Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 86 references

Human-Centered Development of Guide Dog Robots: Quiet and Stable Locomotion Control

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A quadruped guide-dog robot can walk at a natural human pace while cutting its noise by about 10 dB — half the perceived loudness of the default controller — without losing balance, and four guide-dog handlers preferred it.

desk verdict A solid engineering contribution to guide-dog robots whose 10 dB noise-reduction headline outruns the acoustic evidence; the qualitative user study and controller design are the real strengths. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.11808 v2 pith:NDI5LKEJ submitted 2025-05-17 cs.RO cs.HC

Shangqun Yu , Hochul Hwang , Trung M. Dang , Joydeep Biswas , Nicholas A. Giudice , Sunghoon Ivan Lee , Donghyun Kim This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.HC
keywords guidedogrobotquadrupedlocomotionnoisesuppressionmodelpredictivecontrolblindandlow-visionusersstairclimbingassistivemobilityuser-centereddesign
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Most quadruped guide-dog research treats navigation as the hard problem; this paper argues that the way the robot walks is the gate. Off-the-shelf trot controllers are noisy and jerky enough to mask the environmental sounds blind and low-vision users navigate by, so the authors build a controller that steps slowly, lands softly, and keeps balance while moving at the fast walking speeds experienced handlers actually use. They report that it cuts the Unitree Go1's walking noise by about 10 dB — half the perceived loudness of the default controller — and that four guide-dog handlers recognized the difference, rated it more compliant and satisfying, and found stair climbing similar to working with a dog. The paper's contribution is a complete human-centered loop: interviews and observations set the target, a nonlinear MPC controller meets it, and user trials check the result.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the controller stack: a real-time SQP-based nonlinear MPC paired with whole-body impulse control. The NMPC keeps the robot's full orientation dynamics through an SO(3) representation instead of simplified Euler angles, and solves each step as one SQP iteration with a warm start, reaching 400–500 Hz updates; this lets the robot use a slow trot (swing times around 0.25–0.3 s) while staying balanced under pulls and impacts. The companion whole-body impulse controller tracks the MPC's reaction forces and shapes the swing-leg trajectory, with a low derivative gain ($K_d = 0.5$) to avoid motor whine and a touchdown phase that takes 65% of the swing time to lower the foot. For stairs, a depth camera feeds a 2.5D height map that adjusts landing height and location, and the controller pauses when the front feet contact the first step. The mechanism's work is to decouple stepping rate from walking speed: fewer, longer, softer steps produce the measured 10 dB noise reduction while the body still advances at human pace.

What would settle it

Re-measure both controllers with a fixed, calibrated microphone at the handler's ear height for many passes at each speed in the same room; if the mean difference is not close to 10 dB or the error bars overlap, the headline noise claim is not supported. Equally, a listening test in which blindfolded participants must detect a quiet sound source (such as a recorded car or a wall echo) while the robot walks would show whether the quieter gait restores the acoustic awareness the paper says it preserves.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a quadruped can serve as a guide dog only if its locomotion is quiet and smooth enough to preserve the user's acoustic awareness, and that this is achievable without sacrificing speed or stability. The paper's controller replaces the default convex MPC with a nonlinear MPC that keeps full SO(3) orientation dynamics, solved by real-time SQP at 400–500 Hz, and pairs it with whole-body impulse control; slower swing times, a low derivative gain, and a swing trajectory that spends 65% of its time lowering the foot make touchdown gentle. In hardware tests on the Unitree Go1 the robot walked at 0.6–1.2 m/s with roughly 10 dB less noise than the default controller, kept its body velocity and orientation steadier, stayed balanced under a 25 N handler pull and a 100 N impulse, and traversed slippery, uneven, and cluttered surfaces. With a depth camera and a 2.5D height map, the same controller climbs stairs, pausing with front feet on the first step to cue the handler exactly as a trained guide dog does. In the user study, all four blind and low-vision handlers reported lower noise, and stair climbing drew workload ratings comparable to their dogs, with high usability scores.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the robot's noise was measured the way a user would actually hear it — a researcher holding an uncalibrated smartphone at ear level while walking beside the robot, with no repeated trials or error bars reported for the headline 10 dB figure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A quiet, slow-stepping gait can preserve a blind or low-vision user's ability to hear traffic, wall echoes, and other navigation cues while the robot moves at the user's preferred speed.
  • The controller keeps the robot upright under a 25 N backward pull and a 100 N impulse, so the noise reduction does not come at the cost of balance under real handler forces.
  • The pre-stop on the first stair step gives the same cue a trained guide dog gives, and users in the study could command the climb when ready.
  • The measured walking noise (about 50 dB) falls below the 65 dB reported for wheeled guide robots, addressing the reason earlier BLV participants chose wheeled systems.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An implication the authors leave implicit is that the same slow-stepping controller recipe could make other legged platforms, including humanoids and delivery robots, acceptable in human environments where noise is the limiting factor.
  • The paper does not test whether the 10 dB difference actually restores a user's ability to detect a specific environmental sound, such as an approaching car; a perceptual shadowing test would convert the acoustic claim into a safety metric.
  • Since the height map is the only terrain cue, a direct comparison of the same controller with and without the perception system on stairs would separate the locomotion contribution from the perception contribution to the quiet stair-climbing behavior.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a locomotion controller for a Unitree Go1 quadruped intended as a guide dog robot for blind and low-vision (BLV) individuals. The controller replaces a convex MPC with a real-time SQP-based NMPC using SO(3) orientation dynamics, pairs it with WBIC, adds perception-based stair climbing, and is evaluated in simulation and on hardware. The authors report approximately a 10 dB noise reduction relative to the default controller, improved balance under disturbances, and a mixed-methods user study with four BLV guide dog handlers indicating preference for the new controller in flat walking and stair climbing. The paper claims these results validate a human-centered development cycle from stakeholder interviews to system design to user evaluation.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are supported, the paper makes a valuable contribution: it directly addresses an understudied requirement for guide dog robots (acoustic and physical disturbance), provides a concrete NMPC+WBIC formulation that maintains balance at slow gait frequencies, integrates terrain perception for stairs, and reports one of the first user studies of BLV individuals interacting with a quadruped robot during stair climbing. Strengths include real-hardware evaluation, comparison against multiple baseline controllers, a clear description of the design choices grounded in stakeholder feedback, and an explicit acknowledgment of small sample size in the user study. The central '10 dB / half perceived noise' result, however, rests on an acoustic measurement protocol that currently cannot support the precision of the headline claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V-B, Fig. 4(c), and Conclusion] The central quantitative claim of a ~10 dB noise reduction (restated in the Abstract and Conclusion) rests on a single acoustic protocol in which one researcher held a smartphone at ear level while walking beside the robot, with no calibration of the phone or microphone, no stated number of repeated trials, no error bars or confidence intervals, and uncontrolled recording geometry, room acoustics, and background noise. Section VIII does not flag this measurement limitation. The authors should repeat the measurement with a calibrated sound-level meter or a fixed, documented microphone geometry, multiple trials per speed and per controller, and report the mean, spread, and ambient-noise floor; until then, the headline '10 dB / half perceived noise' should either be supported by such data or downgraded to a qualitative observation.
  2. [Section V-B, Figs. 5 and 6(d)] The additional acoustic comparisons against cMPC, NL MPC, the RL method of [25], the Anymal-based result in [32], and the wheeled systems in [26] inherit the same uncalibrated protocol and mix different robots, measurement conditions, and published setups. Cross-platform claims such as '50 dB is even lower than the noise level of wheeled systems tested in [26]' are only meaningful under a shared protocol; as written, these comparisons should be presented as indicative, with the differences in measurement conditions stated explicitly.
  3. [Section VI, Figs. 8 and 9] With n=4 and no inferential statistics, variance information, or individual-level plots, the wording in Section VI-E and the Conclusion ('superior acceptance,' 'lower workload,' 'higher usability') goes beyond what the data can support. The qualitative participant quotes support a directional effect, and Section VIII appropriately mentions the small sample, but the figures need per-participant values or error bars, and the claims should be phrased as observed trends in this small sample rather than as general conclusions.
  4. [Section V-B and Section VI-B] The stair-climbing evaluation uses a custom staircase with a 13 cm rise and 60 cm tread, which the authors note is shorter and wider than standard stairs because of the Go1 robot's leg kinematics. This means the user-study conclusions about 'comfortable stair climbing' (RQ2) cannot yet generalize to standard stair geometry; the paper should state this scope limitation in the conclusions and temper the corresponding claims accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption uses 'cMPC (Original)' and 'cMPC (OSQP)' inconsistently with the legend labels in the plots, making it difficult for the reader to map each trace to a controller.
  2. [Fig. 6(c)] The y-axis is labeled 'Angular Yaw Velocity (rad/s)', while the text describes 'maximum stable yaw velocity'; please clarify whether the plotted value is a magnitude or signed value and state the unit consistently.
  3. [References] Reference [75] appears to contain a typo in the title ('nmiscar' should likely be 'nonlinear'); please verify and correct.
  4. [Section V-B and Conclusion] The hardware section says 'reduces noise by nearly 10 dB' while the Conclusion states a definitive 'reduces the noise ... by 10 dB'; the wording should be unified once the measurement uncertainty is resolved.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reasoning detected; the controller's noise, stability, and user-acceptance claims rest on direct hardware comparisons and a user study, with self-citations serving only as baselines and standard control components.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical rather than derivational. The 10 dB noise reduction is presented as a measured comparison between the proposed controller and the Unitree Go1 default controller in Section V-B (Fig. 4(c)), not as a quantity derived from a fitted model or from the controller's own objective. The stability comparison in Section V-A is a direct simulation-based comparison against convex MPC and a full-dynamics MPC, with the same WBIC settings and gait parameters across methods, so the observed differences are attributed to the MPC formulation rather than to a self-referential construct. The user study in Section VI is an independent behavioral evaluation where participants compared controllers without being told which was which, and the qualitative and Likert-scale findings support the direction of the hardware measurements but are not used to generate the acoustic number. Self-citations appear primarily for standard components (WBIC from [33], elevation mapping from [85], prior guide-dog robot system work from [19,27]) and as baselines; these citations are not used to define the predicted outcome or to justify the measured noise reduction. The paper's limitation section acknowledges small sample size and residual hardware noise, which are methodological caveats, not circularity. Concerns about the uncalibrated smartphone-based acoustic measurement are legitimate correctness and reproducibility risks, but they do not amount to a definitional or self-citation-based circular derivation. No step in the paper reduces its claimed results to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claims rest on tuned control parameters and domain assumptions about modeling fidelity and user representativeness; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Derivative gain Kd = 0.5 (flat); 2/1/1 (stair hip abduction/hip pitch/knee)
    Hand-tuned: low Kd reduces motor winding noise and improves touchdown compliance; high Kd improves foot tracking on stairs. Directly affects both noise and stability claims.
  • Swing time allocation = 65% downward, 35% lift-off
    Chosen to slow touchdown velocity and reduce impact noise; a central mechanism for the reported noise reduction.
  • MPC horizon and control time step = 24 steps, 0.026 s on hardware; 20 steps, 0.02-0.03 s in simulation
    Selected to realize slow stepping (swing times 0.2-0.3 s) while keeping the controller update rate near 500 Hz.
  • MPC weight matrices = not reported
    Qp, Qv, Qomega, QR, Qf are defined but their numerical values are omitted, yet they are necessary to reproduce the controller.
  • Simulated handler pulling force = 25 N at 45 degrees
    Chosen from trainer feedback instead of the 34.32 N measured in [27]; the simulation stability comparison depends on this disturbance.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Single-rigid-body dynamics is sufficient for balance prediction at slow gait
    Used in the NMPC model (Section IV-A); ignores leg dynamics and relies on WBIC to handle whole-body effects.
  • domain assumption Small orientation error approximation theta_err ~ sin(theta_err)
    Stated after Eq. (3); valid for small errors but not justified for large disturbances.
  • domain assumption Third-order Taylor expansion of the SO(3) exponential is accurate enough at 500 Hz
    Eq. (4); no error bound is given.
  • standard math Friction cone and contact scheduling constraints capture foot-ground interaction
    Standard legged-locomotion modeling assumptions stated in the MPC constraint block.
  • domain assumption Elevation mapping from a depth camera provides accurate enough stair foothold heights
    Section IV-B; authors note that a few centimeters of error cause leg stumping, but map accuracy is not quantified.
  • domain assumption Four experienced guide dog handlers represent the BLV population for acceptance claims
    Underlies the user study; authors acknowledge limited diversity and small sample in Section VIII.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Human-Centered Development of Guide Dog Robots: Quiet and Stable Locomotion Control." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NDI5LKEJ

@misc{pith2026250511808,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Human-Centered Development of Guide Dog Robots: Quiet and Stable Locomotion Control},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NDI5LKEJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.11808}
}
read the original abstract

A quadruped robot is a promising system that can offer assistance comparable to that of dog guides due to its similar form factor. However, various challenges remain in making these robots a reliable option for blind and low-vision (BLV) individuals. Among these challenges, noise and jerky motion during walking are critical drawbacks of existing quadruped robots. While these issues have largely been overlooked in guide dog robot research, our interviews with guide dog handlers and trainers revealed that acoustic and physical disturbances can be particularly disruptive for BLV individuals, who rely heavily on environmental sounds for navigation. To address these issues, we developed a novel walking controller for slow stepping and smooth foot swing/contact while maintaining human walking speed, as well as robust and stable balance control. The controller integrates with a perception system to facilitate locomotion over non-flat terrains, such as stairs. Our controller was extensively tested on the Unitree Go1 robot and, when compared with other control methods, demonstrated significant noise reduction -- half of the default locomotion controller. In this study, we adopt a mixed-methods approach to evaluate its usability with BLV individuals. In our indoor walking experiments, participants compared our controller to the robot's default controller. Results demonstrated superior acceptance of our controller, highlighting its potential to improve the user experience of guide dog robots. Video demonstration (best viewed with audio) available at: https://youtu.be/8-pz_8Hqe6s.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.11808 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Human-centered Development of a Guide-dog Robot. We em￾ployed a human-centered approach to develop a guide-dog robot’s locomotion controller, consisting of: 1) an initial exploratory study to identify critical unmet needs, 2) system (technology) development, and 3) user evaluation. One of our major contributions is the adoption of this complete, user-centric development process to advance the robot controller for bl… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overall Control Framework. Our guide-dog controller uses an NMPC+WBIC architecture. The NMPC incorporates a single-rigid-body model with full orientation dynamics to enable better orientation control and computes the required reaction forces, which are then passed to the WBIC. The WBIC generates feedforward torques, as well as desired joint positions and velocities, which are subsequently fed into the robot’s onboar… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of Our MPC and Convex MPC. We compare our controller with the convex MPC + WBIC framework presented in [33] to evaluate the improved balance stability resulting from our new MPC formulation. In the Mujoco simulation, we command the robot to move forward at 1.2 m/s while applying a 25 N pulling force to simulate the force exerted by a handler. During walking, we apply an impulse force of 100 N for 0.01 sec… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Hardware Experiment Results. (a) To accurately measure the noise BLV individuals hear during walking, a person records the decibel value at his ear level while following the robot. (b) Both controllers (Our vs Default) are traveling at 1 m/s. The slower gait requires o…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Stair Climbing Tests. Comparison of the default and proposed controllers on a 12.7 cm rise, 60 cm tread stair-climbing task, demonstrating our controller improves stability, reduces roll, and lowers noise. speeds. A researcher holding a smartphone at ear level walked a…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: User Study Procedure and Setup. The study consists of four sequential phases and is conducted in our lab space, which is equipped with a custom-designed structure featuring a staircase and a ramp. We finalized this setup based on feedback from a guide dog handler regar…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Scores for noise, compliance, and satisfaction. Based on the participants’ responses, our controller is perceived as quieter and more compliant than the default controller by a noticeable margin. The guide dogs (labeled Animal) received the highest scores in all three …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Perceived workload and usability scores. (a) NASA-TLX results reveal a trend of increased workload during stair climbing compared to flat terrain. Participants reported relatively lower workload when using our robot, with the difference being most pronounced in the mor…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [25]

    Understanding expectations for a robotic guide dog for visually impaired people

    J Taery Kim, Morgan Byrd, Jack L Crandell, Bruce N Walker, Greg Turk, and Sehoon Ha. Understanding expectations for a robotic guide dog for visually impaired people. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.04594 , 2025

    arXiv 2025

  2. [32]

    Accurate power consumption estimation method makes walking robots energy efficient and quiet

    Giorgio Valsecchi, Andrea Vicari, Fabian Tischhauser, Manolo Garabini, and Marco Hutter. Accurate power consumption estimation method makes walking robots energy efficient and quiet. In 2024 IEEE/RSJ Inter- national Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 13282–13288. IEEE, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [26]

    Can quadruped guide robots be used as guide dogs? In 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pages 4094–4100

    Luyao Wang, Qihe Chen, Yan Zhang, Ziang Li, Tingmin Yan, Fan Wang, Guyue Zhou, and Jiangtao Gong. Can quadruped guide robots be used as guide dogs? In 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pages 4094–4100. IEEE, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [1]

    The experience of living with and using a dog guide

    Rachel Joy-Taub Miner. The experience of living with and using a dog guide. RE: view, 32(4):183, 2001

    2001

  5. [2]

    The benefits of guide dog owner- ship

    Lorraine Whitmarsh. The benefits of guide dog owner- ship. Visual impairment research, 7(1):27–42, 2005

    2005

  6. [3]

    World blindness and visual impairment: despite many successes, the problem is growing

    Peter Ackland, Serge Resnikoff, and Rupert Bourne. World blindness and visual impairment: despite many successes, the problem is growing. Community eye health, 30(100):71, 2017

    2017

  7. [4]

    Guiding Eyes for the Blind. FAQs. https://www. guidingeyes.org/about/faqs/

  8. [5]

    Realities of guide dog mobility – canadian guide dogs for the blind, 2023

    Canadian Guide Dogs for the Blind. Realities of guide dog mobility – canadian guide dogs for the blind, 2023

    2023

Show all 86 references
  1. [6]

    How much does a guide dog cost?, 2017

    Puppy In Training. How much does a guide dog cost?, 2017

    2017

  2. [7]

    Who we are - guiding eyes for the blind, 2023

    Guiding Eyes for the Blind. Who we are - guiding eyes for the blind, 2023

    2023

  3. [8]

    Guide dogs: Your questions answered – clovernook, 2023

    Clovernook Center for the Blind. Guide dogs: Your questions answered – clovernook, 2023

    2023

  4. [9]

    How to get a service dog - guide dogs of america, 2023

    Guide Dogs of America. How to get a service dog - guide dogs of america, 2023

    2023

  5. [10]

    Characteristics for success, 2023

    Guide Dog Foundation. Characteristics for success, 2023

    2023

  6. [11]

    Practice report: The wind- ing valley of grief: When a dog guide retires or dies

    Katherine Standish Schneider. Practice report: The wind- ing valley of grief: When a dog guide retires or dies. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness , 99(6):368– 370, 2005

    2005

  7. [12]

    Study of guide dog (seeing eye) robot (i)

    Susumu Tachi, Kazuo Tanie, K Komoriya, Yuji Hosoda, and Minoru Abe. Study of guide dog (seeing eye) robot (i). Bulletin of Mechanical Engineering Laboratory (Japan), 32, 1978

    1978

  8. [13]

    Multimodal sensing and intuitive steering assistance im- prove navigation and mobility for people with impaired vision

    Patrick Slade, Arjun Tambe, and Mykel J Kochenderfer. Multimodal sensing and intuitive steering assistance im- prove navigation and mobility for people with impaired vision. Science Robotics, 6(59):eabg6594, 2021

    2021

  9. [14]

    Cabot: Designing and evaluating an autonomous navigation robot for blind people

    Jo ˜ao Guerreiro, Daisuke Sato, Saki Asakawa, Huixu Dong, Kris M Kitani, and Chieko Asakawa. Cabot: Designing and evaluating an autonomous navigation robot for blind people. In The 21st International ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility , pages 68–82, 2019

    2019

  10. [15]

    Pathfinder: Designing a map-less navigation system for blind people in unfamiliar buildings

    Masaki Kuribayashi, Tatsuya Ishihara, Daisuke Sato, Jayakorn V ongkulbhisal, Karnik Ram, Seita Kayukawa, Hironobu Takagi, Shigeo Morishima, and Chieko Asakawa. Pathfinder: Designing a map-less navigation system for blind people in unfamiliar buildings. In Proceedings of the 20...

    2023

  11. [16]

    Dronenavigator: Using leashed and free-floating quadcopters to navigate visually impaired travelers

    Mauro Avila Soto, Markus Funk, Matthias Hoppe, Robin Boldt, Katrin Wolf, and Niels Henze. Dronenavigator: Using leashed and free-floating quadcopters to navigate visually impaired travelers. In Proceedings of the 19th international acm sigaccess conference on computers and acc...

    2017

  12. [17]

    Exploring the use of a drone to guide blind runners

    Majed Al Zayer, Sam Tregillus, Jiwan Bhandari, Dave Feil-Seifer, and Eelke Folmer. Exploring the use of a drone to guide blind runners. In Proceedings of the 18th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility , pages 263–264, 2016

    2016

  13. [18]

    Flying guide dog: Walkable path discovery for the visually impaired utilizing drones and transformer-based semantic segmentation

    Haobin Tan, Chang Chen, Xinyu Luo, Jiaming Zhang, Constantin Seibold, Kailun Yang, and Rainer Stiefelha- gen. Flying guide dog: Walkable path discovery for the visually impaired utilizing drones and transformer-based semantic segmentation. In 2021 IEEE International Con- feren...

    2021

  14. [19]

    Towards robotic companions: Understanding handler- guide dog interactions for informed guide dog robot design

    Hochul Hwang, Hee-Tae Jung, Nicholas A Giudice, Joy- deep Biswas, Sunghoon Ivan Lee, and Donghyun Kim. Towards robotic companions: Understanding handler- guide dog interactions for informed guide dog robot design. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Comput...

    2024

  15. [20]

    ” i am the follower, also the boss”: Exploring different levels of autonomy and machine forms of guiding robots for the visually impaired

    Yan Zhang, Ziang Li, Haole Guo, Luyao Wang, Qihe Chen, Wenjie Jiang, Mingming Fan, Guyue Zhou, and Jiangtao Gong. ” i am the follower, also the boss”: Exploring different levels of autonomy and machine forms of guiding robots for the visually impaired. In Proceedings of the 20...

    2023

  16. [21]

    Bbeep: A sonic collision avoidance system for blind travellers and nearby pedestrians

    Seita Kayukawa, Keita Higuchi, Jo ˜ao Guerreiro, Shi- geo Morishima, Yoichi Sato, Kris Kitani, and Chieko Asakawa. Bbeep: A sonic collision avoidance system for blind travellers and nearby pedestrians. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sys...

    2019

  17. [22]

    Dragon: A dialogue-based robot for assistive navigation with visual language grounding

    Shuijing Liu, Aamir Hasan, Kaiwen Hong, Runxuan Wang, Peixin Chang, Zachary Mizrachi, Justin Lin, D Livingston McPherson, Wendy A Rogers, and Kather- ine Driggs-Campbell. Dragon: A dialogue-based robot for assistive navigation with visual language grounding. IEEE Robotics and ...

    2024

  18. [23]

    Coupled indoor navigation for people who are blind

    Amal Nanavati, Xiang Zhi Tan, and Aaron Steinfeld. Coupled indoor navigation for people who are blind. In Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction , pages 201– 202, 2018

    2018

  19. [24]

    Navigating real-world challenges: A quadruped robot guiding system for visually impaired people in diverse environments

    Shaojun Cai, Ashwin Ram, Zhengtai Gou, Mohd Alqama Wasim Shaikh, Yu-An Chen, Yingjia Wan, Ko- taro Hara, Shengdong Zhao, and David Hsu. Navigating real-world challenges: A quadruped robot guiding system for visually impaired people in diverse environments. In Proceedings of th...

    2024

  20. [27]

    System configuration and navigation of a guide dog robot: Toward animal guide dog-level guiding work

    Hochul Hwang, Tim Xia, Ibrahima Keita, Ken Suzuki, Joydeep Biswas, Sunghoon I Lee, and Donghyun Kim. System configuration and navigation of a guide dog robot: Toward animal guide dog-level guiding work. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), p...

    2023

  21. [28]

    Extreme parkour with legged robots

    Xuxin Cheng, Kexin Shi, Ananye Agarwal, and Deepak Pathak. Extreme parkour with legged robots. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automa- tion (ICRA), pages 11443–11450, 2024

    2024

  22. [29]

    Robot parkour learning

    Ziwen Zhuang, Zipeng Fu, Jianren Wang, Christopher Atkeson, S ¨oren Schwertfeger, Chelsea Finn, and Hang Zhao. Robot parkour learning. In Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL), 2023

    2023

  23. [30]

    Pie: Parkour with implicit-explicit learning framework for legged robots

    Shixin Luo, Songbo Li, Ruiqi Yu, Zhicheng Wang, Jun Wu, and Qiuguo Zhu. Pie: Parkour with implicit-explicit learning framework for legged robots. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 9(11):9986–9993, 2024

    2024

  24. [31]

    Implementing reg- ularized predictive control for simultaneous real-time footstep and ground reaction force optimization

    Gerardo Bledt and Sangbae Kim. Implementing reg- ularized predictive control for simultaneous real-time footstep and ground reaction force optimization. In 2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pages 6316–6323. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  25. [33]

    Highly dynamic quadruped locomotion via whole-body impulse control and model predictive control

    Donghyun Kim, Jared Di Carlo, Benjamin Katz, Gerardo Bledt, and Sangbae Kim. Highly dynamic quadruped locomotion via whole-body impulse control and model predictive control. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.06586 , 2019

    1909 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Representation-free model predictive control for dynamic motions in quadrupeds

    Yanran Ding, Abhishek Pandala, Chuanzheng Li, Young- Ha Shin, and Hae-Won Park. Representation-free model predictive control for dynamic motions in quadrupeds. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 37(4):1154–1171, 2021

    2021

  27. [36]

    A real-time iteration scheme for nonlinear optimization in optimal feedback control

    Moritz Diehl, Hans Georg Bock, and Johannes P Schl¨oder. A real-time iteration scheme for nonlinear optimization in optimal feedback control. SIAM Journal on control and optimization , 43(5):1714–1736, 2005

    2005

  28. [37]

    Guide dog robot

    Susumu Tachi and Kiyoshi Komoriya. Guide dog robot. The Robotics Research 2 (The Second International Sym- posium 1984), 2:333–349, 1985

    1984

  29. [38]

    Guide dog robot (meldog)

    Tachi Laboratory, The University of Tokyo. Guide dog robot (meldog). https://tachilab.org/en/projects/meldog. html. Accessed: 2023-1-17

    2023

  30. [39]

    Structure and examination of the guidance robot lighbot for visually impaired and elderly people

    Kazuteru Tobita, Katsuyuki Sagayama, Mayuko Mori, and Ayako Tabuchi. Structure and examination of the guidance robot lighbot for visually impaired and elderly people. Journal of Robotics and Mechatronics, 30(1):86– 92, 2018

    2018

  31. [40]

    Examination of a guidance robot for visually impaired people

    Kazuteru Tobita, Katsuyuki Sagayama, and Hironori Ogawa. Examination of a guidance robot for visually impaired people. Journal of Robotics and Mechatronics , 29(4):720–727, 2017

    2017

  32. [41]

    A robotic wayfinding system for the visually impaired

    Vladimir Kulyukin, Chaitanya Gharpure, Pradnya Sute, Nathan De Graw, John Nicholson, and S Pavithran. A robotic wayfinding system for the visually impaired. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial In- telligence, pages 864–869. Menlo Park, CA; Cambridge, MA; Lo...

    1999

  33. [42]

    Autonomous path guiding robot for visually impaired people

    Rajesh Kannan Megalingam, Souraj Vishnu, Vishnu Sasikumar, and Sajikumar Sreekumar. Autonomous path guiding robot for visually impaired people. In Cognitive Informatics and Soft Computing: Proceeding of CISC 2017, pages 257–266. Springer, 2019

    2017

  34. [43]

    eyedog: an assistive- guide robot for the visually impaired

    Georgios Galatas, Christopher McMurrough, Gian Luca Mariottini, and Fillia Makedon. eyedog: an assistive- guide robot for the visually impaired. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on pervasive technolo- gies related to assistive environments , pages 1–8, 2011

    2011

  35. [44]

    Robotic guide dog: Leading a human with leash-guided hybrid physical interaction

    Anxing Xiao, Wenzhe Tong, Lizhi Yang, Jun Zeng, Zhongyu Li, and Koushil Sreenath. Robotic guide dog: Leading a human with leash-guided hybrid physical interaction. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 11470–11476. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  36. [45]

    Quadruped guidance robot for the visually impaired: A comfort-based approach

    Yanbo Chen, Zhengzhe Xu, Zhuozhu Jian, Gengpan Tang, Yunong Yangli, Anxing Xiao, Xueqian Wang, and Bin Liang. Quadruped guidance robot for the visually impaired: A comfort-based approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.03927, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Hierarchical and safe motion control for cooperative locomotion of robotic guide dogs and humans: A hybrid systems ap- proach

    Kaveh Akbari Hamed, Vinay R Kamidi, Wen-Loong Ma, Alexander Leonessa, and Aaron D Ames. Hierarchical and safe motion control for cooperative locomotion of robotic guide dogs and humans: A hybrid systems ap- proach. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 5(1):56– 63, 2019

    2019

  38. [47]

    Nsk develops a guide-dog style robot

    NSK Ltd. Nsk develops a guide-dog style robot. https: //www.nsk.com/company/news/2011/press111027b.html. Accessed: 2023-1-17

    2011

  39. [48]

    guide dog

    Brian L Due. A walk in the park with robodog: Navigat- ing around pedestrians using a spot robot as a “guide dog”. Space and Culture , page 12063312231159215, 2023

    2023

  40. [49]

    Talib, Her- dawatie Abdul Kadir, Ayob Johari, Ahmad Noraziah, Roslina Mohd Sidek, and Ariffin Abdul Mutalib

    Mohd Helmy Abd Wahab, Amirul A. Talib, Her- dawatie Abdul Kadir, Ayob Johari, Ahmad Noraziah, Roslina Mohd Sidek, and Ariffin Abdul Mutalib. Smart cane: Assistive cane for visually-impaired people. CoRR, abs/1110.5156, 2011

    2011 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Co-robotic cane: A new robotic navigation aid for the visually impaired

    Cang Ye, Soonhac Hong, Xiangfei Qian, and Wei Wu. Co-robotic cane: A new robotic navigation aid for the visually impaired. IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Magazine, 2(2):33–42, 2016

    2016

  42. [51]

    The guidecane- applying mobile robot technologies to assist the visually impaired

    Iwan Ulrich and Johann Borenstein. The guidecane- applying mobile robot technologies to assist the visually impaired. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans , 31(2):131– 136, 2001

    2001

  43. [52]

    Kinect cane: An assistive system for the visually impaired based on the concept of object recognition aid

    Hotaka Takizawa, Shotaro Yamaguchi, Mayumi Aoyagi, Nobuo Ezaki, and Shinji Mizuno. Kinect cane: An assistive system for the visually impaired based on the concept of object recognition aid. Personal and Ubiqui- tous Computing, 19:955–965, 2015

    2015

  44. [53]

    Kinect cane: An assistive system for the visually impaired based on three- dimensional object recognition

    Hotaka Takizawa, Shotaro Yamaguchi, Mayumi Aoyagi, Nobuo Ezaki, and Shinji Mizuno. Kinect cane: An assistive system for the visually impaired based on three- dimensional object recognition. In 2012 IEEE/SICE in- ternational symposium on system integration (SII) , pages 740–745...

    2012

  45. [54]

    Electronic white cane for blind people navigation assistance

    Jos ´e Faria, S ´ergio Lopes, Hugo Fernandes, Paulo Mar- tins, and Jo ˜ao Barroso. Electronic white cane for blind people navigation assistance. In 2010 World Automation Congress, pages 1–7. IEEE, 2010

    2010

  46. [55]

    Smart cane with range notification for blind people

    Mohammad Farid Saaid, AM Mohammad, and MSA Megat Ali. Smart cane with range notification for blind people. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Automatic Control and Intelligent Systems (I2CACIS) , pages 225–229. IEEE, 2016

    2016

  47. [56]

    Wewalk smart cane – smart cane for the visually impaired

    WeW ALK. Wewalk smart cane – smart cane for the visually impaired. https://wewalk.io/en/. Accessed: 2025- 1-1

    2025

  48. [57]

    A belt-like assistive device for visually impaired people: Toward a more collaborative approach

    Erick Javier Arg ¨uello Prada and Lina Mar ´ıa Santacruz Forero. A belt-like assistive device for visually impaired people: Toward a more collaborative approach. Cogent Engineering, 9(1):2048440, 2022

    2022

  49. [58]

    Bhatlawande, Jayant Mukhopadhyay, and Manjunatha Mahadevappa

    Shripad S. Bhatlawande, Jayant Mukhopadhyay, and Manjunatha Mahadevappa. Ultrasonic spectacles and waist-belt for visually impaired and blind person. In 2012 National Conference on Communications (NCC) , pages 1–4, 2012

    2012

  50. [59]

    Camera-based mobile electronic travel aids support for cognitive mapping of unknown spaces

    Limin Zeng, Markus Simros, and Gerhard Weber. Camera-based mobile electronic travel aids support for cognitive mapping of unknown spaces. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services, pages 1–10, 2017

    2017

  51. [60]

    Safe local navigation for visually impaired users with a time-of-flight and haptic feedback device

    Robert K Katzschmann, Brandon Araki, and Daniela Rus. Safe local navigation for visually impaired users with a time-of-flight and haptic feedback device. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation En- gineering, 26(3):583–593, 2018

    2018

  52. [61]

    Isana: wearable context- aware indoor assistive navigation with obstacle avoidance for the blind

    Bing Li, J Pablo Munoz, Xuejian Rong, Jizhong Xiao, Yingli Tian, and Aries Arditi. Isana: wearable context- aware indoor assistive navigation with obstacle avoidance for the blind. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2016 Work- shops: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 8-10 and 15-16, 20...

    2016

  53. [62]

    Assisting the visually impaired: obstacle detection and warning system by acoustic feedback

    Alberto Rodr ´ıguez, J Javier Yebes, Pablo F Alcan- tarilla, Luis M Bergasa, Javier Almaz ´an, and Andr ´es Cela. Assisting the visually impaired: obstacle detection and warning system by acoustic feedback. Sensors, 12(12):17476–17496, 2012

    2012

  54. [63]

    naviton” and “sound of vision

    Pawel Strumillo, Michal Bujacz, Przemyslaw Baranski, Piotr Skulimowski, Piotr Korbel, Mateusz Owczarek, Krzysztof Tomalczyk, Alin Moldoveanu, and Runar Un- nthorsson. Different approaches to aiding blind persons in mobility and navigation in the “naviton” and “sound of vision”...

    2018

  55. [64]

    Wear- able obstacle avoidance electronic travel aids for blind: a survey

    Dimitrios Dakopoulos and Nikolaos G Bourbakis. Wear- able obstacle avoidance electronic travel aids for blind: a survey. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cyber- netics, Part C (Applications and Reviews) , 40(1):25–35, 2009

    2009

  56. [65]

    Development of dialogue systems for a mobility aid for blind people: initial design and usability testing

    Thomas Strothotte, Steffi Fritz, Rainer Michel, Andreas Raab, Helen Petrie, Valerie Johnson, Lars Reichert, and Axel Schalt. Development of dialogue systems for a mobility aid for blind people: initial design and usability testing. In Proceedings of the second annual ACM confe...

    1996

  57. [66]

    Glidance: Self-guided mobility device for blind and low vision

    Glidance. Glidance: Self-guided mobility device for blind and low vision. https://glidance.io/. Accessed: 2025-1-1

    2025

  58. [67]

    Pick of the litter, 2018

    Disney. Pick of the litter, 2018

    2018

  59. [68]

    Deep trail-following robotic guide dog in pedes- trian environments for people who are blind and visually impaired-learning from virtual and real worlds

    Tzu-Kuan Chuang, Ni-Ching Lin, Jih-Shi Chen, Chen- Hao Hung, Yi-Wei Huang, Chunchih Teng, Haikun Huang, Lap-Fai Yu, Laura Giarr ´e, and Hsueh-Cheng Wang. Deep trail-following robotic guide dog in pedes- trian environments for people who are blind and visually impaired-learning...

    2018

  60. [69]

    Lysa c ˜ao-guia rob ˆos

    Vixsystem. Lysa c ˜ao-guia rob ˆos. https://www.vixsystem. com.br/produto/lysa-cao-guia-robo. Accessed: 2025-1-1

    2025

  61. [70]

    How to train your guide dog: Wayfinding and safe navigation with human-robot modeling

    J Taery Kim, Wenhao Yu, Jie Tan, Greg Turk, and Sehoon Ha. How to train your guide dog: Wayfinding and safe navigation with human-robot modeling. In Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pages 221–225, 2023

    2023

  62. [71]

    Intelligent robot ‘dog’ leads way for the blind - and a smarter future

    UESTC Glasgow College. Intelligent robot ‘dog’ leads way for the blind - and a smarter future. https://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/engineering/international/ uestc/newsletter-spring-24/headline 1046424 en.html. Accessed: 2025-1-1

    2025

  63. [72]

    guide robot

    Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Shanghai jiao tong university’s “guide robot”’, by prof. gaofeng’s team, improves lives of visually impaired individuals in china - international affairs division. https://global.sjtu.edu.cn/ en/news/view/1752. Accessed: 2025-1-1

    2025

  64. [73]

    Social security act §1614, 2010

    Social Security. Social security act §1614, 2010

    2010

  65. [74]

    Learning generic and dynamic loco- motion of humanoids across discrete terrains

    Shangqun Yu, Nisal Perera, Daniel Marew, and Donghyun Kim. Learning generic and dynamic loco- motion of humanoids across discrete terrains. In 2024 IEEE-RAS 23rd International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids), pages 1048–1055, 2024

    2024

  66. [75]

    Perceptive locomotion through nmiscar model predictive control

    Ruben Grandia, Fabian Jenelten, Shaohui Yang, Farbod Farshidian, and Marco Hutter. Perceptive locomotion through nmiscar model predictive control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.08373, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Tailoring so- lution accuracy for fast whole-body model predictive control of legged robots

    Charles Khazoom, Seungwoo Hong, Matthew Chignoli, Elijah Stanger-Jones, and Sangbae Kim. Tailoring so- lution accuracy for fast whole-body model predictive control of legged robots. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 9(12):11074–11081, 2024

    2024

  68. [77]

    Perceptive locomotion through nonlinear model-predictive control

    Ruben Grandia, Fabian Jenelten, Shaohui Yang, Farbod Farshidian, and Marco Hutter. Perceptive locomotion through nonlinear model-predictive control. IEEE Trans- actions on Robotics , 39(5):3402–3421, 2023

    2023

  69. [78]

    Vision aided dynamic exploration of unstructured terrain with a small-scale quadruped robot

    Donghyun Kim, Daniel Carballo, Jared Di Carlo, Ben- jamin Katz, Gerardo Bledt, Bryan Lim, and Sangbae Kim. Vision aided dynamic exploration of unstructured terrain with a small-scale quadruped robot. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), page...

    2020

  70. [79]

    Casadi: a software framework for nonlinear optimization and optimal con- trol

    Joel AE Andersson, Joris Gillis, Greg Horn, James B Rawlings, and Moritz Diehl. Casadi: a software framework for nonlinear optimization and optimal con- trol. Mathematical Programming Computation, 11:1–36, 2019

    2019

  71. [80]

    Stellato, G

    B. Stellato, G. Banjac, P. Goulart, A. Bemporad, and S. Boyd. OSQP: an operator splitting solver for quadratic programs. Mathematical Programming Computation , 12(4):637–672, 2020

    2020

  72. [81]

    Mujoco: A physics engine for model-based control

    Emanuel Todorov, Tom Erez, and Yuval Tassa. Mujoco: A physics engine for model-based control. In 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pages 5026–5033. IEEE, 2012

    2012

  73. [82]

    https://github.com/mit-biomimetics/Cheetah-Software, 2019

    Open source software for the mit mini cheetah robot. https://github.com/mit-biomimetics/Cheetah-Software, 2019

    2019

  74. [83]

    Ferreau, C

    H.J. Ferreau, C. Kirches, A. Potschka, H.G. Bock, and M. Diehl. qpOASES: A parametric active-set algorithm for quadratic programming. Mathematical Programming Computation, 6(4):327–363, 2014

    2014

  75. [84]

    Unitree robotics

    Unitree Robotics. Unitree robotics. https://shop.unitree. com/

  76. [85]

    Probabilistic terrain mapping for mobile robots with uncertain localization

    P ´eter Fankhauser, Michael Bloesch, and Marco Hutter. Probabilistic terrain mapping for mobile robots with uncertain localization. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters (RA-L), 3(4):3019–3026, 2018

    2018

  77. [86]

    Hart and Lowell E

    Sandra G. Hart and Lowell E. Staveland. Develop- ment of nasa-tlx (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Peter A. Hancock and Najmedin Meshkati, editors, Human Mental Workload , volume 52 of Advances in Psychology , pages 139–183. North-Holland, 1988

    1988

  78. [87]

    Sus-a quick and dirty usability scale

    John Brooke et al. Sus-a quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry , 189(194):4–7, 1996

    1996

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.