This study compared the drop-off detection performance with the two-point touch and constant contact cane techniques using a repeated-measures design with a convenience sample of 15 cane users with visual impairments. The constant contact technique was superior to the two-point touch technique in the drop-off detection rate and the 50% detection threshold. The findings may help an orientation and mobility instructor select an appropriate technique for a particular client or training situation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamoD. E. (2007). The influence of age and physical activity on the ability to use position and force feedback. Dissertation Abstracts International, 68, 10B (UMI No. 3287439).
2.
BlaschB. B., & De l'AuneW. (1992). A computer profile of mobility coverage and a safe index. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 86, 249–254.
3.
BlaschB. B., LaGrowS. J., & De l'AuneW. (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.
BongersR. M., SchellingerhoutR., van GrinsvenR., & SmitsmanA. W. (2002). Variables in the touch technique that influence the safety of cane walkers. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 96, 516–531.
5.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
CohenJ., CohenP., WestS. G., & AikenL. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
De BruinD. (1981, June). The constant contact technique. AAWB Newsletter, 9, 23–31.
8.
DyckP. J., KarnesJ., BushekW., SpringE., & O'BrienP. C. (1983). Computer-assisted sensory examination to detect and quantitate sensory deficit in diabetic neuropathy. Neurobehavioral Toxicology and Teratology, 5, 697–704.
9.
ErdfelderE., FaulF., & BuchnerA. (1996). Gpower: A general power analysis program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28(1), 1–11.
10.
FiskS. (1986). Constant-contact technique with a modified tip: A new alternative for long-cane mobility. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 80, 999–1000.
11.
FleischmanE. A., & RichS. (1963). Role of kinesthetic and spatial-visual abilities in perceptual motor learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 6–11.
12.
GescheiderG. A. (1997). Psychophysics: The fundamentals (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
GoldsteinE. B. (2007). Sensation and perception (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
14.
HillE. W., & PonderP. (1976). Orientation and mobility techniques: Guide for the practitioner.New York: American Foundation for the Blind.
15.
HurleyM. V., ReesJ., & NewhamD. J. (1998). Quadriceps function, proprioceptive acuity and functional performance in healthy young, middle-aged and elderly subjects. Age and Ageing, 27, 55–62.
16.
JacobsonW. H. (1993). The art and science of teaching orientation and mobility to persons with visual impairments.New York: AFB Press.
17.
LaGrowS. J., 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.
18.
LaGrowS. J., & WeessiesM. J. (1994). Orientation and mobility: Techniques for independence.Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press.
19.
MeeuwsenH. J., SawickiT. M., & StelmachG. E. (1993). Improved foot position sense as a result of repetitions in older adults. Journal of Gerontology, 48, 137–141.
20.
MillerM. E., & HooverR. E. (1946). Foot travel without sight. Outlook for the Blind, 40, 244–251.
21.
MorfordW. R. (1966). The value of supplementary visual information during practice on dynamic kinesthetic learning. Research Quarterly, 37, 393–405.
22.
PlattJ. R., & RacineR. J. (1985). Effect of frequency, timbre, experience, and feedback on musical tuning skills. Perception & Psychophysics, 38, 543–553.
23.
RecanzoneG. H., MerzenichM. M., & JenkinsW. M. (1992). Frequency discrimination training engaging a restricted skin surface results in an emergence of a cutaneous response zone in cortical area 3a. Journal of Neurophysiology, 67, 1057–1070.
24.
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.
25.
SimsK., & MortonJ. (1998). Modeling the training effects of kinaesthetic acuity measurement in children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39, 731–746.
26.
UslanM. (1978). Cane technique: Modifying the touch technique for full path coverage. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 72, 10–14.
27.
UslanM., & SchriebmanK. (1980). Dropoff detection in the touch technique. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 74, 179–182.
28.
Van BovenR. W., HamiltonR. H., KauffmanT., KeenanJ. P., & Pascual-LeoneA. (2000). Tactile spatial resolution in blind Braille readers. Neurology, 54, 2230–2236.
29.
Van HedelH. J., & DietzV. (2004). The influence of age on learning a locomotor task. Clinical Neurophysiology, 115, 2134–2143.
30.
VerrilloR. (1993). The effects of aging on the sense of touch. In VerrilloR., Sensory research: Multimodal perspectives (pp. 285–298). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31.
WallR. S., & AshmeadD. H. (2002). Changes in biomechanical features of the two-point touch technique as it is learned. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 96, 829–841.
