Wal-Mart Tests Robots for Blind Shoppers

Written by Evan Schuman
May 16th, 2005

Wal-Mart on Thursday started quietly testing a university-created robot designed to help visually impaired consumers navigate store aisles and find their desired products.

The robot?named RG, for Robotic Guide?is the creation of Vladimir Kulyukin, an assistant professor of computer science at Utah State University and the director of the university’s Computer Science Assistive Technology Laboratory.

The initial version of RG?which weighs about 22 pounds and is roughly the height of an upright vacuum cleaner?is limited to three basic functions.

First, it guides the consumer through the aisles and around people, displays and merchandise using RFID readers and 16 ultrasonic sonars. The navigation system is sophisticated enough to handle environments?including elevators and limited open spaces?that usually literally trip up robots, Kulyukin said.

The university has posted quite a few videos of RG in various stages of testing.

Its second function is to communicate with the consumer. It takes instructions via a small Braille directory of products that is attached to the robot’s handle, and it replies to the shopper’s questions with spoken answers.

The third function is to use its RFID reader to locate the desired products. The store’s RFID tags help the robot navigate the lanes as well as locate products.

“There are RFID sensors placed on the shelves in the store. The robot has the RFID antennae and detects the presence of those tags,” Kulyukin said. “That’s how it knows it’s reached the Colgate section of the toothpaste shelf and it then announces, ‘You have reached the Colgate toothpaste section, on your right.'”

The robot has its limitations, though. Until item-level tagging becomes the norm, the system can indicate only the part of the shelf where the product is supposed to be. If it’s been moved?either by an employee moving stock who forgot to move the update the RFID tag or by another consumer who put a tube of Aim toothpaste amidst the Colgate?the visually impaired consumer might grab the wrong product.

“It certainly can be jumbled, and there is the potential to pick up the wrong product,” Kulyukin said, adding that his team is trying to add a robotic bar code into the system so that the robot would announce the product being placed in the cart. That functionality would likely address most of the mistaken product purchases, he said.

The robot’s development is still at a very early stage and has thus far mostly been paid for with a $500,000 grant from the National Science Foundation, Kulyukin said. He is negotiating with a large national retail chain to buy the units and invest in its further development.

Kulyukin refused to identify the chain, but an employee in the university’s public relations department, Whitney Wilkinson, said the chain was indeed Wal-Mart. Kulyukin also said Wal-Mart was testing it locally.

The store manager of the Wal-Mart store in North Logan, Utah, right near the university’s labs, confirmed that RG had arrived on Thursday.

“It’s a great thing for the customers who don’t have their eyesight,” said Wal-Mart store manager Ron Tuttle. “We have a lot of customers who come in and ask for someone to help them. I talked with one lady and she was very excited about it because it makes her feel more independent.”

The cost of the robots will vary depending on how many of them Kulyukin’s team is asked to create, but he purposely kept the cost low. To create a second robot would cost him about $10,000, he said, adding that the per-unit cost would drop to about $4,000 to $5,000 if thousands were ordered and to about $1,500 if millions were ordered. He said he will need about $3 million to $5 million in seed money to move to the next stage of development and production.

The technical hardware of the system is simple: Most of the components sit in a PVC pipe structure. The robot’s microcontroller is attached to a laptop, with which it communicates via serial cable. The laptop also can communicate using an 802.11b wireless card.

Kulyukin said he has spent much of his life focused on using technology to help those with physical challenges, partly to help his brother, who has always had severe hearing disabilities. “Growing up as the brother of a disabled child, I know firsthand how harsh the environment can be on you,” he said.

The problem of blind shoppers is fairly widespread. The National Institutes of Health’s National Eye Institute estimates that 80 million Americans today have potentially blinding eye diseases and 1.1 million people are legally blind.

“Approximately 12 million people have some degree of visual impairment that cannot be corrected by glasses, and more than 100 million people need corrective lenses to see properly,” the institute’s Web site says.

Given that RG is only in very limited experimentation today, how do most blind consumers shop? “They simply don’t go grocery shopping,” Kulyukin said. “If you happen to have a sighted spouse or a friend, that’s what you do. [RG] is an independence device.”

The business side of the retail argument for these robots is twofold. First, the people who shop for those blind consumers might not shop at the places those consumers would want. These kinds of robots would return the store-selection power back to those consumers.

Secondly, not many grocery stores have the financial resources of a Wal-Mart to invest in this level of robotic technology. Arguably, this could be a major differentiating factor in bringing visually impaired customers?and their friends and families?to Wal-Mart who might otherwise have shopped at the competition.

Kulyukin also said that having a small squadron of robots around a retail shop could be valuable in other ways. When there are no customers using the robots, they can assist in moving merchandise, carrying extremely heavy boxes and unloading trucks. After all, what good is having a bionic robotic arm if it’s not flexed once in a while?

The robot “doesn’t have to sit idly in the store. It can optimize the store’s supply operations,” Kulyukin said. “Instead of letting a truck come to the store and having it unloaded manually, load it onto the robot and then let the robot deliver it.”


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.