ArticleBiomimetics (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Bioinspired Cane Interface for Orientation and Mobility in Virtual Reality Using Haptic and Auditory Feedback.
Article in Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland), 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article reports the design, implementation, and formative perception-based evaluation of an early-stage virtual reality (VR) prototype that integrates a virtual cane, localized haptic feedback, 3D audio, and a three-layer bioinspired sensing framework. The prototype was implemented in Unity 2022.3 using the XR Interaction Toolkit and URP and was structured according to design science research methodology (DSRM). The bat-whisker-contact framework was used as a functional abstraction to organize distal auditory reference or warning, proximal haptic feedback, and contact confirmation; it was not evaluated against a non-bioinspired baseline. The completed evaluation consisted of an anonymous, voluntary, post-use questionnaire administered to 25 sighted participants who could select which visual-input configurations to experience. The analysis focused on reported clarity, tolerability, initial signal interpretability, and design feedback; it did not include objective navigation metrics or assess clinical efficacy, training transfer, accessibility outcomes, or orientation-and-mobility performance in blind or low-vision users. General responses suggested favorable perceived clarity and multimodal usefulness, while cane length, floor-versus-wall/obstacle differentiation, and reported discomfort identified priorities for technical refinement. In the simulated no-vision condition (n = 21), participants reported high reliance on the cane response, whereas reported initial insecurity or doubt and basic mental map ratings remained mixed. The study contributes an early-stage technological artifact and a formative basis for subsequent controlled evaluations with objective performance measures, reference conditions, and target users or orientation and mobility specialists.
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.