The various devices and techniques available for nonvisual travel may be evaluated in terms of the mobility coverage they provide. However, the coverage provided varies in relation to the function of the device or technique used. The long cane and the various techniques for its use are designed to provide the traveler with object, surface, and foot-placement preview. This article further refines the definition of those functions while specifying each in terms of its measurement.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BlaschB.B., & De l'AuneW.R. (1992). A computer profile of mobility coverage and a safety index.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 86, 249–254.
2.
BlaschB.B., & De l'AuneW.R. (1994, July 13). RoboCane®: A computer software model of the long cane. Paper presented at the Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired International Conference, Dallas.
DoddsA., CarterD., & HowarthC. (1983). Improving objective measures of mobility.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 77, 438–442.
5.
ElliottJ.L., & KuykT.K. (1992). Evaluation of the Wayne Walsh Safe-T-Lite Cane.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 86, 373–375.
6.
FiskS. (1986). Constant-contact technique with a modified tip: A new alternative for long-cane mobility.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 80, 999–1000.
7.
FoyC.J., VonSchedenM., & WaiculousJ. (1992). The Connecticut Pre-Cane: Case study and curriculum.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 86, 178–181.
8.
FranckL. (1990). Effect of cane with micro-prism reflecting tape on the nighttime visibility of blind rural travelers.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 84, 8–10.
9.
GeruschatD., & De l'AuneW. (1989). Reliability and validity of O&M instructors’ observations.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 83, 457–460.
10.
GuthD., HillE., & RieserJ. (1989). Tests of blind pedestrians’ use of traffic sounds for street crossing alignment.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 83, 461–468.
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 without sight.New Outlook for the Blind, 40, 246–251.
13.
JacobsonW. (1993). The art and science of teaching orientation and mobility to persons with visual impairments.New York: American Foundation for the Blind.
14.
LaGrowS. (1994). The effect of cane tip design on sticking while traveling with the touch and constant contact technique.OMIAA Journal of Orientation and Mobility, 12, 3–11.
15.
LaGrowS., BlaschB. B., & De l'AuneW.R. (In press). The efficacy of the touch technique for footfall and surface plane preview.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness.
16.
LaGrowS.J., KjeldstadA., & LewandowskiE. (1988). The effect of cane tip design on three aspects of nonvisual travel.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 82, 13–16.
17.
LaGrowS., & WeessiesM. (1994). Orientation and mobility: Techniques for independence.Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press.
18.
LongR. G., RiserJ.J., & HillE.W. (1990). Mobility in individuals with moderate visual impairments.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 78, 111–118.
19.
SkellingerA.C., & HillE.W. (1991). Current practices and considerations regarding long cane instruction with preschool children.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 85, 101–104.
20.
UslanM.M. (1978). Cane technique: Modifying the touch technique for full path coverage.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 72, 10–14.
21.
UslanM.M., & ManningP. (1974). A graphic analysis of touch technique safety.American Foundation for the Blind Research Bulletin, 28, 175–190.
22.
UslanM., & SchreibmanK. (1980). Drop-off detection in the touch technique.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 74, 179–182.
