Orientation and mobility outcome measures

REFERENCES

• Jacobson WH. The Art and Science of Teaching Orientation and Mobility to Persons With Visual Impairments. New York, NY: AFB Press, 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Kurniawan S, Manduchi R. Assistive Technology for Blindness and Low Vision. (Online). Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Blasch BB, Weiner WR, Welsh RL. Foundations of Orientation and Mobility, 2nd ed. American Foundation for the Blind: New York, NY, 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Zijlstra GAR, Rens G, Scherder E et al. Effects and feasibility of a standardised orientation and mobility training in using an identification cane for older adults with low vision: design of a randomised controlled trial. BMC Health Serv Res 2009; 9: 153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ballemans J, Zijlstra GR, van Rens GH et al. Usefulness and acceptability of a standardised orientation and mobility training for partially‐sighted older adults using an identification cane. BMC Health Serv Res 2012; 12: 141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brody BL, Gamst AC, Williams RA et al. Depression, visual acuity, comorbidity, and disability associated with age‐related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 2001; 108: 1893–1900.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Boer MR, Moll AC, de Vet HC et al. Psychometric properties of vision‐related quality of life questionnaires: a systematic review. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2004; 24: 257–273.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lampinen P, Heikkinen E. Reduced mobility and physical activity as predictors of depressive symptoms among community‐dwelling older adults: an eight‐year follow‐up study. Aging Clin Exp Res 2003; 15: 205–211.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wei TS, Hu CH, Wang SH et al. Fall characteristics, functional mobility and bone mineral density as risk factors of hip fracture in the community‐dwelling ambulatory elderly. Osteoporos Int 2001; 12: 1050–1055.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones T, Jain J. Examining the experiences of sight‐impaired travellers: the next station stop? Br J Visual Impairment 2006; 24: 141–144.
   Google Scholar
• Roentgen UR, Gelderblom GJ, Soede M et al. The impact of electronic mobility devices for persons who are visually impaired: a systematic review of effects and effectiveness. J Visual Impairment Blindness 2009; 103: 743–753.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim DS, Emerson RS, Curtis AB. Ergonomic factors related to drop‐off detection with the long cane: effects of cane tips and techniques. Hum Factors 2010; 52: 456–465.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armstrong JD. Evaluation of man‐machine systems in the mobility of the visually handicapped. In: Picket RM, Triggs TJ, eds. Human Factors in Health Care. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1975. pp. 331–343.
   Google Scholar
• Dodds AG, Carter DD, Howarth CI. Improving objective measures of mobility. J Visual Impairment Blindness 1983; 77: 438–442.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finger RP, Ayton LN, Deverell L et al. Developing a very low vision orientation and mobility test battery (O&M‐VLV). Optom Vis Sci 2016; 93: 1127–1136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leat SJ, Lovie‐kitchin JE. Measuring mobility performance: experience gained in designing a mobility course. Clin Exp Optom 2006; 89: 215–228.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deverell L. O&M environmental complexity scale. Int J Orientat Mobility 2011; 4: 64–77.
   Google Scholar
• Deverell L, Bentley SA, Ayton LN et al. Effective mobility framework: a tool for designing comprehensive O&M outcome research. Int J Orientat Mobility 2015; 7: 74–86.
   Google Scholar
• Ivanov IV, Mackeben M, Vollmer A et al. Eye movement training and suggested gaze strategies in tunnel vision ‐ a randomized and controlled pilot study. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0157825.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lahav O, Schloerb DW, Srinivasan MA. Virtual environments for people who are visually impaired integrated into an orientation and mobility program. J Visual Impairment Blindness 2015; 109: 5–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Legge GE, Gage R, Baek Y et al. Indoor spatial updating with reduced visual information. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0150708.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merabet LB, Connors EC, Halko MA et al. Teaching the blind to find their way by playing video games. PLoS One 2012; 7: e44958.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Velikay‐parel M, Ivastinovic D, Koch M et al. Repeated mobility testing for later artificial visual function evaluation. J Neural Eng 2007; 4: S102–S107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bibby SA, Maslin ER, Mcilraith R et al. Vision and self‐reported mobility performance in patients with low vision. Clin Exp Optom 2007; 90: 115–123.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fortin M, Voss P, Lord C et al. Wayfinding in the blind: larger ippocampal volume and supranormal spatial navigation. Brain 2008; 131: 2995–3005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman DS, Freeman E, Munoz B et al. Glaucoma and mobility performance: the Salisbury Eye Evaluation Project. Ophthalmology 2007; 114: 2232–2237.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuhr PS, Liu L, Kuyk TK. Relationships between feature search and mobility performance in persons with severe visual impairment. Optom Vis Sci 2007; 84: 393–400.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leat JS, Lovie‐kitchin JE. Visual function, visual attention, and mobility performance in low vision. Optom Vis Sci 2008; 85: 1049–1056.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lovie‐kitchin JE, Soong GP, Hassan SE et al. Visual field size criteria for mobility rehabilitation referral. Optom Vis Sci 2010; 87: E948–E957.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel I, Turano KA, Broman AT et al. Measures of visual function and percentage of preferred walking speed in older adults: the Salisbury Eye Evaluation Project. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006; 47: 65–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warrian KJ, Katz LJ, Myers JS et al. A comparison of methods used to evaluate mobility performance in the visually impaired. Br J Ophthalmol 2015; 99: 113–118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhatlawande S, Mahadevappa M, Mukherjee J et al. Design, development, and clinical evaluation of the electronic mobility cane for vision rehabilitation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2014; 22: 1148–1159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chebat DR, Maidenbaum S, Amedi A. Navigation using sensory substitution in real and virtual mazes. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0126307.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flores G, Kurniawan S, Manduchi R et al. Vibrotactile guidance for wayfinding of blind walkers. IEEE Trans Haptics 2015; 8: 306–317.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ganz A, Schafer J, Gandhi S et al. PERCEPT indoor navigation system for the blind and visually impaired: architecture and experimentation. Int J Telemed Appl 2012; 2012: 894869.
   Google Scholar
• Garcia S, Petrini K, Rubin GS et al. Visual and non‐visual navigation in blind patients with a retinal prosthesis. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0134369.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geruschat DR, Bittner AK, Dagnelie G. Orientation and mobility assessment in retinal prosthetic clinical trials. Optom Vis Sci 2012; 89: 1308–1315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Havik EM, Kooijman AC, Steyvers FJ. The effectiveness of verbal information provided by electronic travel aids for visually impaired persons. J Visual Impairment Blindness 2011; 105: 624–637.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones T, Troscianko T. Mobility performance of low‐vision adults using an electronic mobility aid. Clin Exp Optom 2006; 89: 10–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalia AA, Legge GE, Roy R et al. Assessment of indoor route‐finding technology for people who are visually impaired. J Visual Impairment Blindness 2010; 104: 135–147.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim S, Cho K. Usability and design guidelines of smart canes for users with visual impairments. Int J Des 2013; 7: 99–110.
   Google Scholar
• Kolarik AJ, Scarfe AC, Moore BC et al. Blindness enhances auditory obstacle circumvention: assessing echolocation, sensory substitution, and visual‐based navigation. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0175750.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreilinger A, Georgi T, Pregartner G et al. Quantifying the impact on navigation performance in visually impaired: auditory information loss versus information gain enabled through electronic travel aids. PLoS One 2018; 13: e0196156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis L, Sharples S, Chandler E et al. Hearing the way: requirements and preferences for technology‐supported navigation aids. Appl Ergon 2015; 48: 56–69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penrod WM, Simmons TJ, Bauder DK et al. A comparison of selected secondary electronic travel aids with a primary mobility system. Int J Orientat Mobility 2009; 2: 27–41.
   Google Scholar
• Roentgen UR, Gelderblom GJ, De witte LP. User evaluation of two electronic mobility aids for persons who are visually impaired: a quasi‐experimental study using a standardized mobility course. Assist Technol 2012; 24: 110–120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross DA, Kelly GW. Filling the gaps for indoor wayfinding. J Visual Impairment Blindness 2009; 103: 229–234.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Rheede JJ, Wilson IR, Qian RI et al. Improving mobility performance in low vision with a distance‐based representation of the visual scene. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2015; 56: 4802–4809.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ponchillia PE, Rak EC, Freeland AL et al. Accessible GPS: reorientation and target location among users with visual impairments. J Visual Impairment Blindness 2007; 101: 389–401.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark‐carter DD, Heyes AD, Howarth CI. The efficiency and walking speed of visually impaired people. Ergonomics 1986; 29: 779–789.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soong GP, Lovie‐kitchin JE, Brown B. Preferred walking speed for assessment of mobility performance: sighted guide versus non‐sighted guide techniques. Clin Exp Optom 2000; 83: 279–282.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Turano KA, Geruschat DR, Stahl JW et al. Perceived visual ability for independent mobility in persons with retinitis pigmentosa. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999; 40: 865–877.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turano KA, Massof RW, Quigley HA. A self‐assessment instrument designed for measuring independent mobility in RP patients: generalizability to glaucoma patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002; 43: 2874–2881.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beggs WD. Psychological correlates of walking speed in the visually impaired. Ergonomics 1991; 34: 91–102.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haymes S, Guest D, Heyes A et al. Mobility of people with retinitis pigmentosa as a function of vision and psychological variables. Optom Vis Sci 1996; 73: 621–637.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hassan SE, Lovie‐kitchin JE, Woods RL. Vision and mobility performance of subjects with age‐related macular degeneration. Optom Vis Sci 2002; 79: 697–707.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deverell L, Bentley SA, Ayton LN et al. Effective mobility framework: a tool for designing comprehensive O&M outcomes research. Int J Orientat Mobility 2015; 7: 74Y86.
   Google Scholar