Examines the shortcomings in existing objective measures of mobility in the light of evaluative experiences and demonstrates improvements in reliability, together with a new technique for tracking pavement position. Refutes the idea that it is not possible to measure improvement in performance objectively and attempts to give operational meaning to the term “enhancement.”
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArmstrongJ. D. (1972). An independent evaluation of the Key Binaural Sensor. Report to St. Dunstan's Committee. Nottingham, England: Blind Mobility Research Unit, University of Nottingham.
2.
ArmstrongJ. D. (1975). Evaluation of man-machine systems in the mobility of the visually handicapped. In PickettR. M., TriggsT. T. (Eds.), Human factors in health care.Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.
3.
DoddsA. G., ArmstrongJ. D., and ShingledeckerC. A. (1981). The Nottingham Obstacle Detector: Development and evaluation.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 75(5), 203–209.
4.
FoulkeE. (1979). What a theory of mobility should consider. Paper presented at the tenth Annual Conference on Mobility, Birmingham, England.
5.
HeyesA. D., ArmstrongJ. D., and WillansP. R. (1976). A comparison of heart rates during blind mobility and car driving.Ergonomics, 19(4), 489–497.
6.
HowarthC. I., HeyesA. D., DoddsA. G., and CarterD. D. C. (1981). Criteria for “enhanced” travel ability. Letter.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 75(4), 184.
7.
KayL. (1981). Criteria for “enhanced” travel ability. Letter.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 75(4), 184.
8.
PughR. W. (1971). Evaluation of a mobility aid. In NyeP. W. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Conference on the Evaluation of Mobility Aids for the Blind.Warrenton, Va.: National Academy of Engineering.
