ArticleBrain sciences2025
Wayfinding with Impaired Vision: Preferences for Cues, Strategies, and Aids (Part II-Perspectives from Orientation and Mobility Instructors).
Article in Brain sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesPeople with visual impairments can participate in orientation and mobility (O&M) training to learn how to navigate to their desired destinations. Instructors adapt their approach to each individual client. However, assessments of client characteristics and resulting instructional adaptations are not standardised and may therefore vary. This study aimed to identify which individual differences instructors consider during O&M training and why.
methodsWe conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 10 O&M instructors. Participants were asked to describe how they prepare for a training trajectory, and to describe a route they taught a specific client. Thematic analysis was used to determine instructional choices and the relevant client-specific factors.
resultsWe observed a common four-step instructional process in which clients are taught to notice, interpret, act upon, and anticipate relevant sensory cues until a destination is reached. Four main themes captured the individual differences impacting this process: Sensory modalities, Capacities and limits, Personal contextual characteristics, and Training approach.
conclusionsInstructors perceive route learning to be shaped by clients' sensory abilities (even fluctuating within sensory modalities), mental and physical capacities (especially concentration and energy), and personal characteristics (especially age and anxiety). The dynamic social context in which training takes place (e.g., the instructor-client relationship) is shaped by individual differences between both clients and instructors. We speculate that trust-related themes (e.g., building confidence) may explain why certain client characteristics are emphasised by instructors, as they are associated with training outcomes.
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.