Skip to content
Chimera readability score 0.4779 out of 100, reading level.

Wheelchair users with severe disabilities can often navigate tight spaces better than most robotic systems can. A wave of new smart-wheelchair research, including findings presented in Anaheim, Calif., earlier this month, is now testing whether AI-powered systems can, or should, fully close this gap.
Christian Mandel—senior researcher at the German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI) in Bremen, Germany—co-led a research team together with his colleague Serge Autexier that developed prototype sensor-equipped electric wheelchairs designed to navigate a roomful of potential obstacles. The researchers also tested a new safety system that integrated sensor data from the wheelchair and from sensors in the room, including from drone-based color and depth cameras.
Mandel says the team’s smart wheelchairs were both semiautonomous and autonomous.
“Semiautonomous is the shared control system where the person sitting in the wheelchair uses the joystick to drive,” Mandel says. “Fully autonomous is controlled by natural-language input. You say, ‘Please drive me to the coffee machine.’ ”
This is a close-up of the wheelchair’s joystick and camera.DFKI
The researchers conducted experiments (part of a larger project called the Reliable and Explainable Swarm Intelligence for People With Reduced Mobility, or REXASI-PRO) using two identical smart wheelchairs that each contained two lidars, a 3D camera, odometers, user interfaces, and an embedded computer.
In contrast to semiautonomous mode, where the participant controls the wheelchair with a joystick, in autonomous mode, control involves the open-source ROS2 Nav2 navigation system using natural-language input. The wheelchairs also used simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) maps and local obstacle-avoidance motion controllers.
One scenario that Mandel and his team tested involved the user pressing a key on the wheelchair’s human-machine interface, speaking a command, then confirming or rejecting the instruction via that same interface. Once the user confirmed the command, the mobility device guided the user along a path to the destination, while sensors attempted to detect obstacles in the way and adjust the mobility device accordingly to avoid them.
When Are Smart Wheelchairs Bad Value?
According to Pooja Viswanathan, CEO & founder of the Toronto-based Braze Mobility, research in the field of mobile assistive technology should also prioritize keeping these devices readily available to everyday consumers.
“Cost remains a major barrier,” she says. “Funding systems are often not designed to support advanced add-on intelligence unless there is very clear evidence of value and safety. Reliability is another barrier. A smart wheelchair has to work not just in ideal conditions, but in the messy, variable conditions of daily life. And there is also the human factors dimension. Users have different cognitive, motor, sensory, and environmental needs, so one solution rarely fits all.”
For its part, Braze makes blind-spot sensors for electric wheelchairs. The sensors detect obstacles in areas that can be difficult for a user to see. The sensors can also be added to any wheelchair to transform it into a smart wheelchair by providing multimodal alerts to the user. This approach attempts to support users rather than replace them.
According to Louise Devinge, a biomedical research engineer from IRISA (Research Institute of Computer Science and Random Systems) in Rennes, France, the increased complexity of smart wheelchairs demands more sensing. And that requires careful management of communication and synchronization within the wheelchair’s system. “The more sensing, computation, and autonomy you add,” she says, “the harder it becomes to ensure robust performance across the full range of real-world environments that wheelchair users encounter.”
In the near term, in other words, the field’s biggest challenge is not about replacing the wheelchair user with AI smarts but rather about designing better partnerships between the user and the technology.
This image shows data representations used by the 3D Driving Assistant. These include immutable sensor percepts such as laser scans and point clouds, as well as derived representations like the virtual laser scans and grid maps. Finally, the robot shape collection describes the wheelchair’s physical borders at different heights.DFKI
Where Will Smart Wheelchairs Go From Here?
Mandel says he expects to see smart wheelchairs ready for the mainstream marketplace within 10 years.
Viswanathan says the REXASI-PRO system, while out of reach of present-day smart wheelchair technologies, is important for the longer term. “It reflects the more ambitious end of the smart wheelchair spectrum,” she says. “Its strengths appear to lie in intelligent navigation, advanced sensing, and the broader effort to build a wheelchair that can interpret and respond to complex environments in a more autonomous way. From a research standpoint, that is exactly the kind of work that pushes the field forward. It also appears to take seriously the importance of trustworthy and explainable AI, which is essential in any mobility technology where safety, reliability, and user confidence are paramount.”
Mandel says he’s ultimately in pursuit of the inspiration that got him into this field years ago. As a young researcher, he says, he helped develop a smart wheelchair system controllable with a head joystick.
However, Mandel says he realized after many trials that the smart wheelchair system he was working on had a long way to go because, as he says, “at that point in time, I realized that even persons that had severe handicaps [traveling through] a narrow passage, they did very, very well.
“And then I realized, okay, there is this need for this technology, but never underestimate what [wheelchair users] can do without it.”
The DFKI researchers presented their work earlier this month at the CSUN Assistive Technology Conference in Anaheim, Calif.
This article was supported by the IEEE Foundation and a Jon C. Taenzer fellowship grant.
- Forget Jet Packs—Why Don’t We Have Stair-Climbing Wheelchairs? ›
- Rory Cooper’s Wheelchair Tech Makes the World More Accessible ›
- Lidar Mobility Device Assists Navigation and Avoids Collisions ›
Jason Hahr is a 39-year-old journalist who is a wheelchair user and has a severe form of cerebral palsy. He became a journalist and blogger thirteen years ago. He is currently a 2025 IEEE Spectrum Taenzer Fellow covering disability rights and assistive technologies. He advocates for not letting one's disability define who they are. Assistive technologies, Hahr says, should be designed and made to improve the lives of people with disabilities, not to "fix" them.

Facts Only

Researchers from the German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI) developed prototype smart wheelchairs equipped with sensors, including lidar, 3D cameras, and odometers.
The prototypes were presented at the CSUN Assistive Technology Conference in Anaheim, California, earlier this month.
The smart wheelchairs operate in semiautonomous mode (joystick control) and autonomous mode (natural-language input).
The autonomous mode uses the ROS2 Nav2 navigation system and simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) for obstacle avoidance.
Experiments were part of the REXASI-PRO project, testing navigation and safety systems with drone-based sensors.
Pooja Viswanathan, CEO of Braze Mobility, identifies cost, reliability, and user diversity as major barriers to smart wheelchair adoption.
Braze Mobility produces blind-spot sensors for wheelchairs, designed to enhance safety without replacing user control.
Louise Devinge of IRISA highlights the challenges of managing increased sensing and autonomy in real-world environments.
Christian Mandel of DFKI expects smart wheelchairs to reach mainstream markets within 10 years.
Mandel previously developed a head-joystick-controlled wheelchair but recognized the limitations of early smart wheelchair technology.
The research was supported by the IEEE Foundation and a Jon C. Taenzer fellowship grant.

Executive Summary

Researchers are developing AI-powered smart wheelchairs to enhance mobility for users with severe disabilities, though challenges remain in cost, reliability, and user adaptability. A team from the German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI) presented prototypes at the CSUN Assistive Technology Conference in Anaheim, California, featuring semiautonomous and fully autonomous modes. The semiautonomous system allows users to control the wheelchair via joystick, while the autonomous mode uses natural-language commands, such as directing the chair to a specific location. The wheelchairs integrate lidar, 3D cameras, and drone-based sensors to navigate obstacles, with experiments conducted as part of the REXASI-PRO project.
Industry experts highlight barriers to adoption, including high costs, funding limitations, and the need for robust performance in real-world conditions. Pooja Viswanathan of Braze Mobility emphasizes the importance of affordability and adaptability, advocating for assistive technologies that support rather than replace users. Louise Devinge of IRISA notes that increased complexity in smart wheelchairs requires careful system management to ensure reliability. While mainstream availability may be a decade away, the research pushes the field toward more intelligent, user-centered mobility solutions.

Full Take

The narrative around AI-powered smart wheelchairs presents a compelling vision of technological empowerment for people with disabilities, but it also reveals deeper tensions about autonomy, cost, and the role of assistive technology. The strongest version of this story acknowledges genuine progress—researchers are pushing boundaries with advanced sensing and navigation systems, aiming to bridge gaps in mobility. However, the enthusiasm for innovation must be tempered by practical realities: funding constraints, the need for reliability in unpredictable environments, and the ethical imperative to design tools that augment rather than replace human agency.
Patterns detected: none
At its core, this discussion reflects a broader paradigm in assistive technology—one that oscillates between the promise of AI-driven solutions and the humility of recognizing that existing users often outperform machines in complex tasks. The historical pattern echoes past waves of techno-optimism, where breakthroughs in robotics or automation were met with skepticism about real-world applicability. Here, the tension isn’t just technical but philosophical: Should the goal be full autonomy, or should technology serve as a collaborative partner?
The implications for human dignity are significant. While smart wheelchairs could liberate users from physical constraints, over-reliance on AI risks disempowering those who have already mastered navigation through lived experience. Cost barriers could exacerbate inequality, leaving cutting-edge solutions accessible only to a privileged few. Second-order consequences might include shifts in healthcare funding priorities or even societal perceptions of disability—will these tools be seen as "fixes" rather than enhancements?
Bridge questions: How might the development of smart wheelchairs intersect with broader debates about AI ethics and accessibility? What trade-offs between autonomy and user control are acceptable, and who gets to decide? If cost remains prohibitive, what alternative models (e.g., modular upgrades) could democratize access?
Counterstrike scan: A bad actor might exploit this narrative to push a techno-solutionist agenda, framing AI as the sole answer to disability challenges while dismissing user-centered design. However, the actual content resists this by emphasizing collaboration, reliability concerns, and the irreplaceable role of human skill. The focus on explainable AI and incremental progress suggests a healthy skepticism toward overpromising.

Sentinel — Human

Confidence

The article exhibits strong human signals: uneven rhythm, personal voice, and technical depth unlikely to be AI-generated. Minimal stylometric or coordination red flags suggest organic authorship.

Signals Detected
low severity: Varied sentence structure with idiosyncratic phrasing (e.g., 'messy, variable conditions of daily life') and natural digressions (e.g., Mandel's personal anecdote about head joystick trials).
low severity: Strong narrative voice with passionate emphasis (e.g., Viswanathan's critique of funding systems, Mandel's reflection on underestimating users) and uneven paragraph lengths.
low severity: Diverse attributions with specific affiliations (DFKI, Braze Mobility, IRISA) and project names (REXASI-PRO), reducing template-matching risk.
low severity: Concrete details (e.g., sensor types, ROS2 Nav2, CSUN conference) and verifiable context (IEEE fellowship, Taenzer grant).
Human Indicators
Personal anecdotes from Mandel and Hahr's advocacy stance
Technical specificity (e.g., SLAM maps, lidar configurations) inconsistent with LLM confabulation
Asymmetrical balance—critiques of cost/reliability outweigh promotional tone