The contribution of preview to the performance of open tasks is pointed out, and sensory anticipation and perceptual anticipation are discussed as components of preview. A case is then made for regarding the blind pedestrian's task as a typical example of an open task. Next, there is a review of research in which the contribution of preview to the performance of open tasks has been observed under controlled conditions. Preview has not been the variable of primary interest in the studies of the performance of blind pedestrians reported so far. However, some experiments have provided indications of the importance of preview, and these experiments are reviewed. The article concludes by urging the necessity of understanding preview, so that its contribution to the performance of blind pedestrians can be taken into account in the formulation of mobility training programs and the design of mobility aids.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllenD.Orientation and mobility for persons with low vision.Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 1977, 71, 13–15.
2.
AmmonsC. H., & WorchelP.“Facial vision”: The perception of obstacles out of doors by blindfolded-deafened subjects.American Journal of Psychology, 1953, 66, 519–553.
3.
ArmstrongJ. D.An independent evaluation of the Kay Binaural Sensor.Nottingham: Blind Mobility Research Unit, University of Nottingham, Internal Report, 1972.
4.
BakerE. J., & AlluisiE. A.Information handling aspects of visual and auditory form perception.Journal of Engineering Psychology, 1962, 1, 159–179.
5.
BarthJ. L.The effects of preview constraint on perceptual motor behavior and stress level in a mobility task. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Louisville1978.
6.
BenjaminJ. M.The Bionic Instrument C-4 Laser Cane.Evaluation of mobility aids for the blind.National Academy of Engineering1971, 9–16.
7.
CollinsC. C., ScaddenL. A., & AldenA. B.Mobility studies with a tactile imaging device. Paper presented at the Conference on Systems and Devices for the Disabled, Seattle, June 1977.
8.
CotzinM., & DallenbachK. M.“Facial vision”: The role of pitch and loudness in the perception of obstacles by the blind.American Journal of Psychology, 1950, 63, 485–515.
9.
CrossmanE. R.The information capacity of the human motor system in pursuit tracking.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1960, 12, 1–16.
10.
FoulkeE.The perceptual basis for mobility.American Foundation for the Blind Research Bulletin, 1970, 23, 1–8.
11.
GoldishL. H.The severely visually impaired population as a market for sensory aids and services: Part I.New Outlook for the Blind, 1972, 66, 183–190.
12.
GoldishL. H., & MarxM. H.The visually impaired as a market for sensory aids and services: Part II. Aids and services for partially sighted persons.New Outlook for the Blind, 1973, 67, 289–296.
13.
HershmanR. L., & HillixW. A.Data processing in typing: Typing rate as a function of kind of material and amount exposed.Human Factors, 1965, 7, 483–492.
14.
HooverR. E.The cane as a travel aid. In ZahlP. A. (Ed.), Blindness.Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950.
15.
JanssonG.The detection of objects by the blind with the aid of a laser cane.Uppsala: Department of Psychology, University of Uppsala, Report # 172, 1975.
16.
JanssonG., & SchenkmanB.The effect of the range of a laser cane on the detection of objects by the blind.Uppsala: Department of Psychology, University of Uppsala, Report #211, 1977.
17.
KohlerI.Orientation by aural cues.American Foundation for the Blind Research Bulletin, 1964, 4, 14–53.
18.
KondoM., & AjimineA.Drivers sight point and dynamics of the driver-vehicle system related to it. Society of Automotive Engineers Paper 680104, 1968.
19.
LeonardJ. A.Advance information in sensory-motor skills.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1953, 5, 141–149.
20.
LeonardJ. A.Studies in blind mobility.Applied Ergonomics, 1972, March, 37–46.
21.
LeonardJ. A., & NewmanR. C.Three types of maps for blind travel.Ergonomics, 1970, 13, 165–179.
22.
LevinH., & KaplanE. L.Listening, reading, and grammatical structure.Perception of language: Part I. Annual symposium proceedings.Pittsburgh: Learning and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh, 1969.
23.
McLeanJ. R., & HoffmanE. R.The effects of restricted preview on driver steering control and performance.Human Factors, 1973, 15, 421–430.
24.
MontyR. A.Keeping track of things. (Technical Memorandum No. 29-74.) Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Md.: Human Engineering Laboratory, 1974.
25.
NyeP. W.A preliminary evaluation of the Bionic Instruments-Veterans Administration C-4 Laser Cane.National Academy of Sciences, 1973.
26.
PoultonE. C.The basis of perceptual anticipation in tracking.British Journal of Psychology, 1952, 43, 295–302. (a)
27.
PoultonE. C.Eye-hand span in simple serial tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1954, 47, 403–410.
28.
PoultonE. C.On prediction in skilled movements.Psychological Bulletin, 1957, 54, 467–478.
29.
PoultonE. C.Perceptual anticipation and reaction time.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1950, 3, 99–112.
30.
PoultonE. C.Perceptual anticipation in tracking with two-pointer and one-pointer displays.British Journal of Psychology, 1952, 43, 222–229. (b)
31.
ShingledeckerC. A.The effects of anticipation on performance and processing load in blind mobility.Ergonomics, 1978, 21, 355–372.
32.
ShingledeckerC. A., & FoulkeF.A human factors approach to the assessment of the mobility of blind pedestrians.Human Factors, 1978, 20, 273–286.
