ArticleJournal of visual impairment & blindness2019
Biomechanics of Long Cane Use.
Article in Journal of visual impairment & blindness, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and validation of the DHIS2 platform for integrating sociomedical data to study wound care outcomes.PloS one · 2024Article
- Inertial Measurement Unit Sensors in Assistive Technologies for Visually Impaired People, a Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- A Proposal of a Motion Measurement System to Support Visually Impaired People in Rehabilitation Using Low-Cost Inertial Sensors.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Intelligence Beliefs Predict Spatial Performance in Virtual Environments and Graphical Creativity Performance.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe modern long cane has been used by people who are blind for traveling for decades. This article describes parameters surrounding the collection of over 10,000 trials of people walking with the long cane to detect drop-offs or obstacles.
methodsThe data include 10,069 trials representing 101 different participants in 366 conditions over 11 studies spanning the 9 years from 2007 to 2016. Each of the studies investigated different participant or cane characteristics or both in terms of their effect on either drop-off or obstacle detection. Results of detection performance in these studies appear in other articles. This article describes biomechanical measures derived from 3-D motion analysis equipment used during the studies.
resultsInitial treatment of the large data set indicated that participants tended to not center their cane arc laterally on their body, deviating up to about 20 centimeters from midline. Arc widths averaged almost a meter, and arcs were generally centered. Participants were generally poor at being in step or having consistent rhythm. Coverage rates averaged about 85%. DISCUSSION: Although participants might have demonstrated artificially high skill performance due to being in a research study, data do offer insights into mechanical performance of skills. This survey of the data set indicates that not centering the hand holding the cane does not decrease body coverage less than about 85%. However, further analyses will be conducted to delve more deeply into all aspects of the data. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTITIONERS: Basic cane skills can be taught with short sessions and massed practice. Novices can acquire basic cane skills on par with cane users who are blind, but individual differences exist and the interplay of biomechanical variables needs to more fully understood.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.