Efficacy of Electronic Travel Aids for the Blind and Visually Impaired During Wayfinding

Abstract Independent traveling remains challenging for blind and visually impaired (BVI) individuals. While the white cane is effective at detecting ground-level obstacles, it provides no information about elevated obstacles or object characteristics. Recent technologies have been designed to support navigation as well as object detection. In our study, we compared the performance of 13 BVI participants who separately used two secondary electronic travel aids (ETAs) versus cane use alone. One ETA was a camera-based mobility vest (NOA), and the other was an ultrasonic sensor-based wearable (BuzzClip). Participants completed an obstacle avoidance task with both ETAs and an object detection task using two versions of NOA’s object-finding functionality. Quantitative performance measures and semi-structured interviews were collected. NOA resulted in enhanced obstacle avoidance. Participants used their canes less and collided less with obstacles when using NOA than the BuzzClip or the white cane alone. NOA resulted in lower frustration and higher perceived performance, as well as greater perceived safety and obstacle detection than the BuzzClip. Object-finding performance outcomes were similar across both versions, suggesting potential benefit from a dynamic combination of approaches tailored for each user. Collectively, these data underscore how ETAs may be integrated into use by the BVI community. Competing Interest Statement C. E. Pittet performed a research internship at Biped Robotics SA in the context of her MSc studies. M. Fabien is founder and CEO of Biped Robotics SA. While Biped Robotics provided funding, instrumentation, and software for this study, they were not involved in the study design, data analysis, or interpretation of results. No other co-author has any conflicts of interest with regard to this work. Funding Statement This study did not receive any funding Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: The Ethics Committee of the Canton of Vaud gave ethical approval for this work (protocol number 2024-02523). I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes Footnotes Corrected error in supplementary materials. Data Availability All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors