Cited by 90Tactile and Sensory InteractionsAssistive Technology in Communication and MobilityEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces

Is there a future for sensory substitution outside academic laboratories?

Open access
Elli, Giulia V., Benetti, Stefania, Collignon, Olivier·2014·Multisensory Research

Abstract

Sensory substitution devices (SSDs) have been developed with the ultimate purpose of supporting sensory deprived individuals in their daily activities. However, more than forty years after their first appearance in the scientific literature, SSDs still remain more common in research laboratories than in the daily life of people with sensory deprivation. Here, we seek to identify the reasons behind the limited diffusion of SSDs among the blind community by discussing the ergonomic, neurocognitive and psychosocial issues potentially associated with the use of these systems. We stress that these issues should be considered together when developing future devices or improving existing ones. We provide some examples of how to achieve this by adopting a multidisciplinary and participatory approach. These efforts would contribute not solely to address fundamental theoretical research questions, but also to better understand the everyday needs of blind people and eventually promote the use of SSDs outside laboratories.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1163/22134808-00002460

Cites

112 of 112 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Ease of use, comfort level, mobility and appearance need to be seriously considered if the blind are to be expected to use a particular device.

    “Ease of use, comfort level, mobility and appearance need to be seriously considered if the blind are to be expected to use a particular device (Dakopolous & Bourbakis, 2010; Elli et al., 2014; Shull & Damian, 2015).”

    From Designing sensory-substitution devices: Principles, pitfalls and potential1 (2016) · cites this paper as Elli et al., 2014

  • Neglect of matching information to perceptual channels may have prevented the usability of previous sensory substitution devices.

    “Neglect of this important point may have prevented the usability of previous SSDs (see e.g. Elli et al., 2014).”

    From Designing sensory-substitution devices: Principles, pitfalls and potential1 (2016) · cites this paper as Elli et al., 2014

  • Sensory substitution devices are still not in widespread use.

    “such devices are still not in widespread use (Elli, Benetti & Collignon 2014).”

    From Designing sensory-substitution devices: Principles, pitfalls and potential1 (2016) · cites this paper as Elli, Benetti & Collignon 2014

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 113 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Elli, G. V., Benetti, S., & Collignon, O.
Affiliations
University of Trento (IT)
Venue
Multisensory Research
Published
2014
Volume
27
Issue
5-6
Pages
271-291
ISSN
  • 2213-4794 (ISSN-L)
  • 2213-4808
OpenAlex
W2001422711
Cited by
90
References
113
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 1
FWCI
0.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Multisensory Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Libraries (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Iris (University of Trento) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Keywords
sensory substitution devices, blindness, sensory deprivation, technology adoption, assistive technology, human factors, psychosocial aspects, participatory design, multidisciplinary design, everyday use
MeSH terms
Auditory Perception, Blindness, Humans, Ergonomics, Sensory Deprivation, 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