ArticleScientific reports2026
Distance judgement in individuals with vision and hearing loss.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
Abstract
Distance judgement is essential for safe navigation. People with vision loss (VL) increasingly rely on hearing for distance judgement. However, it is unclear how well auditory cues compensate for visual deficits, especially in those with additional hearing loss (dual sensory loss, DSL). This study evaluated the visual, auditory and audiovisual distance judgement in VL and DSL, by both verbally estimating and walking to remembered target locations. Fifty adults (16 controls, 19 VL, 15 DSL) estimated the distances of visual, auditory, and audiovisual targets across six distances (0.9-5.4 m) in a normal acoustic room, by verbally report the distances or walk to the perceived locations. The visual stimuli were flashing red lights. The auditory stimuli were pulsing tones. Accuracy was measured with root mean squared error, and bias was assessed by regression slopes between actual and estimated distances. In our task, visual judgement remained accurate among VL and DSL participants, matching controls. Auditory estimates showed greater errors and biases for all groups, especially for DSL. With audiovisual cues, the VL and DSL groups performed worse than using vision alone. The agreement between verbal reports and walking responses were strong for visual and audiovisual conditions (r
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.