ArticleScientific reports2026
Efficacy of electronic travel aids for the blind and visually impaired during wayfinding.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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.
- Improving outdoor navigation for people with blindness using an AI-driven smartphone application and personalized audio guidance.Nature biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- 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
- AI-Assisted Vision Alarming System for Blind and Vision- Impaired People.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Learning visual to auditory sensory substitution reveals flexibility in image to sound mapping.NPJ science of learning · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Independent traveling remains challenging for blind and visually impaired (BVI) individuals. While the white cane is effective at detecting ground-level obstacles, it provides no information about elevated obstacles or object characteristics. Recent technologies have been designed to support navigation as well as object detection. In our study, we compared the performance of 13 BVI participants who separately used two secondary electronic travel aids (ETAs) versus cane use alone. One ETA was a camera-based mobility vest (NOA), and the other was an ultrasonic sensor-based wearable (BuzzClip). Participants completed an obstacle avoidance task with both ETAs and an object detection task using two versions of NOA's object-finding functionality. Quantitative performance measures and semi-structured interviews were collected. NOA resulted in enhanced obstacle avoidance. Participants used their canes less and collided less with obstacles when using NOA than the BuzzClip or the white cane alone. NOA resulted in lower frustration and higher perceived performance, as well as greater perceived safety and obstacle detection than the BuzzClip. Object-finding performance outcomes were similar across both versions, suggesting potential benefit from a dynamic combination of approaches tailored for each user. Collectively, these data underscore how ETAs may be integrated into use by the BVI community.
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.