Sensory Aids
Katherine Seelman
University of Pittsburgh, The Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Search for more papers by this authorJ. Brabyn
The Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Technology, San Francisco, California
Search for more papers by this authorA. Ortmann
University of Pittsburgh, The Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Search for more papers by this authorC. Palmer
University of Pittsburgh, The Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Search for more papers by this authorKatherine Seelman
University of Pittsburgh, The Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Search for more papers by this authorJ. Brabyn
The Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Technology, San Francisco, California
Search for more papers by this authorA. Ortmann
University of Pittsburgh, The Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Search for more papers by this authorC. Palmer
University of Pittsburgh, The Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Individuals with complete or partial loss of vision or hearing have a reduction of sensory input that affects their interaction with the environment. Approximately 3.5–6 million people have vision loss and 8 million have hearing loss. Different diseases and pathologies give rise to different forms of functional limitations. Individuals with loss of vision or hearing improve function through the use of sensory aids as a supplement to or a substitute for seeing or hearing in order to participate in society and to perform activities of daily living. Sensory aids range from individual medical and assistive devices to technologies that enhance the accessibility of the natural, built, transportation, and information/communications environments. Some individuals with vision loss may also use readers and those with hearing loss may use sign language interpreters to access information. Research and development, commercialization, and public support for purchase of individual aids and change in environmental accessibility have been stimulated or mandated by public laws and regulations such as those related to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Using a universal design strategy, some aids are designed into mainstream products and environments, as is the case of the decoder chip that produces captioning on the screen of a television set. Universally designed products have spilled over from special interest markets such as deaf and hard of hearing users of captioning to mainstream markets in locations with loud background noise such as health clubs and bars. Although the history of the development of sensory aids is hundreds of years old, opportunities and challenges have proliferated with the development of computing and communications technology. Throughout history, individuals with vision loss and individuals with hearing loss have challenged engineers, and clinicians, and architects with their different medical, functional, and environmental problems.
Bibliography
- 1 National Eye Institute, A National Plan for Eye and Vision Research. National Eye Institute, Bethesda, MD, 2004. Available: http://www.nei.nih.gov/strategicplanning/np_index.asp.
- 2J. Brabyn, M. Schneck, G. Haegerst, and L. Lott, The Smith–Kettlewell Institute (SKI) longitudinal study of vision function and its impact among the elderly: an overview. Optom. Vision Sci. 2001; 78(5): 264–269.
- 3D. Murphy and W. Good, The epidemiology of blindness in children, Ophthalmology 1997: 157.
- 4C. Kirchner and E. Schmeidler, Prevalence and employment of people in the United States who are blind or visually impaired. J. Vis. Impair. Blindness 1997; 91: 508–511.
- 5S. W. G. Malakpa, Job placement of blind and visually impaired people with additional disabilities. Review 1994; 26(2): 69–77.
- 6E. Schmeidler and D. Halfman, Statistics on visual impairment in older persons, disability in children, life expectancy. J. Vis. Impair. Blindness 1997; 91: 602–606.
- 7F. B. Hobbs and B. L. Damon, 65+ in the United States. U.S. Census Bureau, Publication P23–190, 1996.
- 8International Classification of Diseases, 9th rev. ed. Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM). Ann Arbor, MI: Commission on Professional and Hospital Activities, 1978.
- 9AMA, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5th ed. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association, 2001.
- 10P. S. W. Fuhr, L. D. Holmes, D. C. Fletcher, M. N. Swanson, and T. K. Kuyk, The AMA guides functional vision score is a better predictor of vision-targeted quality of life than traditional measures of visual acuity or visual field extent. Visual Impairment Res. 2003; 5(3): 137–146.
10.1080/1388235039048690 Google Scholar
- 11A. Colenbrander, Dimensions of visual performance-low vision symposium, American Academy of Ophthalmology. Trans. AAOO 1977; 83: 332–337.
- 12 WHO, International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2001.
- 13Sensory Aids Foundation, Return on investment report. Published annually, 1985–1988.
- 14L. Kay, Acoustic coupling to the ears in binaural sensory aids. J. Vis. Impair. Blindness 1984; 77: 12–16.
- 15A. D. Heyes, The sonic pathfinder: a new electronic travel aid. J. Vis. Impair. Blindness 1984; 77: 200–202.
- 16S. LaGrow, The use of the sonic pathfinder as a secondary mobility aid for travel in business environments: a single subject design. J. Rehab. Res. Develop. 1999; 36(4): 333–340.
- 17W. Crandall, J. Brabyn, and B. L. Bentzen, Remote infrared signage evaluation for transit stations and intersections. J. Rehab. Res. Develop. 1999; 36(4): 341–355.
- 18W. Loughborough, Talking lights. J. Vis. Impair. Blindness 1979: 243.
- 19B. Bentzen and P. Mitchell, Audible signage as a wayfinding aid: comparison of verbal landmark and talking signs. Draft report to the American Council of the Blind, 1993.
- 20J. M. Loomis, R. L. Golledge, R. L. Klatzky, J. Speigle, and J. Tietz, Proceedings of the First Annual International ACM/SIGCAPH Conference on Assistive Technologies, Marina Del Rey, CA, Oct 31–Nov 1, 1994, New York: Association for Computer Machinery, pp. 85–90.
- 21J. M. Loomis, R. L. Klatsky and R. G. Gooledge, Navigating without vision: basic and applied research. Optom. Vision Sci. 2001; 78(5): 282–289.
- 22J. Fructerman, Talking Maps and GPS systems. Paper presented at the Rank Prize Funds Symposium on Technology to Assist the Blind and Visually Impaired, Grasmere, Cumbria, UK, March 25–28, 1996.
- 23J. Brabyn and A. Alden, Use of GPS in urban settings. Proc. Resna Conference, June 2002.
- 24B. L. Bentzen and L. S. Tabor, Accessible Pedestrian Signals. U.S. Access Board, Washington, DC, 1998.
- 25E. Peli, Vision multiplexing: an engineering approach to vision rehabilitation device development. Optom. Vision Sci. 2001; 78(5): 304–315.
- 26P. P. Koch, Accessibility and Usability. Digital Web Magazine, February 18, 2004. Available: http://www.digital-web.com/articles/accessibility_and_usability/.
- 27T. Fowle, The Fowle gimmique. Smith-Kettlewell Technical File, Summer 1982.
- 28E. Sampaio, S. Maris, and P. Bach-y-Rita, Brain plasticity: ‘visual’ acuity of blind persons via the tongue. Brain Res. 2001; 908: 204.
- 29H. G. Kaper, S. Tipei, and E. Wiebel, Data sonification and sound visualization. Comput. Sci. Engineer 1999; 1(4): 48–58.
- 30P. B. L. Meijer, Seeing with sound: wearable computing for the blind. Presented at NIC2001 (Nordic Interactive Conference), Copenhagen, Denmark, November 1, 2001.
- 31G. S. Brindley and W. S. Lewin, The sensations produced by electrical stimulation of the visual cortex. J. Physiol. (Lond). 1968; 196: 479–493.
- 32W. H. Dobelle, Artificial vision for blind by connecting a television camera to a visual cortex. ASAIO J. 2000; 46: 3–9.
- 33M. S. Humayun, E. de Juan, Jr., J. D. Weiland, G. Dagnelie, S. Katona, R. J. Greenberg, and S. Suzuki, Pattern electrical stimulation of the human retina. Vision Res. 1999; 39: 2569–2576.
- 34M. S. Humayun, J. D. Weiland, and G. Y. Fujii et al., Visual perception in a blind subject with a chronic microelectronic retinal prosthesis. Vision Res. 2003; 43: 2573–2581.
- 35N. Groves, Subretinal device improves visual function in RP patients. Opthalmoiology Times August, 2003, p. 1.
- 36A. L. Yuille, D. Snow, and M. Nitzberg, Signfinder: using color to detect, localize and identify informational signs. Proc. 6th International Conference on Computer Vision. Bombay, India, January, 1998.
- 37C. Veraart and D. Raftopoulos et al., Optic nerve electrical stimulation in a retinitis pigmentosa blind volunteer. Los Angeles, CA: Society for Neuroscience, 1998.
- 38Prevent Blindness America, Vision problems in the US: prevalence of adult vision impairment and age-related eye disease in America, 4th ed., 2002.
- 39J. R. Jamieson, The impact of hearing impairement. In: J. Katz, ed., Handbook of Clinical Audiology, 4th ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, 1994, pp. 596–615.
- 40J. Northern and D. Hayes, Universal screening for infant hearing impairment: necessary, beneficial and justifiable. Audiol. Today 1994; 6(2): 10–13.
- 41B. K. Keller, J. L. Morton, V. S. Thomas, and J. F. Potter, The effect of visual and hearing impairments on functional status. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 1999; 47: 1319–1325.
- 42M. Karchmer and T. Allen, The functional assessment of deaf and hard of hearing students. Am. Ann. Deaf 1999; 144: 68–77.
- 43World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (2001) (online). Available: http://www.who.int.
- 44American with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 USC 12101, Equal Opportunity for the Disabled, Washington, DC: ADA, 1990.
- 45American with Disabilities Act, 28 CFR Part 36, Nondiscrimination on the basis of disability by Public Accomodations and in Commercial Facilities, Federal Register, Washington, DC: ADA, 1991.
- 46Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines, 36 CFR Part 1191, Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities, Federal Register, Washington, DC: ADAAG, 1994.
- 47 American National Standards Institute, Acoustical Performance Criteria, Design Requirements and Guidelines for Schools. ANSI S12.60-2002. New York: ANSI, 2002.
- 48V. O. Knudsen and C. Harris, Acoustic Designing in Architecture. New York: American Institute of Physics, 1978.
- 49M. D. Egan, Architectural Acoustics. New York: McGraw Hill, 1989.
- 50C. C. Crandell, J. J. Smaldino, and C. Flexer, Soundfield FM Amplification: Theory and Practical Applications. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group, 1995.
- 51C. Flexer, The impact of classroom acoustics: listening, learning, and literacy. Seminars in Hearing 2004; 25(2): 131–140.
10.1055/s-2004-828664 Google Scholar
- 52M. Valente, R. Sweetow, L. G. Potts, and B. Bingea, Digital versus analog signal processing: effect of directional microphones. J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 1999; 10: 133–150.
- 53R. A. Bentler, C. Palmer, and A. B. Dittberner, Hearing-in-noise: comparison of listeners with normal and (aided) impaired hearing. J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 2004; 15: 216–225.
- 54T. Ricketts and B. Hornsby, Distance and reverberation effects of directional benefit. Ear and Hearing 2003; 24(6): 472–484.
- 55T. Y. Ching, P. Incerti, and M. Hill, Binaural benefits for adults who use hearing aids and cochlear implants in opposite ears. Ear and Hearing 2004; 25(1): 9–21.
- 56J. Hamzavi, S. M. Pok, W. Gsoettner, and W. D. Baumgartner, Speech perception with a cochlear implant used in conjunction with a hearing aid in the opposite ear. Int. J. Audiol. 2004; 43(2): 61–65.
- 57R. S. Tyler, B. J. Gantz, and J. T. Rubinstein, Three month results with bilateral cochlear implants. Ear and Hearing 2002; 23: 80S–89S.
- 58R. Van Hoesel, R. Ramsden, and M. O’Driscoll, Sound direction identification, interaural time delay discrimination, and speech intelligibility advantages in noise for a bilateral cochlear implant user. Ear and Hearing 2002; 23: 137–149.
- 59B. J. Gantz and C. Turner, Combining acoustic and electric speech processing: Iowa/Nucleus hybrid implant. Acta Oto-Laryngologica 2004; 124(4): 344–347.
- 60Hearing Aid Compatibility Act 1988 (1988) (online). Available: http://www.fcc.gov.
- 61D. Preves, Hearing aids and digital wireless telephones. Seminars in Hearing 2003; 24: 43–62.
10.1055/s-2003-37906 Google Scholar
- 62L. Kozma-Spytek, Hearing aid compatible telephones: history and current status. Seminars in Hearing 2003; 24: 17–28.
10.1055/s-2003-37910 Google Scholar
Websites
- http://www.gennum.com\par
- Gennum Corporation designs and develops the DSP circuits and microphones for hearing aids.
- http://www.tap.gallaudet.edu
- Technology Access Program—provides information on the recent and emerging technologies available for individuals with hearing impairment.
- http://www.captionedtelephone.com
- UltraTec's website featuring more information regarding the CapTel TM and the telecommunication relay service using ASR.
- http://www.viabletechnologies.com
- Viable Technologies Inc. develops, offers live Internet real-time transcription services using the ASR system.
- http://www.signonasl.com/video
- Website offers information and services for remote interpreting for hearing-impaired individuals.
- http://www.coclear.com http://www.advancedbionics.com
- Websites for two cochlear implant manufacturers: Cochlear Corporation and Advanced Bionics.
- http://www.otologics.com
- Olotogics designs and manufactures middle ear implants.
- http://www.entific.com
- Enitific corporation designs and manufactures bone-anchored hearing aids (BAHA).