ArticleScientific reports2025
Embedded solution to detect and classify head level objects using stereo vision for visually impaired people with audio feedback.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Challenges and Opportunities of the Human-Centered Design Approach: Case Study Development of an Assistive Device for the Navigation of Persons With Visual Impairment.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This work presents an embedded solution for detecting and classifying head-level objects using stereo vision to assist blind individuals. A custom dataset was created, featuring five classes of head-level objects, selected based on a survey of visually impaired users. Object detection and classification were achieved using deep-neural networks such as YoloV5. The system computes the relative range and orientation of detected head-level objects and provides audio feedback to alert the user about nearby objects. Four types of tests were conducted: a dataset-based test, achieving a mAP@0.95 of 0.89 for head-level objects classification; a quantitative assessment of range and orientation, with an average error of 0.028 m ± 0.004 and 2.05°±0.09, respectively; a field test conducted over a week at different times and lighting conditions, yielding a precision/recall of 98.21%/93.75% for head-level object classification; and user tests with Head-level identification accuracy of 91% and obstacle-avoidance/local-navigation where users reported an average of 88.75% for low or middle risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.