Cieslinski - LaBarbera

IN3: A 3-Dimensional Surface Projector

Raymond Cieslinski Michael LaBarbera
Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center
Physics
12A
Mr. McMillan / Mr. Supal / Mrs. Tallman / Mr. Acre
3 January 2016
Table of Contents
Introduction..........................................................................................................................1
Review of Literature............................................................................................................3
Problem Statement...............................................................................................................8
Experimental Design............................................................................................................9
Data and Observations.......................................................................................................11
Data Analysis and Interpretation........................................................................................14
Conclusion.........................................................................................................................15

Cieslinski - LaBarbera
Appendix A: Material Production......................................................................................18
Appendix B: IN3 Graphing Device Assembly................................................................28
Appendix C: Wiring Diagram............................................................................................38
Appendix D: Programming................................................................................................40
Works Cited........................................................................................................................45

Cieslinski - LaBarbera
Introduction
In recent years, many technological advancements have been made towards the
aid for the visually impaired. Among these advancements is utilization of 3D printing,
which produces a physical model of a computer-designed object. These 3D printed
models are often used to aid the blind in visualizing objects that would otherwise be
foreign to them. Though 3D printing succeeds in aiding the blind, it is impractical in a
learning environment where teachers must 3D print new objects every time they are to
show their visually impaired students something new because it may take several hours to
print out one object, and for specific objects, teachers may need to produce their own
model, which takes technical skill and time to make. 3D printing also fails to produce
two-dimensional shapes such as squares, for a 3D printer can only print in 3D.
With this in mind, the purpose of this research was to revolutionize the way that
blind students are taught to visualize objects, two-dimensional and three-dimensional.
The result of this was the IN3. The IN3 is a three-dimensional surface projector that is
capable of replicating three-dimensional and two-dimensional objects that can be felt by
blind people. Through manipulation of a grid of individual tiles, which act like pixels on
a screen, shapes are produced by moving the tiles up and down, independent of each
other, to produce shapes. These shapes are given texture by setting the tiles to different
heights, which allows a visually impaired person to understand what shape is being made
by feeling the contours that are made by the tiles on the board.
Using the IN3 in a classroom would be a much more practical tool to aid blind
students than 3D printing because it requires no additional materials to run, it can
replicate objects in seconds rather than hours, and it is much more accessible to teachers

Cieslinski - LaBarbera
who are not familiar with three-dimensional design. With its simple software layout,
teachers can simply make shapes by plotting points on the grid program for the IN3
rather than having to design an object in a CAD program. The IN3 also allows for twodimensional shapes to be replicated as well, which is not possible with a 3D printer. With
the IN3, producing physical surfaces for visually impaired students is much more
accessible for teachers than ever.

Cieslinski - LaBarbera
Review of Literature
People living with partial or complete blindness will experience many difficulties
with all aspects of life. Education can be difficult for many because many concepts taught
are shown visually. In science, many topics are explained through diagrams and videos
to help students visualize the concepts and understand it. In history, past events are
sometimes described alongside a picture to help visualize the event. This lack of
visualizing inside of subjects can impair the learning of blind students.
Education becomes incredibly difficult in mathematics, which is the study relating
to numbers, quantity, and shape. In math, functions are often given to mathematically
show how something in the real world will work. Functions can be easily understood
when they are observed graphically, for many visual aspects of the graph can describe it.
Features such as asymptotes can be found visually by a graph approaching infinity.
Graphs can be used to estimate the degree of a function by looking at the number of
maximums and minimums it has. Visually, these features are easier to find than by
simply looking at the function a table needs to be created to find the same things. For
courses like geometry visualization is key. Three dimensional (3D) shapes are studied and
visualizing these objects can be difficult, says the Texas School for the Blind and the
Visually Impaired (Texas School for the Blind and the Visually Impaired). Objects are
generally created for students to hold to help with visualizing it. Susan Osterhaus, from
the Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired, is taking this visualization another
step forward and is working on several tools that could help the blind visualize

Cieslinski - LaBarbera
mathematical concepts, such as shapes that represent the figures in geometry that are
made specifically to help blind children visualize them (Osterhaus).
Very few tools exist to aid visually impaired math students. Calculators have been
created that will translate the results into speech but only the numerical results. These
calculators have no graphing capabilities. Other objects are sometimes created to
physically show shapes such as a dodecahedron for example. Much of what is made is
only created for very specific cases as it would be costly to produce many unique shapes.
There is a drawing utility that would be useful for drawing objects.

Figure 1. The inTACT, by E.A.S.Y Tactile Graphics

Cieslinski - LaBarbera
The inTACT, shown above in figure 1, is a tablet that uses magnetics to act as a
drawing surface that can be felt (inTACT). Teachers could draw a graph on the surface
then let the student feel the graph. However, this drawing surface would not accurately
graph the function, only estimate it.
A group of Engineering Ph.Ds from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has
created the first advance towards a three dimensional terrain generator that could aid the
blind in visualizing these mathematical concepts among doing several other things. Their
project is called the inFORM, and it can perform many tasks, from graphing three
dimensional functions to representing an objects presence in another location through
virtual recreation (MIT Tangible Media Group). The inFORM (below) is a large grid of
plastic tiles driven by linear actuators that individually control each tile to generate a
three dimensional surface.

Cieslinski - LaBarbera

Figure 2. The MIT inFORM

While this machine is a major advancement in three dimensional representation,
the overall design is not practical for mass reproduction, much less at an affordable price
to be placed in classrooms.
For that reason, the purpose of this research was to produce a machine that can
achieve similar results in a much more practical way. The first step to approaching this
was to determine the controller that will run the machine. There are two main platforms
that could drive a system like this. They are the Arduino and Raspberry Pi. The Arduino
is a microcontroller, which is a programmable, single-threaded chip that can perform
8

Cieslinski - LaBarbera
many tasks very quickly; however, due to the single-threaded processor, it can only
perform a single task at a time. On the other hand, a Raspberry Pi is essentially a
miniature computer. It features a multi-threaded processor as well as its own onboard
operating system. Brad Borque, a writer for the technology website, DigitalTrends,
explains that since it has multi-threading capabilities, multiple tasks can be performed at
the same time (Borque). Since the machine being built featured a grid consisting of many
individually-controlled tiles, the Raspberry Pi would have been the most optimal
approach because it offers the option to control multiple tiles at the same time; however,
using a Raspberry Pi is much more expensive and would have added unnecessary
complication to the machine, which would make this less cost-efficient and less
affordable if it were produced. It is because of this that the Arduino was the controller
that was chosen to be used to drive the board.
Continuing on improving cost-efficiency, the linear actuators used in MITs
inFORM were replaced with servo motors that utilized a pin that moved the tiles linearly.
This method of movement is much cheaper than using linear actuators because servo
motors can be cheaply obtained while actuators are more expensive to produce. Servo
motors can also be made smaller and more compact than linear actuators, which makes
them better to use because they save space inside of the board. Since many servo motors
were driven by a single microcontroller, a Spider Controller was used to drive the servos
due to the lack of output pins on the Arduino. The Spider controller is a motor controller
designed to run up to 64 servo motors off of it, which made it perfect for this project.

Cieslinski - LaBarbera
In all, by making use of these components, a three dimensional board was
produced at a much cheaper production cost. Though it will has some limitations, such as
not being able to take input in this first prototype, it was much more practical to produce
and put into classrooms to aid the blind in their studies.

10

Cieslinski - LaBarbera

Problem Statement
Problem:
To create a three-dimensional graphing device that can produce a physical graph
of a two-dimensional function for aiding visually-disabled students in understanding the
shapes of functions.
Hypothesis:
The device will be able to independently raise each tile at least half an inch, which
will be sufficient for a visually impaired person to determine the shape of any function.
Data Measured:
Students will be blindfolded and asked to identify which shape is being displayed
on the graphing device. If a student is correct in the identification, the trial will be marked
correct. If a student is incorrect in the identification, the trial will be marked incorrect. A
percent error will be used to analyze how many people were able to correctly identify the
shape on the board. This will be considered how accurately the device can replicate the
shapes produced.

11

Cieslinski - LaBarbera
Experimental Design
Materials:
IN3 Graphing Device
Laptop Computer
Mini USB male to USB male cable
Variable Power Supply
(2) Alligator Clip
Arduino Shape Program
Procedure:
1.
2.

Connect the power supply unit to the wall outlet and the alligator clips
Connect the other end of the alligator clips to the Spider Controllers power inputs
on the IN3 Graphing Device

3.

Connect the Mini USB connector to the Mini USB port on the IN3 Graphing
Device
4.

Connect the USB connector to the USB port on the Laptop Computer

5.

Launch the Arduino editor with the Arduino Shape Program.

6.

Instruct the test subject to close eyes and hold them closed until completion of
trial

7.

Display one of the four shape programs and instruct the test subject to feel the
IN3 Graphing Device to determine the shape
8.

9.

Read off the options to the participant

Record results, reset the board using the all down code, and instruct subject to
reopen eyes.

10.

Repeat steps 6 9 until completion of all trials

12

Cieslinski - LaBarbera
Diagram:

Figure 3. Diagram of IN3 being tested.

Figure 3 above shows the IN3 during a test. The shape being displayed is a circle.
The test subject has her eyes closed and she is about to feel the IN3.

13

Cieslinski - LaBarbera
Data and Observations
Data:
Table 1
Data Collected
Trial

Name of Participant

Correct (yes or no)

Shape

Eric Clark

yes

Square

Brian Nackoud

yes

Circle

Daniel Pisarski

yes

Right Triangle

William Niedbala

yes

Parabola

Megan Richards

yes

Circle

Emily Vo

yes

Parabola

Maria Gallo

yes

Square

Mark Supal

yes

Parabola

Ann Krause

yes

Circle

10

Brendan Maletski

yes

Right Triangle

11

Madison Werthmann

yes

Square

12

Kaitlyn Lumpkins

yes

Parabola

13

Winston Balmaceda

yes

Circle

14

Michael McMain

yes

Parabola

15

Matthew Cherry

yes

Square

16

Cooper Homic

yes

Parabola

17

Anthony Andrzejewski

yes

Circle

18

Abbey Auberle

yes

Right Triangle

19

Crystal Jacobs

yes

Right Triangle

20

Matthew Polgar

yes

Parabola

21

Mitchell Morley

yes

Square

22

Tyler Mahlmeister

yes

Parabola

23

Julius Cesar Estrope

yes

Square

24

Mohammed Saqib

yes

Right Triangle

25

Matthew Schultz

yes

Square

26

Aaron Espere

yes

Parabola

27

Madeline Manuel

yes

Right Triangle

28

Thanvir Ahmed

yes

Circle

29

Jeremy Maurice

yes

Square

30

Jack Banick

yes

Right Triangle

31

Megan Davey

yes

Square

32

Jacob Stanczyk

yes

Right Triangle

33

Zach Mahalak

yes

Square

Correct (yes or no)

Shape

Trial

Name of Participant

14

Cieslinski - LaBarbera
34

Rachel Balon

yes

Parabola

35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

John Kafoury
Brent Bulgarelli
Alexandria Nash
Cheyenne Taylor
Robert Feld
Tristan Delmotte
Katlyn Johns
Omar Wajeeh
Teresa Satawa
Emily Chapman
Bridgette Wolf
Kelsey Giffin
Christine Tallman
Kalie Tomlinson
Greg Macmillan
Brendan Kelley

yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes

Square
Right Triangle
Parabola
Right Triangle
Circle
Square
Parabola
Square
Right Triangle
Square
Parabola
Right Triangle
Parabola
Right Triangle
Square
Parabola

Table 1 above shows the data that was collected in order to test the IN3. The data
was descriptive and was based on the test subjects ability to determine the shape that was

15

Cieslinski - LaBarbera
projected on the board.

Figure 4. Shapes produced on the IN3

16

Cieslinski - LaBarbera
Figure 4 above depicts the four shapes that were produced on the IN3 for testing. In the
upper left corner is a right triangle, in the upper right corner is a circle, in the lower left
corner is a downward facing parabola, and in the lower right corner is a square.
Observations:
Though every test subject successfully identified their given shape, some shapes
were noted to be easier than others to identify. The square and right triangle seemed to be
the easiest to identify because most test subjects that had these shapes were able to
identify them before the options were even given. The circle and parabola, however, on
average took more time. This could be due to the fact that round surfaces were highly
pixelated on the IN3 because of the 6 x 6 resolution. Among all of the shapes given, the
circle was considered the most difficult to identify because of its rough pixelation. This
suggests that if the IN3 were to be implemented to produce curved shapes, then it would
need to have an increased resolution to account for the pixelation.

17

Cieslinski - Labarbera

Data Analysis and Interpretation

In this experiment, the data collected yielded very promising results. Out of the
fifty trials that were completed, every test subject identified the shape on the IN3
correctly. For this reason, it was determined that there was no percent error in replicating
shapes. This shows that even though the IN3 was pixelated, it was successful in
portraying different shapes. With this, it follows that the IN3 would be a suitable tool to
aid visually impaired students to envision shapes that would otherwise be abstract.

18

Cieslinski - Labarbera
Conclusion
The goal of this research was to develop a device that could be used to project
three-dimensional surfaces in the physical world to aid the visually impaired. This goal
was achieved by building a board that manipulated an array of thirty six servo motors in a
grid formation to raise tiles and produce a three-dimensional image. By impairing the
vision of sighted people and having them identify various shapes that the board produced,
it was determined that the IN3 is capable of exposing visually impaired students to
abstract shapes that would otherwise be intangible to them. With fifty individual test
subjects, there was a one-hundred percent success rate, indicating that each program
accurately represented the intended shape.
While the IN3 succeeds in many ways to produce shapes that can be felt by an
impaired individual, there is much room for improvement. Since the board only consists
of a six by six grid of movable tiles, the accuracy to which it can reproduce some shapes
is greatly hindered. For example, curved shapes such as the parabola and the circle that
were tested were always heavily pixelated, which made guessing them harder. Though
the test results show that every test was successful, it was noticed that the subjects who
were given curved shapes took more time to guess, especially with the circle. Other
shapes that are not curved, including hexagons and octagons, would also be poorly
replicated on the low resolution of this board because there are not enough pixels to
accurately represent these shapes. In order to be able to replicate these shapes more
accurately, the tiles would need to be smaller so that there would be a higher pixel
density. By doing this and increasing the total number of tiles in the grid, perhaps to a

19

Cieslinski - Labarbera
twenty by twenty tile grid, the replication accuracy that the board is capable of would be
significantly increased.
Another aspect of the IN3 that would help users to easier identify shapes would be
to stabilize the tiles. When building the IN3, two acrylic sheets were put in place to keep
the tiles oriented upwards at all times, but they did not keep them perfectly straight.
When producing shapes on the board, this created rough and uneven edges that caused
discomfort to the people using it. These uneven edges also distorted the shapes being
produced on the board, which slowed down some of the test subjects when guessing
shapes. This could be fixed by cutting the acrylic sheets with a tighter tolerance so that
they wrap closer around the tiles. This would stop the tiles from moving and would keep
them aligned straight up.
While there are many parts of the IN3 that can be improved upon, in its current state, it
has proven to be sufficient in surface replication through several tests of its ability to
replicate shapes. This shows that the IN3 would suffice to aid visually impaired students
to visualize abstract concepts such as two-dimensional shapes. With some improvements
made to this board, the IN3 could revolutionize the way that three-dimensional models
are replicated in the physical world. Though 3D printing is a simple way to produce
models in the physical world, the cost of producing several models from plastic becomes
increasingly large as more models are produced, and the amount of time to 3D print an
object can take several hours to more than a day, depending on the quality of the printer.
With the IN3, no extra material is required to run the board, for it replicates surfaces by
rearranging the tiles. The IN3 is also more time efficient in producing surfaces because it
takes an average of 10 seconds to produce an image on the board, as opposed to several

20

Cieslinski - Labarbera
hours. The IN3 can also be quickly changed if one wants to change part of the model
being replicated. Though the IN3 is an early prototype, it shows potential to be a
successful surface replicating tool, with many applications.

21

Cieslinski - Labarbera
Works Cited

Borque, Brad. "Arduino vs. Raspberry Pi: Mortal Enemies, or Best Friends?" Digital
Trends. Digital Trends, 08 Mar. 2015. Web. 02 Oct. 2015.
<http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/arduino-vs-raspberry-pi/>.
"InFORM." Tangible Media Group. MIT Tangible Media Group, n.d. Web. 02 Oct. 2015.
<http://tangible.media.mit.edu/project/inform/>.
"InTact." Easy Tactile Graphics. Easy Tactile Graphics, n.d. Web.
<http://www.easytactilegraphics.com/intact-products/>.
"Message for Screen Reader Users." Teaching Strategies. Texas School for the Blind and
Visually Impaired, n.d. Web. 02 Oct. 2015. <http://www.tsbvi.edu/resourcesmath/3237-teaching-strategies.html>.
Osterhaus, Susan. "Teaching Math to Students Who Are Blind or Visually Impaired."
Perkins ELearning. Perkins ELearning, n.d. Web.
<http://www.perkinselearning.org/videos/webcast/teaching-math-students-whoare-blind-or-visually-impaired#chapter5>.

22