Project 15 Perceiving the Unseen for Enhanced Tool Use

2. Should this project be considered for the Best Project award? (yes/no) yes

3. Should this project be considered for the top 3 project awards? (yes/no) yes

4. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the overall organization/clarity
of the project report? (1-10) 10

5. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the overall project idea? (1-10) 9

6. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the overall research
contribution of the project idea, methodology and/or results?  (1-10) 8


Then write approximately 2 pages of helpful feedback to the project's
author(s). The following questions should help you organize your
feedback:

* Overall, is the project report clear, concise, and well-organized?
I am extremely impressed with the idea, organization, and execution of this project. You are obviously passionate about your subject, used great examples and tied it together very cohesively. The background research was well done with very good examples. The use of footnotes added additional context where needed. There were very informative diagrams throughout the report.

* How does the project idea and methodology fit within the framework
of Developmental Robotics? 
The topical area for this project ties very directly to subjects covered in class. It was based on the action in perception work of Alva Nöe, and sensory substitution work of Paul Bach-y-Rita. It is not a direct development robotics application in the sense that didn't use an actual robot, but was a very good application of the concepts covered in the course. I found it to be a relevant and very excellent project.

* Describe what you like BEST about the project?
I really like that you chose a project that tied so directly to your interests and strengths. The use of the Kinect is resourceful and the car gutsy :)  My guess is that you probably had a lot of fun planning and executing the project. Another aspect of the project is that there are direct several practical real-live applications for the technology you explored. Finally it was a very creative use of the technology you had available to you.

* Describe what you like LEAST about the project? 
Are you sure the guy squinting with the Kinect didn't cheat… 


* Do the methods, results and contributions of the final project
correspond to what was presented in the initial project proposal?
Yes they do. The project delivered on what was outlined in the proposal very faithfully. I honestly didn't know whether you would be able to pull it off, but you did. 

* Are there any major details left out with regards to the methods,
algorithms, or experimental design described in the report?
I would have liked more detail on the data collection and how the trials were scored. For test case 2, where objects were to be knocked down, it would have been interesting to know how many hits and misses occurred. Also was the order of the trials randomized (in other words is it possible that some of the results could have been the result of learning from the previous trial?) What were the characteristics of the experiment participants? Very experienced drivers? Are there differences due to age, sex, experience? What were the performance differences between drivers? 

I am not certain whether if it could have been done safely, but it may have been interesting to add a blind trial with VFSS apparatus that was not active (vs active) to find out if there was a placebo sort of effect. I would have liked to see a photo of the objects and map of the actual course if possible.

It was not clear to me is what was the visibility for the drivers. Was this conducted in darkness? Does that affect the results (were the drivers able to use headlights?)

* Do the experimental results reported in the paper demonstrate success?

The results show that augmenting mirrors with a camera and vibrotactile grid resulted in best driver performance in the trial. I believe it was a successful project based on the criteria set forth in the proposal.

* Do you have any suggestions for improvement and future work?
You did a very nice job of outlining future work. I really like how directly this work ties in with your profession. My suggestion would have been to more tightly couple the apparatus to correspond to the line of sight of the operator, but you covered that.

* How close is the final project report to being publishable as a
conference or journal paper (consider the research papers that were
part of the course reading)? What would it take to get there?
I think this was a practical project, but with a bit more detail on data collection and more trials, I think it could be published. The lit review and background sections were thorough and well written. Overall great job!