Cited by 93Tactile and Sensory InteractionsAssistive Technology in Communication and MobilitySpatial Cognition and Navigation

Sensory Augmentation for the Blind

Open access
Kärcher, Silke M., Fenzlaff, Sandra, Hartmann, Daniela, Nagel, Saskia K., König, Peter·2012·Frontiers in Human Neuroscience

Abstract

Common navigational aids used by blind travelers during large-scale navigation divert attention away from important cues of the immediate environment (i.e., approaching vehicles). Sensory augmentation devices, relying on principles similar to those at work in sensory substitution, can potentially bypass the bottleneck of attention through sub-cognitive implementation of a set of rules coupling motor actions with sensory stimulation. We provide a late blind subject with a vibrotactile belt that continually signals the direction of magnetic north. The subject completed a set of behavioral tests before and after an extended training period. The tests were complemented by questionnaires and interviews. This newly supplied information improved performance on different time scales. In a pointing task we demonstrate an instant improvement of performance based on the signal provided by the device. Furthermore, the signal was helpful in relevant daily tasks, often complicated for the blind, such as keeping a direction over longer distances or taking shortcuts in familiar environments. A homing task with an additional attentional load demonstrated a significant improvement after training. The subject found the directional information highly expedient for the adjustment of his inner maps of familiar environments and describes an increase in his feeling of security when exploring unfamiliar environments with the belt. The results give evidence for a firm integration of the newly supplied signals into the behavior of this late blind subject with better navigational performance and more courageous behavior in unfamiliar environments. Most importantly, the complementary information provided by the belt lead to a positive emotional impact with enhanced feeling of security. The present experimental approach demonstrates the positive potential of sensory augmentation devices for the help of handicapped people.

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 · 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00037

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • The main challenge in haptic/tactile sensory augmentation is the significant training required to achieve a good spatial and semantic awareness of the user's surroundings.

    “The main challenge in haptic/tactile sensory augmentation is the significant training required to achieve a good spatial and semantic awareness of the user’s surroundings [16].”

    From An investigation into the effectiveness of using acoustic touch to assist people who are blind (2023) · cites this paper as [16]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says integrating tactile sensory information requires learning complex perceptual skills, and the Discussion (page unavailable) links training and prior cognitive grounding to spatial perception. The paper does not establish that significant training is the main challenge across haptic augmentation or that it produces semantic awareness of the surroundings; it notes that a subject with prior spatial grounding could benefit immediately. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A demonstration of the integration of new sensory information (magnetic north) that is co-determined by own movements (yaw-turns) is given by the feelSpace project.

    “A demonstration of the integration of new sensory information (magnetic north) that is co-determined by own movements (yaw-turns) is given by the feelSpace project (Kärcher et al. 2012; Nagel et al. 2005).”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 26 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Bach-y-Rita P. Kaczmarek K. Tyler M. Garcia-Lara J. (1998). Form perception with a 49-point electrotactile stimulus array on the tongue. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 35, 427– 430 10220221
  2. Golledge R. (1999). Wayfinding Behavior: Cognitive Mapping and Other Spatial Processes. Baltimore: JHU Press
  3. Hamel C. (2006). Retinitis pigmentosa. Orphanet J. Rare Dis. 1, 40 10.1186/1750-1172-1-40 17032466 PMC1621055 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Howard I. P. Tempelton W. B. (1966). Human Spatial Orientation. London: Wiley
  5. Noë A. (2004). Action in Perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  6. Thompson E. (2007). Mind in Life Biology, Phenomenology and the Sciences of Mind, 1st Edn Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kärcher, S. M., Fenzlaff, S., Hartmann, D., Nagel, S. K., & König, P.
Affiliations
Osnabrück University (DE)
Corresponding author
Kärcher, Silke M.
Venue
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Published
2012
Volume
6
Pages
37-37
ISSN
1662-5161 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2087460754
Cited by
93
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5
FWCI
2.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Frontiers in Human Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • European Commission (270212)
  • FP7 Information and Communication Technologies
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 augmentation, sensory substitution, blind people, vibrotactile feedback, navigation, attentional load, sense of security, assistive technology

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