Does Embodiment Matter to Biomechanics and Function? A Comparative Analysis of Head-Mounted and Hand-Held Assistive Devices for Individuals with Blindness and Low Vision
This research addresses the physical and functional trade-offs in assistive technology design for persons with blindness or low vision, though it is incremental in comparing existing device types.
The study compared head-mounted and hand-held assistive devices for individuals with blindness or low vision, finding that the head-mounted system reduced upper-body movement and task time, while the hand-held system achieved higher success rates for tasks with small or curved text.
Visual assistive technologies, such as Microsoft Seeing AI, can improve access to environmental information for persons with blindness or low vision (pBLV). Yet, the physical and functional implications of different device embodiments remain unclear. In this study, 11 pBLV participants used Seeing AI on a hand-held smartphone and on a head-mounted ARx Vision system to perform six activities of daily living, while their movements were captured with Xsens motion capture. Functional outcomes included task time, success rate, and number of attempts, and biomechanical measures included joint range of motion, angular path length, working volume, and movement smoothness. The head-mounted system generally reduced upper-body movement and task time, especially for document-scanning style tasks, whereas the hand-held system yielded higher success rates for tasks involving small or curved text. These findings indicate that both embodiments are viable, but they differ in terms of physical demands and ease of use. Incorporating biomechanical measures into assistive technology evaluations can inform designs that optimise user experience by balancing functional efficiency, physical sustainability, and intuitive interaction.