ArticleJMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies2024
Navigation Training for Persons With Visual Disability Through Multisensory Assistive Technology: Mixed Methods Experimental Study.
Article in JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recent Developments in Research to Make the World Better for People with Low Vision.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Review
- Bioinspired Cane Interface for Orientation and Mobility in Virtual Reality Using Haptic and Auditory Feedback.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- VI-OCR: "Visually Impaired" optical character recognition pipeline for text accessibility assessment.Scientific reports · 2025Article
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
backgroundVisual disability is a growing problem for many middle-aged and older adults. Conventional mobility aids, such as white canes and guide dogs, have notable limitations that have led to increasing interest in electronic travel aids (ETAs). Despite remarkable progress, current ETAs lack empirical evidence and realistic testing environments and often focus on the substitution or augmentation of a single sense.
objectiveThis study aims to (1) establish a novel virtual reality (VR) environment to test the efficacy of ETAs in complex urban environments for a simulated visual impairment (VI) and (2) evaluate the impact of haptic and audio feedback, individually and combined, on navigation performance, movement behavior, and perception. Through this study, we aim to address gaps to advance the pragmatic development of assistive technologies (ATs) for persons with VI.
methodsThe VR platform was designed to resemble a subway station environment with the most common challenges faced by persons with VI during navigation. This environment was used to test our multisensory, AT-integrated VR platform among 72 healthy participants performing an obstacle avoidance task while experiencing symptoms of VI. Each participant performed the task 4 times: once with haptic feedback, once with audio feedback, once with both feedback types, and once without any feedback. Data analysis encompassed metrics such as completion time, head and body orientation, and trajectory length and smoothness. To evaluate the effectiveness and interaction of the 2 feedback modalities, we conducted a 2-way repeated measures ANOVA on continuous metrics and a Scheirer-Ray-Hare test on discrete ones. We also conducted a descriptive statistical analysis of participants' answers to a questionnaire, assessing their experience and preference for feedback modalities.
resultsResults from our study showed that haptic feedback significantly reduced collisions (P=.05) and the variability of the pitch angle of the head (P=.02). Audio feedback improved trajectory smoothness (P=.006) and mitigated the increase in the trajectory length from haptic feedback alone (P=.04). Participants reported a high level of engagement during the experiment (52/72, 72%) and found it interesting (42/72, 58%). However, when it came to feedback preferences, less than half of the participants (29/72, 40%) favored combined feedback modalities. This indicates that a majority preferred dedicated single modalities over combined ones.
conclusionsAT is crucial for individuals with VI; however, it often lacks user-centered design principles. Research should prioritize consumer-oriented methodologies, testing devices in a staged manner with progression toward more realistic, ecologically valid settings to ensure safety. Our multisensory, AT-integrated VR system takes a holistic approach, offering a first step toward enhancing users' spatial awareness, promoting safer mobility, and holds potential for applications in medical treatment, training, and rehabilitation. Technological advancements can further refine such devices, significantly improving independence and quality of life for those with VI.
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.