CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 153

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The efficiency and walking speed of visually impaired people

CLARK-CARTER, D. D., HEYES, A. D., HOWARTH, C. I.·1986·Ergonomics
DOI 10.1080/00140138608968314
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

All pedestrians have a walking speed which they prefer. This appears to be the speed which, for them, is the most physically efficient. Blind pedestrians, if allowed to set the pace when accompanied by a sighted guide, will prefer to walk at a speed which is close to that of sighted pedestrians. However, when walking independently they adopt a pace which is slower than their preferred walking speed. By converting adopted walking speed into a proportion of preferred walking speed we are able to show that subject data may be pooled and comparisons made which had hitherto been impossible. Furthermore, statements may be made about the physiological efficiency of a performance. For example, efficiency varies with route difficulty, increases with increased preview, and only users of guide dogs reach their optimum efficiency.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00140138608968314

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • People who are blind and walk without a guide have a slower preferred walking speed that is unlikely to correspond to their COT minimum.

    “However, without a guide, their preferred walking speed is slower and is unlikely to correspond to their COT minimum.”

    From Preferred walking speed on rough terrain: is it all about energetics? (2019) · cites this paper as Clark-Carter et al. (1986)

  • Simply minimizing COT does not fully represent the human objective function for walking speed.

    “In summary, based on both the current findings, which show a difference between the speed that minimizes the COT and the preferred speed on rough terrain, and previous research (Brown et al., 2002;Clark-Carter et al., 1986;Monsch et al., 2012;Schniepp et al., 2014), it seems that simply minimizing COT does not fully represent the human objective function for walking speed.”

    From Preferred walking speed on rough terrain: is it all about energetics? (2019) · cites this paper as Clark-Carter et al., 1986

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. ARMSTRONG J. D., 1975, Human Factors in Health Care
  2. CLARK-CARTER D. D., Ergonomics
  3. CLARK-CARTER D. D., 1986, Ergonomics
  4. 10.1080/00140136008930473 · DOI
  5. DODDS A. G., 1983, Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 77, 438, 10.1177/0145482X8307700904 · DOI
  6. GRAY P. G., 1967, Mobility and Reading Habits of the Blind.
  7. HEYES A. D., 1984, Wireless World,, 90, 26
  8. 10.1080/00140137608931560 · DOI
  9. LEONARD J. A., 1967, Proceedings of the Conference for Mobility Trainers and Technologists
  10. 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1978.tb00280.x · DOI
  11. RALSTON H. J., 1958, Int. Z. agnew. Physiol, einschl. Arbeitsphysiol., 17, 277
  12. 10.1080/00140137808931733 · DOI
  13. WATERS R. L., 1978, Orthopedic Clinics of North America, 9, 351, 10.1016/S0030-5898(20)30654-4 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
CLARK-CARTER, D. D., HEYES, A. D., & HOWARTH, C. I.
Venue
Ergonomics
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
1986-06
Volume
29
Issue
6
Pages
779-789
ISSN
  • 0014-0139
  • 1366-5847
DOI
10.1080/00140138608968314
Cited by
153
References
0
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review