission of vibration. J. Vis. Impair. Blind. 99(11), 696–706 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koutsoklenis, A., Papadopoulos, K.: Haptic cues used for outdoor wayfinding by individuals. J. Vis. Impair. Blind. 108(1), 43–53 (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lenay, C., Gapenne, O., Hanneton, S., Marque, C., Genouell, C.: Sensory substitution: Limits and perspectives. In: Hatwell, Y. (ed.) Touching for Knowing, pp. 275–292. John Benjamins, Paris (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Auvray, M., Lenay, C., Stewart, J.: Perceptual interactions in a minimalist virtual environment. New Ideas Psychol. 27(1), 32–47 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Horev, G., Saig, A., Knutsen, P.M., Pietr, M., Yu, C., Ahissar, E.: Motor-sensory convergence in object localization: a comparative study in rats and humans. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 366(1581), 3070–3076 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Amedi, A., Hanassy, S.: Infra Red based devices for guiding blind and visually impaired persons. WO Patent 2,012,090,114 (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chebat, D.-R., Schneider, F.C., Kupers, R., Ptito, M.: Navigation with a sensory substitution device in congenitally blind individuals. NeuroReport 22(7), 342–347 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Cognitive Science, Faculty of HumanitiesHebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Medical Neurobiology, Faculty of Medicine, Institute for Medical Research Israel-CanadaHebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael
  3. 3.The Edmond and Lily Safra Center for Brain ResearchHebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations