Figure 1.
Obstacle detection coverage diagram of the eBAT.
Figure 1.
Obstacle detection coverage diagram of the eBAT.
Figure 2.
View of the application developed for the eBAT. (a) OFF state in the left panel. (b) ON state in the right panel.
Figure 2.
View of the application developed for the eBAT. (a) OFF state in the left panel. (b) ON state in the right panel.
Figure 3.
Diagram of the used obstacles. (a) First panel with the obstacle in height. (b) Second panel with the ground-level one.
Figure 3.
Diagram of the used obstacles. (a) First panel with the obstacle in height. (b) Second panel with the ground-level one.
Figure 4.
Diagram of the 16 m long by 2 m wide corridor, with the obstacles every 3.2 m. It is possible to travel the same in both directions.
Figure 4.
Diagram of the 16 m long by 2 m wide corridor, with the obstacles every 3.2 m. It is possible to travel the same in both directions.
Figure 5.
Histogram of the difference of involuntary contacts between the realization of the route using the eBAT and without using it. Data are presented divided by sex groups and median age.
Figure 5.
Histogram of the difference of involuntary contacts between the realization of the route using the eBAT and without using it. Data are presented divided by sex groups and median age.
Figure 6.
Histogram of the difference in the time to complete the path using the eBAT and without using it. Data are presented divided by sex groups and median age.
Figure 6.
Histogram of the difference in the time to complete the path using the eBAT and without using it. Data are presented divided by sex groups and median age.
Figure 7.
Histogram of the answers about the eBAT size perception of the volunteers. Data are presented divided by sex groups and median age.
Figure 7.
Histogram of the answers about the eBAT size perception of the volunteers. Data are presented divided by sex groups and median age.
Figure 8.
Histogram of the scores about the usefulness of the eBAT for the mobility. Data are presented divided by sex groups and median age.
Figure 8.
Histogram of the scores about the usefulness of the eBAT for the mobility. Data are presented divided by sex groups and median age.
Figure 9.
Histogram of the scores about the mobile phone use to operate and receive the feedback of the eBAT. Data are presented divided by sex groups and median age.
Figure 9.
Histogram of the scores about the mobile phone use to operate and receive the feedback of the eBAT. Data are presented divided by sex groups and median age.
Figure 10.
Histogram of the scores about the perceived safety level with the device. Data are presented divided by sex groups and median age.
Figure 10.
Histogram of the scores about the perceived safety level with the device. Data are presented divided by sex groups and median age.
Figure 11.
Histogram of the overall satisfaction of the users with the eBAT divided by sex groups and median age.
Figure 11.
Histogram of the overall satisfaction of the users with the eBAT divided by sex groups and median age.
Comercial Name | HC-SR04 | US-100 | Maxsonar-EZ0 | Microsonic-lcs+340 |
---|
Image | | | | |
Min distance (cm) | 2 | 2 | 2.5 | 3.5 |
Max distance (cm) | 400 | 450 | 765 | 500 |
Resolution (cm) | 0.3 | 0.1 | 1 | 0.15 |
Detection angle (degrees) | 15 | 15 | 30 | 17 |
Frequency (KHz) | 40 | 40 | 42 | 120 |
Special characteristic | - | Temperature sensor | Noise filter | Temperature compensation |
Unit price (USD) | 3.91 | 6.87 | 29.58 | 142.73 |
Table 2.
Summary of mobility test results.
Table 2.
Summary of mobility test results.
| Involuntary Contacts | Time to Complete |
---|
| (Number) | the Path (Seconds) |
---|
Average without eBAT | 4.88 | 35.59 |
Average with eBAT | 0.6 | 44.15 |
Average of difference (with eBAT–without eBAT) | −4.28 | 7.56 |
Standard deviation of difference | 1.4 | 3.99 |
Table 3.
T-test of comparison between groups of the difference (with device–without device) in the number of involuntary contacts. No statistical significance is present.
Table 3.
T-test of comparison between groups of the difference (with device–without device) in the number of involuntary contacts. No statistical significance is present.
Sex | Average (SD) | T (p) | Age Range | Average (SD) | T (p) | T (p) |
---|
Men | −4.06 (1.52) | 1.12 (0.2765) | Older | −4.12 (1.54) | 0.15 (0.8798) | 1.27 (0.2324) |
Younger | −4.00 (1.50) |
Women | −4.67 (1.05) | Older | −5.00 (1.09) | 1.03 (0.3368) |
Younger | −4.25 (0.83) |
Age Range | Average (SD) | T (p) | Sex | Average (SD) | T (p) | T (p) |
Older | −3.92 (1.68) | 1.35 (0.1929) | Women | −5.00 (1.09) | 1.09 (0.2975) | 0.16 (0.8715) |
Men | −4.12 (1.54) |
Younger | −4.67 (0.85) | Women | −4.25 (0.83) | 0.34 (0.7436) |
Men | −4.00 (1.50) |
Table 4.
T-test of the difference (with device–without device) in the number of involuntary contacts by mobility autonomy groups. The comparisons present no statistical significance.
Table 4.
T-test of the difference (with device–without device) in the number of involuntary contacts by mobility autonomy groups. The comparisons present no statistical significance.
Mobility Group | Average (SD) | T (p) |
---|
More autonomy | −4 (1.46) | 1.13 (0.2688) |
Less autonomy | −4.64 (1.23) |
Table 5.
T-test of the difference (with device–without device) in the time to complete the path by sex and age groups. None of the comparisons presents significance.
Table 5.
T-test of the difference (with device–without device) in the time to complete the path by sex and age groups. None of the comparisons presents significance.
Sex | Average (SD) | T (p) | Age Range | Average (SD) | T (p) | T (p) |
---|
Men | 8.41 (4.08) | 1.52 (0.1450) | Older | 8.72 (5.16) | −0.28 (0.7839) | 0.09 (0.9232) |
Younger | 8.11 (2.55) |
Women | 6.02 (3.32) | Older | 7.98 (1.87) | −2.17 (0.0865) |
Younger | 3.57 (3.11) |
Age Range | Average (SD) | T (p) | Sex | Average (SD) | T (p) | T (p) |
Older | 8.39 (4.42) | 1.08 (0.2901) | Women | 7.98 (1.87) | 0.34 (0.7378) | 1.94 (0.0843) |
Men | 8.72 (5.16) |
Younger | 6.65 (3.25) | Women | 3.57 (3.11) | 2.23 (0.0788) |
Men | 8.11 (2.55) |
Table 6.
T-test of the difference (with device–without device) in the time to complete the path by mobility autonomy groups. The comparisons present no statistical difference (p).
Table 6.
T-test of the difference (with device–without device) in the time to complete the path by mobility autonomy groups. The comparisons present no statistical difference (p).
Mobility Group | Average (SD) | T (p) |
---|
More autonomy | 7.54 (4.56) | −0.03 (0.9774) |
Less autonomy | 7.58 (3.13) |
Table 7.
Satisfaction survey results summary.
Table 7.
Satisfaction survey results summary.
Question | Size (Q1) | Usefulness (Q2) | Mobile Phone Use (Q3) | Safety (Q4) | Satisfaction (Q5) |
---|
Average | 4.88 | 7.72 | 8.56 | 7.64 | 8.28 |
SD | 1.92 | 0.87 | 0.9 | 0.93 | 0.92 |
Table 8.
T-test of the score for the size of the device by sex and age. None of the comparisons presents significance.
Table 8.
T-test of the score for the size of the device by sex and age. None of the comparisons presents significance.
Sex | Average (SD) | T (p) | Age Range | Average (SD) | T (p) | T (p) |
---|
Men | 4.5 (1.97) | −1.37 (0.1871) | Older | 4.87 (1.9) | −0.73 (0.4798) | −0.68 (0.5122) |
Younger | 4.12 (1.96) |
Women | 5.56 (1.64) | Older | 4.8 (1.33) | 1.56 (0.1701) |
Younger | 6.5 (1.5) |
Age Range | Average (SD) | T (p) | Sex | Average (SD) | T (p) | T (p) |
Older | 4.54 (1.91) | −0.90 (0.3767) | Women | 4.8 (1.33) | 0.08 (0.9403) | −1.44 (0.1912) |
Men | 4.87 (1.9) |
Younger | 5.25 (1.88) | Women | 6.5 (1.5) | −2.08 (0.0741) |
Men | 4.12 (1.96) |
Table 9.
T-test of the score for the size of the device by mobility autonomy groups. The comparisons presents no statistical significance.
Table 9.
T-test of the score for the size of the device by mobility autonomy groups. The comparisons presents no statistical significance.
Mobility Group | Average (SD) | T (p) |
---|
More autonomy | 5.14 (1.92) | 0.75 (0.4619) |
Less autonomy | 4.55 (1.88) |
Table 10.
T-test of the comparison for the usefulness for the mobility of the device. There is no statistical difference between the older men and younger women.
Table 10.
T-test of the comparison for the usefulness for the mobility of the device. There is no statistical difference between the older men and younger women.
Sex | Average (SD) | T (p) | Age Range | Average (SD) | T (p) | T (p) |
---|
Men | 7.75 (0.9) | 0.22 (0.8247) | Older | 7.5 (0.87) | −0.73 (0.4798) | 0.4 (0.6965) |
Younger | 8 (0.86) |
Women | 7.67 (0.82) | Older | 7.8 (0.75) | −0.48 (0.6482) |
Younger | 7.5 (0.87) |
Age Range | Average (SD) | T (p) | Sex | Average (SD) | T (p) | T (p) |
Older | 7.54 (0.84) | −1.06 (0.2992) | Women | 7.8 (0.75) | −0.6 (0.5606) | 0 (1) |
Men | 7.5 (0.87) |
Younger | 7.92 (0.86) | Women | 7.5 (0.87) | 0.84 (0.4366) |
Men | 8 (0.86) |
Table 11.
T-test of the comparison of the score for the usefulness for mobility by mobility autonomy groups. The comparison presents no statistical significance.
Table 11.
T-test of the comparison of the score for the usefulness for mobility by mobility autonomy groups. The comparison presents no statistical significance.
Mobility Group | Average (SD) | T (p) |
---|
More autonomy | 7.86 (0.74) | 0.83 (0.4156) |
Less autonomy | 7.55 (0.99) |
Table 12.
T-test of the comparison for the use of the mobile phone with the device. There is no statistical difference between sex.
Table 12.
T-test of the comparison for the use of the mobile phone with the device. There is no statistical difference between sex.
Sex | Average (SD) | T (p) | Age Range | Average (SD) | T (p) | T (p) |
---|
Men | 8.56 (0.93) | 0.02 (0.9856) | Older | 8.37 (1.11) | 0.77 (0.4585) | 0.26 (0.8006) |
Younger | 8.75 (0.66) |
Women | 8.56 (0.83) | Older | 8.6 (1.02) | −0.17 (0.8699) |
Younger | 8.5 (0.5) |
Age Range | Average (SD) | T (p) | Sex | Average (SD) | T (p) | T (p) |
Older | 8.38 (1.08) | −1.02 (0.3215) | Women | 8.6 (1.02) | −0.34 (0.7413) | −0.25 (0.8112) |
Men | 8.37 (1.11) |
Younger | 8.75 (0.59) | Women | 8.5 (0.5) | 0.65 (0.5325) |
Men | 8.75 (0.66) |
Table 13.
T-test of the comparison of the score for the use of the mobile phone by mobility autonomy groups. The difference is not statistically significant.
Table 13.
T-test of the comparison of the score for the use of the mobile phone by mobility autonomy groups. The difference is not statistically significant.
Mobility Group | Average (SD) | T (p) |
---|
More autonomy | 8.86 (0.52) | 1.78 (0.0984) |
Less autonomy | 8.18 (1.11) |
Table 14.
T-test of the comparison for the perceived safety with the device scores. There is no statistical significance in the differences.
Table 14.
T-test of the comparison for the perceived safety with the device scores. There is no statistical significance in the differences.
Sex | Average (SD) | T (p) | Age Range | Average (SD) | T (p) | T (p) |
---|
Men | 7.67 (0.92) | 0.32 (0.7533) | Older | 7.62 (0.99) | 0.26 (0.8019) | −0.09 (0.9338) |
Younger | 7.75 (0.83) |
Women | 7.56 (0.96) | Older | 7.8 (0.98) | −0.83 (0.4488) |
Younger | 7.25 (0.83) |
Age Range | Average (SD) | T (p) | Sex | Average (SD) | T (p) | T (p) |
Older | 7.62 (0.92) | −0.13 (0.8964) | Women | 7.8 (0.98) | −0.28 (0.7835) | 0.62 (0.5577) |
Men | 7.62 (0.99) |
Younger | 7.67 (0.94) | Women | 7.25 (0.83) | 0.87 (0.4176) |
Men | 7.75 (0.83) |
Table 15.
T-test of the comparison of the score for perceived safety with teh eBAT. The difference is not statistically significant.
Table 15.
T-test of the comparison of the score for perceived safety with teh eBAT. The difference is not statistically significant.
Mobility Group | Average (SD) | T (p) |
---|
More autonomy | 7.86 (0.91) | 1.31 (0.2039) |
Less autonomy | 7.36 (0.88) |
Table 16.
T-test of the comparison for the satisfaction with the device. There is some difference in the limit for statistical significance (p) between the young women and the young men.
Table 16.
T-test of the comparison for the satisfaction with the device. There is some difference in the limit for statistical significance (p) between the young women and the young men.
Sex | Average (SD) | T (p) | Age Range | Average (SD) | T (p) | T (p) |
---|
Men | 8.5 (1) | 1.87 (0.074) | Older | 8.37 (1.11) | 0.47 (0.6451) | 1.38 (0.1966) |
Younger | 8.62 (0.86) |
Women | 7.89 (0.57) | Older | 8.0 (0.63) | −0.62 (0.5549) |
Younger | 7.75 (0.43) |
Age Range | Average (SD) | T (p) | Sex | Average (SD) | T (p) | T (p) |
Older | 8.31 (1.14) | 0.15 (0.879) | Women | 8.0 (0.63) | 0.71 (0.4905) | 1.28 (0.2301) |
Men | 8.37 (0.99) |
Younger | 8.25 (0.59) | Women | 7.75 (0.43) | 2.14 (0.0589) |
Men | 8.62 (0.86) |
Table 17.
T-test of the comparison for the total satisfaction with the device. The difference is not statistically significant.
Table 17.
T-test of the comparison for the total satisfaction with the device. The difference is not statistically significant.
Mobility Group | Average (SD) | T (p) |
---|
More autonomy | 8.5 (0.63) | 1.26 (0.2274) |
Less autonomy | 8 (1.13) |
Table 18.
Correlation matrix for all the variables and all the subjects in the study (N = 25). Values greater than are highlighted.
Table 18.
Correlation matrix for all the variables and all the subjects in the study (N = 25). Values greater than are highlighted.
| Age | Sex | Autonomy | Size | Usefulness | Mobile Phone | Safety | Satisfaction | Contacts Diff. | Time Diff. |
---|
Age | 1.000 | −0.629 | −0.093 | −0.158 | −0.233 | −0.236 | −0.022 | 0.030 | 0.010 | 0.281 |
Sex | | 1.000 | −0.099 | 0.263 | −0.046 | −0.004 | −0.068 | −0.320 | −0.207 | −0.288 |
Autonomy | | | 1.000 | 0.165 | 0.291 | 0.366 | 0.350 | 0.407 | 0.231 | −0.042 |
Size | | | | 1.000 | 0.218 | −0.262 | 0.221 | −0.004 | −0.443 | −0.366 |
Usefulness | | | | | 1.000 | 0.455 | 0.564 | 0.747 | −0.195 | −0.103 |
Mobile phone | | | | | | 1.000 | 0.241 | 0.392 | 0.220 | −0.080 |
Safety | | | | | | | 1.000 | 0.538 | −0.169 | 0.236 |
Satisfaction | | | | | | | | 1.000 | 0.123 | −0.054 |
Contacts diff. | | | | | | | | | 1.000 | 0.140 |
Time diff. | | | | | | | | | | 1.000 |
Table 19.
Correlation matrix for all the variables in the men group (N = 16). Values greater than are highlighted.
Table 19.
Correlation matrix for all the variables in the men group (N = 16). Values greater than are highlighted.
| Age | Autonomy | Size | Usefulness | Mobile Phone | Safety | Satisfaction | Contacts Diff. | Time Diff. |
---|
Age | 1.000 | −0.147 | 0.034 | −0.397 | −0.188 | −0.230 | −0.181 | 0.046 | −0.167 |
Autonomy | | 1.000 | 0.287 | 0.370 | 0.433 | 0.427 | 0.462 | 0.173 | −0.002 |
Size | | | 1.000 | 0.352 | −0.323 | 0.260 | 0.191 | −0.449 | −0.288 |
Usefulness | | | | 1.000 | 0.390 | 0.511 | 0.763 | −0.285 | −0.238 |
Mobile phone | | | | | 1.000 | 0.352 | 0.301 | 0.113 | 0.027 |
Safety | | | | | | 1.000 | 0.648 | −0.149 | 0.231 |
Satisfaction | | | | | | | 1.000 | 0.021 | −0.204 |
Contacts diff. | | | | | | | | 1.000 | 0.285 |
Time diff. | | | | | | | | | 1.000 |
Table 20.
Correlation matrix for all the variables in the women group (N = 9). Values greater than are highlighted.
Table 20.
Correlation matrix for all the variables in the women group (N = 9). Values greater than are highlighted.
| Age | Autonomy | Size | Usefulness | Mobile Phone | Safety | Satisfaction | Contacts Diff. | Time Diff. |
---|
Age | 1.000 | −0.317 | −0.038 | −0.231 | −0.530 | 0.148 | −0.417 | −0.657 | 0.748 |
Autonomy | | 1.000 | −0.030 | 0.091 | 0.209 | 0.182 | 0.175 | 0.354 | −0.268 |
Size | | | 1.000 | −0.028 | −0.145 | 0.228 | −0.292 | −0.300 | −0.383 |
Usefulness | | | | 1.000 | 0.600 | 0.664 | 0.881 | 0.000 | 0.158 |
Mobile phone | | | | | 1.000 | 0.031 | 0.839 | 0.549 | −0.358 |
Safety | | | | | | 1.000 | 0.319 | −0.294 | 0.224 |
Satisfaction | | | | | | | 1.000 | 0.248 | −0.005 |
Contacts diff. | | | | | | | | 1.000 | −0.541 |
Time diff. | | | | | | | | | 1.000 |
Table 21.
Correlation matrix for all the variables in the old group (N = 13). Values greater than are highlighted.
Table 21.
Correlation matrix for all the variables in the old group (N = 13). Values greater than are highlighted.
| Sex | Autonomy | Size | Usefulness | Mobile Phone | Safety | Satisfaction | Contacts Diff. | Time Diff. |
---|
Sex | 1.000 | −0.210 | 0.373 | −0.184 | −0.371 | 0.120 | −0.332 | −0.527 | 0.170 |
Autonomy | | 1.000 | 0.049 | 0.399 | 0.416 | 0.303 | 0.550 | 0.470 | −0.018 |
Size | | | 1.000 | 0.107 | −0.626 | 0.074 | 0.030 | −0.516 | −0.315 |
Usefulness | | | | 1.000 | 0.450 | 0.464 | 0.791 | −0.083 | −0.478 |
Mobile phone | | | | | 1.000 | 0.226 | 0.406 | 0.408 | −0.025 |
Safety | | | | | | 1.000 | 0.626 | −0.030 | 0.275 |
Satisfaction | | | | | | | 1.000 | 0.229 | −0.331 |
Contacts diff. | | | | | | | | 1.000 | 0.205 |
Time diff. | | | | | | | | | 1.000 |
Table 22.
Correlation matrix for all the variables in the young group (N = 12). Values greater than are highlighted.
Table 22.
Correlation matrix for all the variables in the young group (N = 12). Values greater than are highlighted.
| Sex | Autonomy | Size | Usefulness | Mobile Phone | Safety | Satisfaction | Contacts Diff. | Time Diff. |
---|
Sex | 1.000 | −0.239 | 0.094 | −0.273 | −0.000 | −0.250 | −0.594 | 0.485 | −0.545 |
Autonomy | | 1.000 | 0.293 | 0.114 | 0.213 | 0.418 | 0.071 | −0.265 | −0.023 |
Size | | | 1.000 | 0.270 | 0.280 | 0.377 | −0.056 | −0.261 | −0.387 |
Usefulness | | | | 1.000 | 0.447 | 0.684 | 0.853 | −0.303 | 0.544 |
Mobile phone | | | | | 1.000 | 0.297 | 0.412 | −0.165 | −0.071 |
Safety | | | | | | 1.000 | 0.446 | −0.485 | 0.218 |
Satisfaction | | | | | | | 1.000 | −0.330 | 0.688 |
Contacts diff. | | | | | | | | 1.000 | −0.251 |
Time diff. | | | | | | | | | 1.000 |
Table 23.
Correlation matrix for all the variables in the group with more autonomy in mobility (N = 14). No values greater than .
Table 23.
Correlation matrix for all the variables in the group with more autonomy in mobility (N = 14). No values greater than .
| Age | Sex | Size | Usefulness | Mobile Phone | Safety | Satisfaction | Contacts Diff. | Time Diff. |
---|
Age | 1.000 | −0.689 | −0.329 | −0.305 | −0.099 | −0.195 | 0.254 | 0.250 | 0.210 |
Sex | | 1.000 | 0.118 | −0.091 | −0.132 | −0.074 | −0.505 | −0.108 | −0.348 |
Size | | | 1.000 | 0.465 | −0.196 | 0.215 | 0.000 | −0.406 | −0.386 |
Usefulness | | | | 1.000 | 0.320 | 0.286 | 0.461 | −0.329 | −0.233 |
Mobile phone | | | | | 1.000 | −0.043 | 0.221 | 0.000 | −0.083 |
Safety | | | | | | 1.000 | 0.249 | −0.160 | 0.317 |
Satisfaction | | | | | | | 1.000 | 0.156 | 0.056 |
Contacts diff. | | | | | | | | 1.000 | 0.326 |
Time diff. | | | | | | | | | 1.000 |
Table 24.
Correlation matrix for all the variables in the group with less autonomy in mobility (N = 11). Values greater than are highlighted.
Table 24.
Correlation matrix for all the variables in the group with less autonomy in mobility (N = 11). Values greater than are highlighted.
| Age | Sex | Size | Usefulness | Mobile Phone | Safety | Satisfaction | Contacts Diff. | Time Diff. |
---|
Age | 1.000 | −0.582 | 0.078 | −0.174 | −0.390 | 0.223 | −0.136 | −0.386 | 0.431 |
Sex | | 1.000 | 0.513 | 0.050 | 0.179 | 0.038 | −0.162 | −0.271 | −0.222 |
Size | | | 1.000 | −0.062 | −0.483 | 0.155 | −0.086 | −0.639 | −0.355 |
Usefulness | | | | 1.000 | 0.489 | 0.817 | 0.898 | −0.164 | 0.062 |
Mobile phone | | | | | 1.000 | 0.303 | 0.362 | 0.284 | −0.111 |
Safety | | | | | | 1.000 | 0.731 | −0.375 | 0.121 |
Satisfaction | | | | | | | 1.000 | 0.000 | −0.183 |
Contacts diff. | | | | | | | | 1.000 | −0.251 |
Time diff. | | | | | | | | | 1.000 |