CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 16Tactile and Sensory InteractionsTeleoperation and Haptic SystemsHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety

Expanded Situational Awareness Without Vision: A Novel Haptic Interface for Use in Fully Autonomous Vehicles

Open access
Fink, Paul D. S., Abou Allaban, Anas, Atekha, Omoruyi E., Perry, Raymond J., Sumner, Emily S., Corey, Richard R., Dimitrov, Velin, Giudice, Nicholas A.·2023·Proceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction
DOI 10.1145/3568162.3576975
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This work presents a novel ultrasonic haptic interface to improve nonvisual perception and situational awareness in applications such as fully autonomous vehicles. User study results (n=14) suggest comparable performance with the dynamic ultrasonic stimuli versus a control using static embossed stimuli. The utility of the ultrasonic interface is demonstrated with a prototype autonomous small-scale robot vehicle using intersection abstractions. These efforts support the application of ultrasonic haptics for improving nonvisual information access in autonomous transportation with strong implications for people who are blind and visually impaired, accessibility, and human-in-the-loop decision making.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3568162.3576975

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The time to learn new haptic interfaces is a common finding across the literature.

    “The time to learn new haptic interfaces is a common finding across the literature [7, 13]”

    From Get In Touch with Your Seat: Accessible Seat Localization for Blind and Low Vision Travelers in Autonomous Shuttles (2026) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Results section says participants’ unfamiliarity with the ultrasonic device may have affected their confidence, and that more training might improve confidence and task time. This supports a learning period for the interface studied, but the paper does not establish that it is a common finding across the literature. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The majority of accessibility focused BLV projects have primarily concerned the in-vehicle stage of AV travel.

    “Although the majority of accessibility focused BLV projects have primarily concerned the in-vehicle stage of AV travel [2, 3, 7, 10, 12, 16, 17]”

    From Get In Touch with Your Seat: Accessible Seat Localization for Blind and Low Vision Travelers in Autonomous Shuttles (2026) · cites this paper as [7]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Safa Ameur, Anouar Ben Khalifa, and Med Salim Bouhlel. 2020. A novel hybrid bidirectional unidirectional LSTM network for dynamic hand gesture recognition with Leap Motion. Entertainment Computing 35 (2020), 100373. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.entcom.2020.100373 · DOI
  2. Danilo Avola, Marco Bernardi, Luigi Cinque, Gian Luca Foresti, and Cristiano Massaroni. 2019. Exploiting Recurrent Neural Networks and Leap Motion Con- troller for the Recognition of Sign Language and Semaphoric Hand Gestures. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 21, 1 (2019), 234-245. https://doi.org/10.1109/ TMM.2018.2856094 · DOI
  3. Paul Bach-y-Rita, Carter C. Collins, Frank A. Saunders, Benjamin White, and Lawrence Scadden. 1969. Vision Substitution by Tactile Image Projection. Nature 221, 5184 (March 1969), 963-964. https://doi.org/10.1038/221963a0 · DOI · Paper page
  4. P Bach-y-Rita, K.A. Kaczmarek, Mitchell Tyler, and J Garcia-Lara. 1998. Form Per- ception with a 49-Point Electrotactile Stimulus Array on the Tongue: A Technical Note. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 35 (11 1998), 427-30.
  5. Roger Bennett, Rohini Vijaygopal, and Rita Kottasz. 2020. Willingness of people who are blind to accept autonomous vehicles: An empirical investigation. Trans- portation Research Part F: Trafc Psychology and Behaviour 69 (Feb. 2020), 13-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.12.012 · DOI
  6. Ms. Billie Louise Bentzen. 1977. Orientation Maps for Visually Impaired Persons. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness 71, 5 (1977), 193-194. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0145482X7707100501 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X7707100501 · DOI
  7. Robin N Brewer and Vaishnav Kameswaran. 2018. Understanding the power of control in autonomous vehicles for people with vision impairment. In Pro- ceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 185-197.
  8. Julian Brinkley. 2021. Using Personas with Visual Impairments to Explore the Design of an Accessible Self-Driving Vehicle Human-Machine Interface. Pro- ceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 65, 1 (Sept. 2021), 337-341. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181321651223 · DOI
  9. Julian Brinkley, Earl W Huf Jr, Briana Posadas, Julia Woodward, Shaundra B Daily, and Juan E Gilbert. 2020. Exploring the Needs, Preferences, and Concerns of Persons with Visual Impairments Regarding Autonomous Vehicles. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing 13, 1 (2020), 34.
  10. Eddie Brown, David R. Large, Hannah Limerick, and Gary Burnett. 2020. Ul- trahapticons: "Haptifying" Drivers' Mental Models to Transform Automotive Mid-Air Haptic Gesture Infotainment Interfaces. In 12th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (Virtual Event, DC, USA) (AutomotiveUI '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 54-57. https://doi.org/10.1145/3409251.3411722 · DOI
  11. David J. Bryant. 1997. Representing Space in Language and Perception. Mind & Language 12 (1997), 239-264.
  12. Quentin De Smedt, Hazem Wannous, and Jean-Philippe Vandeborre. 2016. Skeleton-Based Dynamic Hand Gesture Recognition. In 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW). 1206-1214. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPRW.2016.153 · DOI
  13. Paul D. S. Fink, Jessica A. Holz, and Nicholas A. Giudice. 2021. Fully Autonomous Vehicles for People with Visual Impairment: Policy, Accessibility, and Future Directions. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing 14, 3 (Sept. 2021), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1145/3471934 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Nicholas A. Giudice. 2018. Navigating without Vision: Principles of Blind Spa- tial Cognition. In Handbook of Behavioral and Cognitive Geography, Daniel R. Montello (Ed.). Vol. 46. Edward Elgar Publishing, 260-288.
  15. Nicholas A. Giudice, Benjamin A. Guenther, Toni M. Kaplan, Shane M. Anderson, Robert J. Knuesel, and Joseph F. Ciof. 2020. Use of an Indoor Navigation System by Sighted and Blind Travelers: Performance Similarities across Visual Status and Age. ACM Trans. Access. Comput. 13, 3, Article 11 (aug 2020), 27 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3407191 · DOI
  16. Nicholas A. Giudice and R.G. Long. in press. Establishing and Maintaining Orientation for Orientation and Mobility: Tools, Techniques, and Technologies, 4th Edition. In Foundations of Orientation and Mobility, R.W. Welsh B.B. Blasch, W.R. Wiener (Ed.). Vol. 1. American Foundation for the Blind, Chapter 2.
  17. Robert A Jacobs, Michael I Jordan, Steven J Nowlan, and Geofrey E Hinton. 1991. Adaptive Mixtures of Local Experts. Neural Computation 3, 1 (1991), 79-87.
  18. Jack M. Loomis, Roberta Klatzky, and Nicholas A. Giudice. 2013. Representing 3D space in Working Memory: Spatial Images from Vision, Touch, Hearing, and Language. In Multisensory Imagery: Theory & Applications, R. Lawson S. Lacey (Ed.). Springer, 131-156.
  19. Jack M. Loomis, Yvonne Lippa, Reginald G. Golledge, and Roberta L. Klatzky. 2002. Spatial Updating of Locations Specifed by 3-D Sound and Spatial Language. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition 28 (04 2002), 335-45. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.28.2.335 · DOI
  20. Anshul Mittal, Pradeep Kumar, Partha Pratim Roy, Raman Balasubramanian, and Bidyut B. Chaudhuri. 2019. A Modifed LSTM Model for Continuous Sign Language Recognition Using Leap Motion. IEEE Sensors Journal 19, 16 (2019), 7056-7063. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2019.2909837 · DOI
  21. John O'Keefe and Lynn Nadel. 1978. The Hippocampus as a Cognitive Map. Oxford: Clarendon Press. http://hdl.handle.net/10150/620894
  22. Matthew O'Kelly, Varundev Sukhil, Houssam Abbas, Jack Harkins, Chris Kao, Yash Vardhan Pant, Rahul Mangharam, Dipshil Agarwal, Madhur Behl, Paolo Burgio, et al. 2019. F1/10: An Open-Source Autonomous Cyber-Physical Platform. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.08567 (2019). · arXiv
  23. Hari P. Palani, Paul D. S. Fink, and Nicholas A. Giudice. 2020. Design Guidelines for Schematizing and Rendering Haptically Perceivable Graphical Elements on Touchscreen Devices. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction (April 2020), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1752464 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Hari Prasath Palani, Paul D. S. Fink, and Nicholas A. Giudice. 2022. Compar- ing Map Learning between Touchscreen-Based Visual and Haptic Displays: A Behavioral Evaluation with Blind and Sighted Users. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 6, 1 (Jan. 2022), 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti6010001 Number: 1 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute. · DOI · Paper page
  25. Álvaro Pascual-Leone and Roland Hamilton. 2001. The Metamodal Organization of the Brain. Progress in Brain Research 134 (2001), 427-445.
  26. Morgan Quigley, Ken Conley, Brian Gerkey, Josh Faust, Tully Foote, Jeremy Leibs, Rob Wheeler, Andrew Y Ng, et al. 2009. ROS: An Open-Source Robot Operating System. In ICRA Workshop on Open Source Software, Vol. 3. Kobe, Japan, 5.
  27. Parivash Ranjbar, Pournami Krishnan Krishnakumari, Jonas Andersson, and Maria Klingegård. 2022. Vibrotactile guidance for trips with autonomous vehicles for persons with blindness, deafblindness, and deafness. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 15 (2022), 100630.
  28. Brett Stoddard, Miranda Cravetz, Timothy Player, and Heather Knight. 2022. A Haptic Multimodal Interface with Abstract Controls for Semi-Autonomous Manipulation. In 2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). 1206-1207. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI53351.2022.9889349 · DOI
  29. Mauricio Sáenz and Jaime Sánchez. 2009. Indoor Position and Orientation for the Blind. HCI International 2009, Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction 5616, 236-245. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 642-02713-0_25 · DOI
  30. Simon Ungar, Mark Blades, and Christopher P. Spencer. 1997. Strategies for Knowledge Acquisition from Cartographic Maps by Blind and Visually Impaired Adults. Cartographic Journal 34 (1997), 93-110.
  31. Thomas Wolbers, Roberta Klatzky, Jack M. Loomis, Magdalena Wutte, and Nicholas A. Giudice. 2011. Modality-Independent Coding of Spatial Layout in the Human Brain. Current Biology : CB 21 (06 2011), 984-989. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.04.038 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fink, P. D. S., Abou Allaban, A., Atekha, O. E., Perry, R. J., Sumner, E. S., Corey, R. R., Dimitrov, V., & Giudice, N. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Maine (US)
  • Toyota Research Institute, Cambridge, MA, USA
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Toyota Research Institute (US)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction
Publisher
ACM
Published
2023-03-13
Pages
54-62
DOI
10.1145/3568162.3576975
OpenAlex
W4323688033
Cited by
16
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1
FWCI
8.24
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)
Locations
  • ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (publishedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
National Science Foundation (CHS-1910603)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Teleoperation and Haptic Systems
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
Keywords
situational awareness, autonomous vehicles, blind and visually impaired users, accessibility, human-in-the-loop decision making, tactile feedback

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