User Evaluation of Two Electronic Mobility Aids for Persons Who Are Visually Impaired: A Quasi-Experimental Study Using a Standardized Mobility Course

ABSTRACT This study was conducted to enhance insight into the functionality, usability, and efficacy of two systematically selected Electronic Mobility Aids (EMA) aimed at obstacle detection and orientation. Eight persons who are visually impaired participated in a user evaluation of the UltraCane and the Miniguide. The participants' mobility performance was observed while completing a standardized indoor mobility course with their regular mobility aid, then with each EMA, and assessed in terms of speed, Percentage Preferred Walking Speed (PPWS), type and number of mobility incidents made. Interviews were administered to ascertain users' satisfaction with the functionality, effectiveness and specific features of the assistive devices. Walking speed and PPWS declined when using an EMA compared to the long cane. The mean total number of previously defined mobility incidents decreased significantly and also the type of mobility incidents changed. Generally, participants were quite satisfied with the use of the EMA, and detailed advantageous as well as disadvantageous aspects concerning functionality and certain features of both devices. The UltraCane and the Miniguide have proven to be effective on an indoor mobility course. Individual users' characteristics and preferences appear to be critical for their appraisal of the devices.

[1]  Jan E Lovie-Kitchin,et al.  Preferred walking speed for assessment of mobility performance: sighted guide versus non‐sighted guide techniques , 2000, Clinical & experimental optometry.

[2]  J. L. Elliott,et al.  Visual Correlates of Mobility in Real World Settings in Older Adults with Low Vision , 1998, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[3]  N. Griffin-Shirley,et al.  Results of a National Survey of Electronic Travel Aid Use , 1989 .

[4]  D.R. Geruschat,et al.  Reliability and Validity of O&M Instructor Observations , 1989 .

[5]  Nancy Melin Nelson.  Adaptive technology , 1993 .

[6]  Christian J Foy.  Does mobility performance of visually impaired adults improve immediately after orientation and mobility training? , 2002, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[7]  C I Howarth,et al.  The efficiency and walking speed of visually impaired people. , 1986, Ergonomics.

[8]  Julia Studebaker,et al.  History and Evolution of Vision Rehabilitation: Parallels With Rehabilitation Medicine, Geriatric Medicine, and Psychiatry , 2004 .

[9]  R. Wessels,et al.  Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of QUEST 2.0 with users of various types of assistive devices , 2003, Disability and rehabilitation.

[10]  Gert Jan Gelderblom,et al.  Inventory of Electronic Mobility Aids for Persons with Visual Impairments: A Literature Review , 2008 .

[11]  Bruce B. Blasch,et al.  Accessibility and Mobility of Persons who are Visually Impaired: A Historical Analysis , 1995 .

[12]  G. Gelderblom,et al.  The Impact of Electronic Mobility Devices for Persons who are Visually Impaired: A Systematic Review of Effects and Effectiveness , 2009 .

[13]  C. I. Howarth,et al.  Improving Objective Measures of Mobility , 1983 .