Cited by 49Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringTactile and Sensory InteractionsAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility

Mobility and low contrast trip hazard avoidance using augmented depth

McCarthy, Chris, Walker, Janine G, Lieby, Paulette, Scott, Adele, Barnes, Nick·2015·Journal of Neural Engineering

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated a novel visual representation for current and near-term prosthetic vision. Augmented depth emphasizes ground obstacles and floor-wall boundaries in a depth-based visual representation. This is achieved by artificially increasing contrast between obstacles and the ground surface via a novel ground plane extraction algorithm specifically designed to preserve low-contrast ground-surface boundaries. APPROACH: The effectiveness of augmented depth was examined in human mobility trials compared against standard intensity-based (Intensity), depth-based (Depth) and random (Random) visual representations. Eight participants with normal vision used simulated prosthetic vision with 20 phosphenes and eight perceivable brightness levels to traverse a course with randomly placed small and low-contrast obstacles on the ground. MAIN RESULTS: The number of collisions was significantly reduced using augmented depth, compared with intensity, depth and random representations (48%, 44% and 72% less collisions, respectively). SIGNIFICANCE: These results indicate that augmented depth may enable safe mobility in the presence of low-contrast obstacles with current and near-term implants. This is the first demonstration that an augmentation of the scene ensuring key objects are visible may provide better outcomes for prosthetic vision.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/1741-2560/12/1/016003

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In this study, phosphenes were not modeled as pixels but as sparse dots distributed according to a Gaussian distribution.

    “In this study, phosphenes were not modeled as pixels but as sparse dots distributed according to a Gaussian distribution.”
  • Some phosphenes were removed (dropout) from the image to simulate malfunctioning electrodes.

    “Some phosphenes were removed (dropout) from the image to simulate malfunctioning electrodes.”
  • Other features included contrast information, semantic information, depth information, surface normal, convolutional filters, and the use of clip-art style images.

    “Other features included contrast information,73,76 semantic information,80,82,83 depth information,76,79,81 surface normal,84 convolutional filters,73,75,77 and the use of clip-art style images.85,86”
  • In an alternate approach, adaptive depth-contrast enhancement was proposed for improving obstacle detection in the path of a moving person, with validation of the saliency maps through performance of visual or mobility tasks.

    “In an alternate approach, adaptive depth-contrast enhancement was proposed for improving obstacle detection in the path of a moving person,76 with validation of the saliency maps through performance of visual or mobility tasks.”
  • The realism of simulated prosthetic vision models is frequently limited by an overall neglect of phosphene models, which are often confused with electrical stimulation protocols, or by using unrealistic simulation settings.

    “However, the realism of these models is frequently limited by an overall neglect of phosphene models, which are often confused with electrical stimulation protocols,72 or by using unrealistic simulation settings.76,88”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McCarthy, C., Walker, J. G., Lieby, P., Scott, A., & Barnes, N.
Affiliations
  • Australian National University (AU)
  • Data61 (AU)
Corresponding author
McCarthy, Chris
Venue
Journal of Neural Engineering
Published
2014-11-26
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
016003
ISSN
  • 1741-2552 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-2560
OpenAlex
W2091865309
Cited by
49
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3
FWCI
2.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Neural Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
  • Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Australian Research Council (Special Initiative in Bionic Vision, ICT Centre of Excellence program)
  • Australian Government (Department of Broadband, Communicat)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Keywords
prosthetic vision, visual prosthesis, phosphenes, collision avoidance
MeSH terms
Accidental Falls, Adult, Depth Perception, Gait, Humans, Image Enhancement, Male, Middle Aged, Phosphenes, Psychomotor Performance, Visual Prosthesis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review