Cited by 99Tactile and Sensory InteractionsSpatial Cognition and NavigationAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 64 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.

Navigation Using Sensory Substitution in Real and Virtual Mazes

Open access

Abstract

Under certain specific conditions people who are blind have a perception of space that is equivalent to that of sighted individuals. However, in most cases their spatial perception is impaired. Is this simply due to their current lack of access to visual information or does the lack of visual information throughout development prevent the proper integration of the neural systems underlying spatial cognition? Sensory Substitution devices (SSDs) can transfer visual information via other senses and provide a unique tool to examine this question. We hypothesize that the use of our SSD (The EyeCane: a device that translates distance information into sounds and vibrations) can enable blind people to attain a similar performance level as the sighted in a spatial navigation task. We gave fifty-six participants training with the EyeCane. They navigated in real life-size mazes using the EyeCane SSD and in virtual renditions of the same mazes using a virtual-EyeCane. The participants were divided into four groups according to visual experience: congenitally blind, low vision & late blind, blindfolded sighted and sighted visual controls. We found that with the EyeCane participants made fewer errors in the maze, had fewer collisions, and completed the maze in less time on the last session compared to the first. By the third session, participants improved to the point where individual trials were no longer significantly different from the initial performance of the sighted visual group in terms of errors, time and collision.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0126307

Cites

64 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Chebat, Maidenbaum and Amedi (2015) found all participants improved their navigational and spatial perception skills, reflected in fewer errors and collisions in the maze as they learned to use EyeCane.

    “All participants improved their navigational and spatial perception skills, reflected in fewer errors and collisions in the maze as they learned to use EyeCane.”

    From Designing sensory-substitution devices: Principles, pitfalls and potential1 (2016) · cites this paper as Chebat, Maidenbaum and Amedi (2015)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Chebat, D.-R., Maidenbaum, S., & Amedi, A.
Affiliations
Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
Corresponding author
Chebat, Daniel-Robert
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2015-06-03
Volume
10
Issue
6
Pages
e0126307
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1502255657
Cited by
99
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 2
FWCI
5.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • James S. McDonnell Foundation (220020284)
  • Israel Science Foundation (ISF 1684/08, 1684/08)
  • FP7 Ideas: European Research Council (310809)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Spatial Cognition and Navigation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Keywords
sensory substitution, blind navigation, spatial navigation, congenital blindness, low vision, late blindness, spatial perception, distance perception, training effects
MeSH terms
Adult, Blindness, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Orientation, Space Perception, User-Computer Interface, Maze Learning

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