In a series of experiments, canes of different lengths, weights, and weight distributions were assessed to determine the effect of these characteristics on various performance measures. The results indicate that the overall weight of a cane and the distribution of weight along a cane's shaft do not affect a person's performance, but accuracy does decline with the amount of time a person wields the cane, so a heavier cane may exacerbate this fatigue.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BallM. J. (1964). Mobility in perspective. Blindness: AAWB Annual, 107–141.
2.
BlaschB., & De l'AuneW. (1992). A computer profile of mobility coverage and a safety index. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 86, 249–254.
3.
BlaschB. B., LaGrowS. J., & De l'AuneW. R. (1996). Three aspects of coverage provided by the long cane: Object, surface, and foot-placement preview. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 90, 295–301.
4.
BurtonG. (1992). Nonvisual judgment of the crossability of path gaps. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 698–713.
5.
BurtonG. (1994). Crossing without vision of path gaps. Journal of Motor Behavior, 26, 147–161.
6.
CrossmanE. R. (1960). The information capacity of the human motor system in pursuit tracking. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 183–190.
7.
FoulkeE. (1967, December). The cane as a channel for the communication of information. Proceedings of the Conference for Mobility Trainers and Instructors (pp. 19–26). Cambridge, MA: Sensory Aids and Evaluation Center, MIT.
8.
FoulkeE. (1975). The development of an improved cane for use by blind pedestrians. In Perceptual Alternatives Laboratory: Annual report to the dean of the Graduate School (July 1, 1974 through June 30, 1975) (pp. 57–69). Louisville, KY: Perceptual Alternatives Laboratory, University of Louisville.
9.
GreenS. B., SalkindN. J., & AkeyT. M. (1999). Using SPSS for Windows: Analyzing and understanding data (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
10.
HairJ. F., AndersonR. E., TathamR. L., & BlackW. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
11.
HillE., & PonderP. (1976). Orientation and mobility techniques: A guide for the practitioner.New York: American Foundation for the Blind.
12.
HooverR. (1946). Foot travel at Valley Forge. New Outlook for the Blind and the Teachers Forum, 40, 246–251.
13.
HooverR. E. (1962). The cane as a travel aid. In ZahlP. A. (Ed.), Blindness (2nd ed., pp. 353–365). New York: Hafner.
14.
JacobsonW. H., & EhresmanP. (1983). Modification of the two-point touch cane technique: A pilot study. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 77, 103–107.
15.
KeppelG. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
16.
LaGrowS., BlaschB. B., & De l'AuneW. (1997). Efficacy of the touch technique for surface and foot-placement preview. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 91, 47–52.
17.
LaGrowS., & WeessiesM. (1994). Orientation and mobility: Techniques for independence.Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press.
18.
LoutfyB. A., & BakerO. J. (1949). The use of the cane. Outlook for the Blind and the Teachers Forum, 4, 197–200.
19.
MorrisonD. F. (1990). Multivariate statistical methods (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
20.
National Academy of Sciences. (1972). The cane as a mobility aid for the blind.Washington, DC: National Research Council,
21.
PotterL. E. (1997). An analysis of drop-off detection with the long cane. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 91, 595–602.
22.
PoultonE. C. (1954). Eye-hand span in a simple serial task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 403–410.
23.
SchellingerhoutR., BongersR. M., van GrinsvenR., SmitsmanA. W., & van GalenG. P. (2001). Improving obstacle detection by redesign of walking canes for blind persons. Ergonomics, 44, 513–526.
24.
ToozeD. (1981). Independence training for visually handicapped children.Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
25.
UslanM. M., & ManningP. (1974). A graphic analysis of touch technique safety. American Foundation for the Blind Research Bulletin, 28, 175–190.
26.
UslanM., & SchriebmanK. (1980). Dropoff detection in the touch technique. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 74, 179–182.
27.
WalravenJ. (1982). Ergonomics, mechanics, and functional aspects of the long cane.Soesterberg, The Netherlands: Institute for Perception TNO.
28.
WallR. S. (2002). Biomechanical substrates of the two-point touch cane technique. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 96, 86–97.
29.
WallR. S., & AshmeadD. H. (2002). A comparison of biomechanical movements in expert cane users with and without visual disabilities. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 96, 501–515.
