ArticlePloS one2024
Effectiveness of different sounds in human echolocation in live tests.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Echolocation is a vital method of spatial orientation for many visually impaired individuals who are willing to and able to learn it. Blind echolocators use a variety of sounds, such as mouth clicks, cane taps, or specialized sound-emitting devices, to perceive their surroundings. In our study, we examined the effectiveness of several different sounds used in echolocation by conducting trials with 12 blind and 14 sighted volunteers. None of the participants had received formal training in echolocation, though a number identified as self-taught experts. The sounds tested included those played from a loudspeaker, generated by a mechanical clicker, or made by the participants themselves. The task given to the participants was to identify the direction and distance to an obstacle measuring 1x2 meters in an outdoor environment, with the obstacle placed in one of nine possible positions. Our findings indicated that the blind participants displayed significantly better echolocation skills when compared to the sighted participants. The results of the blind participants were also strongly divided into two distinct subgroups-totally blind participants performed much better than those which were legally blind, but had some residual vision. In terms of sound comparisons, we found that sounds with a center frequency near 3-4kHz and a wide spectrum provided higher accuracy rates than those with lower frequency peaks. Sighted participants performed best with 3kHz and 4kHz percussion sounds, while the blind group performed best with blue and pink noise. The loudspeaker generated tones generally yielded better results than those generated by the participant (using a mechanical clicker, mouth clicks or hand claps). These results may be useful in developing training programs that teach echolocation as well as artificial sounds to improve echolocation effectiveness.
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.