The relationship between orientation and mobility (O&M) performance and residual vision is not clearly understood. Intuitively, good vision should result in good O&M, and little or no vision should result in poor O&M. However, the literature suggests a more complicated picture. The authors propose that certain psychological variables, such as particular personality traits and intelligence, may account for some of the complexity. This article reviews previous work in this area and outlines directions for future research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeggsW.D.A. (1991). Psychological correlates of walking speed in the visually impaired.Ergonomics, 34, 91–102.
2.
BrownB., BrabynL., WelchL., Haegerstrom-PortneyG., & ColenbranderA. (1986). Contribution of vision variables to mobility in age-related maculopathy patients.American Journal of Optometry & Physiological Optics, 63, 733–739.
3.
BrownB., & BrabynJ.A. (1987). Mobility and low vision: A review.Clinical & Experimental Optometry, 70, 96–101.
4.
ChapanisA. (1967). The relevance of laboratory studies to practical situations.Ergonomics, 10, 557–577.
5.
Clark-CarterD.D., HeyesA.D., & HowarthC.I. (1986). The efficiency and walking speed of visually impaired travelers.Ergonomics, 29, 779–789.
6.
CunninghamP.J., JohnstonA.W., & HowellE.R. (1980). Edge detection as a measure of functional visual performance of low vision patients. In Low Vision Ahead: Proceedings of the First Australian Pacific Conference on Low Vision.Association for the BlindMelbourne, Australia.
7.
DoddsA.G., BaileyP., PearsonA., & YatesL. (1991). Psychological factors in acquired visual impairment.: The development of a scale of adjustment.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 85, 306–310.
8.
DoddsA.G., & DavisD.P. (1989). Assessment and training of low vision clients for mobility.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 83, 439–446.
9.
EstermanM.D. (1982). Functional scoring of the binocular field.American Academy of Ophthalmology, 89, 1226–1234.
GenenskyS.M. (1976). Acuity measurements—Do they indicate how well a partially sighted person functions or could function?American Journal of Optometry & Physiological Optics, 53, 809–812.
12.
GenenskyS.M., BerryS.H., BickinsonT.H., & BicksonT.K. (1979). Visual environmental adaptation problems of the partially sighted: Final report (No. CPS-100-HEW). Santa Monica, CA: Center for the Partially Sighted, Santa Monica Hospital Medical Center.
13.
GinsburgA.P., EvansD.W., SekularR., & HarpS.A. (1982). Contrast sensitivity predicts performance in aircraft simulators.American Journal of Optometry and Physiological Optics, 59, 105–109.
14.
GuestD.J. (1980). The relation between visual loss and orientation and mobility. Unpublished MSc thesis, University of MelbourneMelbourne, Australia.
15.
HaymesS.A., GuestD.J., HeyesA.D., & JohnstonA.W. (1994). Comparison of functional mobility performance with clinical measures of vision in simulated retinitis pigmentosa.Optometry & Vision Science, 71, 442–453.
16.
JaffeP.E., & BastB.A. (1978). Coping and defense in relation to accommodation among a sample of blind men.Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 166, 385–388.
17.
JohnsonD.G. (1989). An unassisted method of psychological testing of visually impaired individuals.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 83, 114–118.
LieI. (1977). Relation of visual acuity to illumination, contrast and distance in the partially sighted.American Journal of Optometry & Physiological Optics, 54, 528–536.
20.
LongR.G., RieserJ.J., & HillE.W. (1990). Mobility in individuals with moderate visual impairments.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 84, 111–118.
21.
Lovie-KitchinJ., MainstoneJ., RobinsonJ., & BrownB. (1990). What areas of the visual field are important for mobility in low vision patients?Clinical Vision Science, 5, 249–263.
22.
MarronJ.A., & BaileyI.L. (1982). Visual factors and orientation-mobility performance.American Journal of Optometry & Physiological Optics, 59, 413–426.
23.
OwsleyC., & SloaneM.E. (1987). Contrast sensitivity, acuity, and the perception of “real-world” targets.British Journal of Opthalmology, 71, 791–796.
24.
PardhanS., & ElliottD.B. (1991). Clinical measurements of binocular summation and inhibition in patients with cataract.Clinical Vision Science, 6, 355–359.
25.
PelliD.G., RobsonJ.G., & WilkinsA.J. (1988). The design of a new letter chart for measuring contrast sensitivity.Clinical Vision Science, 2, 187–199.
26.
PostR.B., & LeibowitzH.W. (1986). Two modes of processing visual information: Implications for assessing visual impairment.American Journal of Optometry & Physiological Optics, 63, 94–96.
27.
RossJ.E. (1983). The functional aspects of visual disorder. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Oxford University.
28.
RovamoJ., & VirsuV. (1979). An estimation and application of the human cortical magnification factor.Experimental Brain Research, 37, 495–510.
29.
SheedyJ.E., BaileyI.L., & RaaschT.W. (1984). Visual acuity and chart luminance.American Journal of Optometry & Physiological Optics, 61, 595–600.
30.
SloanL.L. (1969). Variation of acuity with luminance in ocular diseases and anomalies.Documenta Opthalmologica, 26, 384–393.
31.
SwallowR. (1982). Fifty assessment instruments commonly used with blind and partially seeing individuals.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 75, 65–72.
32.
VerbakenJ. H., & JohnstonA.W. (1986a). Clinical contrast sensitivity testing: The current status.Clinical & Experimental Optometry, 69, 204–212.
33.
VerbakenJ. H., & JohnstonA.W. (1986b). Population norms for edge contrast sensitivity.American Journal of Optometry & Physiological Optics, 63, 724–732.
34.
WässleH., GrünertU., RöhrenbeckJ., & BoycottB. (1990). Retinal ganglion cell density and cortical magnification factor in the primate.Vision Research, 30, 1897–1911.
35.
WhiteK., CarrollR., & MartinW.Jr. (1990). Personality factors associated with the decision to accept or reject mobility training.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 84, 470–474.
36.
WoodsR.L., & WoodJ.M. (1995). The role of contrast sensitivity charts and contrast letter charts in clinical practice.Clinical & Experimental Optometry, 78, 43–57.
