Cited by 132Tactile and Sensory InteractionsAssistive Technology in Communication and MobilitySpatial Cognition and Navigation

Navigation with a sensory substitution device in congenitally blind individuals

Chebat, Daniel-Robert, Schneider, Fabien C., Kupers, Ron, Ptito, Maurice·2011·Neuroreport

Abstract

Vision allows for obstacle detection and avoidance. The compensatory mechanisms involved in maintaining these functions in blind people using their remaining intact senses are poorly understood. We investigated the ability of congenitally blind participants to detect and avoid obstacles using the tongue display unit, a sensory substitution device that uses the tongue as a portal to the brain. We found that congenitally blind were better than sighted control participants in detecting and avoiding obstacles using the tongue display unit. Obstacles size and avoidance strategy had a significant effect on performance: large obstacles were better detected than small ones and step-around obstacles were better avoided than step-over ones. These data extend our earlier findings that when using a sensory substitution device, blind participants outperform sighted controls not only in a virtual navigation task but also during effective navigation within a human-sized obstacle course.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/wnr.0b013e3283462def

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chebat, D.-R., Schneider, F. C., Kupers, R., & Ptito, M.
Affiliations
  • Université de Montréal (CA)
  • Institut des Sciences Cognitives Marc Jeannerod (FR)
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • Hvidovre Hospital (DK)
Corresponding author
Kupers, Ron
Venue
Neuroreport
Published
2011-05-11
Volume
22
Issue
7
Pages
342-347
ISSN
0959-4965 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1994227203
Cited by
132
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 7
FWCI
5.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuroreport (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Spatial Cognition and Navigation
Keywords
sensory substitution devices, congenital blindness, obstacle detection, obstacle avoidance, navigation, tactile perception, visual impairment, obstacle size, avoidance strategies
MeSH terms
Adult, Blindness, Electric Stimulation, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Orientation, Psychomotor Performance, Space Perception, Touch Perception

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