An Affordable AI-Integrated Smart Cane for Multimodal Mobility Assistance of Visually Impaired Users
Organizations: AI Center, Faculty of Computer and Information Systems, Islamic University of Madinah, Madinah 42351, Saudi Arabia · AI V&V Lab, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia
Abstract
Visual impairment affects over 2.2 billion people worldwide, yet conventional white canes cannot detect elevated hazards or provide semantic environmental context. Existing AI-assisted navigation systems typically rely on expensive hardware or cloud connectivity, limiting accessibility in resource-constrained settings. This paper presents an affordable ($88 USD), fully offline AI-integrated smart cane designed for multimodal mobility assistance on an ultra-low-power Raspberry Pi Zero 2W. The system fuses RGB vision sensing with Time-of-Flight (ToF) distance estimation, pairing an INT8-quantized SSD MobileNet V1 model with distance-aware vibrotactile feedback and real-time audio alerts. To ensure operational robustness on constrained hardware, a multiprocessing architecture isolates sensor acquisition, neural inference, and haptic feedback into independent processes with fail-safe sensing support. Experimental evaluation across indoor mobility scenarios demonstrates a macro-averaged F1-score of 0.82 (precision: 0.85, recall: 0.81), a mean end-to-end latency of 330,ms, and a peak power draw of 2.8,W. A preliminary usability study with 12 participants (SUS: 78.5, NASA-TLX) demonstrated positive user perception and enhanced obstacle awareness. The proposed prototype validates the feasibility of deploying privacy-preserving, edge-native assistive intelligence for cost-sensitive mobility assistance.
Figures & tables
| System / Work | Primary Modality | Processing Platform | Typical Latency | Offline Operation | Estimated Cost | Primary Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NavBelt [ 8 ] | Ultrasonic sensing | Microcontroller | 50 ms | Yes | $50 | Limited semantic awareness and difficulty distinguishing obstacle context. |
| Tapu et al. [ 9 ] | Wearable camera-based vision | High-end smartphone | 200 ms | Partial | $800 | Increased thermal load, ergonomic limitations, and battery drain during continuous operation. |
| Upadhyaya et al. [ 11 ] | RGB vision (YOLOv8) | Raspberry Pi 4 | 250 ms | Yes | $200 | Higher power consumption and larger hardware footprint compared to lightweight assistive systems. |
| OrCam MyEye [ 4 ] | Wearable vision sensing | Proprietary embedded hardware | 100 ms | Yes | $3,500–4,500 | High commercial cost and limited accessibility in low-resource settings. |
| Cloud-Assisted Frameworks [ 10 ] | RGB + LiDAR | Edge-to-cloud infrastructure | 500 ms | No | Variable | Dependence on network connectivity and variable communication latency. |
| Proposed System | RGB + ToF fusion | Raspberry Pi Zero 2W | 330 ms | Yes | $88 | Reduced frame rate and limited field-of-view under constrained hardware conditions. |
| Distance Range | Pulse Duration (ms) | Pulse Interval (ms) | Alert Priority |
|---|---|---|---|
| 50 cm | 500 | 100 | Critical |
| 50–80 cm | 300 | 200 | High |
| 80–120 cm | 200 | 400 | Moderate |
| 120–150 cm | 100 | 800 | Low |
| 150 cm | Audio only | — | Informational |
| Subsystem | CPU Usage (%) | RAM (MB) | Power (W) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Background OS Services | 7–10 | 105–120 | 0.7–0.9 |
| Camera Capture + Preprocessing | 12–18 | 40–50 | 0.3–0.5 |
| TFLite INT8 Inference | 60–70 | 170–190 | 1.1–1.3 |
| ToF + Haptic Feedback Daemon | 1–3 | 6–10 | 0.3–0.4 |
| Peak Concurrent System Load | 85–92 | 330–360 | 2.6–2.9 |
| Obstacle Class | Precision | Recall | F1-Score | FP per 100 neg. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Person | 0.94 | 0.91 | 0.92 | 1.7 |
| Chair | 0.88 | 0.85 | 0.86 | 3.3 |
| Desk / Table | 0.86 | 0.82 | 0.84 | 4.2 |
| Doorway | 0.82 | 0.79 | 0.80 | 5.8 |
| Potted Plant | 0.75 | 0.68 | 0.71 | 7.5 |
| Macro Average | 0.85 | 0.81 | 0.82 | — |
| Scenario | Avoidance Rate (95% CI) | Mean Reaction Time |
|---|---|---|
| Cluttered Corridor | 93.3% [78.7%, 98.1%] (28/30) | 1.1 s |
| Elevated Hazard | 86.7% [70.3%, 94.7%] (26/30) | 1.4 s |
| Dynamic Pedestrian | 80.0% [62.7%, 90.5%] (24/30) | 1.8 s |
| Metric | Mean Score (95% CI) | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| SUS Score | 78.5 ( 4.2) [71.0, 86.0] | Above average usability (threshold: 68) |
| NASA-TLX Mental Demand | 45 / 100 | Moderate workload |
| NASA-TLX Frustration | 22 / 100 | Relatively low frustration |
| Perceived Safety | 4.2 / 5.0 | Positive user perception |
| Failure Scenario | Observed Impact and Current Mitigation |
|---|---|
| Rapid Cane Motion | Fast sweeping motion introduces motion blur and intermittent semantic detection instability. Partial mitigation is provided through independent ToF-based proximity sensing. |
| Low-Light Environments | RGB semantic inference performance degrades substantially under poor illumination conditions. Under these scenarios, the system relies primarily on short-range ToF sensing. |
| Reflective or Glass Surfaces | Specular reflections may distort ToF measurements and produce unstable distance estimates. This limitation remains only partially addressed in the current implementation. |
| Narrow Field-of-View | Obstacles outside the combined RGB-ToF sensing region may not be detected consistently during rapid directional changes. |
| Embedded Processing Constraints | Limited inference throughput ( 2–3 FPS) may introduce delayed semantic feedback during fast user movement or dynamic obstacle encounters. |