Advertisement

Visual Impairment and the Development of Perceptual Ability

  • Emerson Foulke
  • Edward P. Berlá
Part of the Perception and Perceptual Development book series (PPD, volume 1)

Abstract

In order to be considered legally blind, a person must have “central visual acuity of 20/200 or less in the better eye, with correcting lenses; or central visual acuity of more than 20/200 if there is a field defect in which the peripheral field has contracted to such an extent that the widest diameter of the visual field represents an angular distance no greater than 20 degrees” (American Foundation for the Blind, 1967). As a consequence of the legal definition, the word “blind” is used as a label that groups together people who are totally without sight and people with a considerable degree of vision. Therefore, it might prove advantageous to use other functional criteria in defining degrees of blindness, such as the ability or inability to read newspaper print, vision that is useful for reading but not for travel, or vision that is useful for travel but not for reading.

Keywords

Reading Rate Perceptual Ability Blind Child Severe Visual Impairment American Foundation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

7. References

  1. Adelson, E., and Fraiberg, S. Gross motor development in infants blind from birth. Child Developmentr, 1974, 45, 114–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adelson, E., and Fraiberg, S. Sensory deficit and motor development in infants blind from birth. In Z. S. Jastrzembska (Ed.), The effects of blindness and other impairments on early development. New York: American Foundation for the Blind, 1976.Google Scholar
  3. American Foundation for the Blind. Facts and figures about blindness. New York: American Foundation for the Blind, 1967.Google Scholar
  4. Arampatta, D. Illustrations in social studies textbooks as they affect the visually handicapped. Unpublished specialist in education thesis, George Peabody College for Teachers, 1970.Google Scholar
  5. Armstrong, J. A. Evaluation of man-machine systems in the mobility of the visually handicapped. In R. M. Rickett and T. J. Triggs (Eds.), Human factors in health care. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1975.Google Scholar
  6. Barlev, H. The Transicon. In Proceedings of the 1973 Carnahan Conference on Electronic Prosthetics. Lexington, Ky.: College of Engineering, University of Kentucky, 1973.Google Scholar
  7. Barraga, N. C. Increased visual behavior in low vision children. American Foundation for the Blind, Research Series, 1964, 13.Google Scholar
  8. Benjamin, J. M., Jr. The bionic instruments C–4 laser cane. Paper presented at the National Academy of Engineering, Committee on the Interplay of Engineering with Biology and Medicine, Subcommittee on Sensory Aids, Warrenton, Va., 1970.Google Scholar
  9. Berla, E. P. Behavioral strategies and problems in scanning and interpreting tactual displays. New Outlook for the Blind, 1972a, 66, 272–286.Google Scholar
  10. Berla, E. P. Effects of physical size and complexity on tactual discrimination performance of primary age blind children. Exceptional Children, 1912b, 38, 120–124.Google Scholar
  11. Berla, E. P. Strategies in scanning a tactual pseudomap. Education of the Visually Handicapped, 1973. 5, 8–19.Google Scholar
  12. Berla, E. P., and Butterfield, L. H. Tactual distinctive features analysis: Training blind students in shape recognition and in locating shapes on a map. Journal of Special Education, 1977, 11, 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Berla, E. P., and Butterfield, L. H. Teachers’ views on tactile maps for blind students: Problems and needs. Education of the Visually Handicapped, 1975, 7, 116–118.Google Scholar
  14. Berla, E. P., & Murr, M. J. Searching tactual space. Education of the Visually Handicapped, 1974. 6, 49–58.Google Scholar
  15. Berla, E. P., & Murr, M. J. The effects of tactual noise on locating of point symbols and tracing a line of a tactile pseudomap. Journal of Special Education, 1975, 9, 183–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Berla, E. P., and Murr, M. J. Psychophysical functions for active tactual discrimination of line width by blind children. Perception and Psychophysics, 1975b, 17, 607–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Berla, E. P., Butterfield, L. H., and Murr, M. J. Tactual reading of political maps by blind students: A videomatic behavioral analysis. Journal of Special Education, 1976, 10, 265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bliss, J. C., Katcher, M. H., Rogers, C. H., and Shepard, R. P. Optical-to-tactile image conversion for the blind. IEEE Transactions on Man-Machine Systems, 1970, MMS-ll(l), 58–65.Google Scholar
  19. Cattell, J. M. The time it takes to see and name objects. Mind, 1886, 11, 63–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cratty, B. J. Enhancing perceptual-motor abilities in blind children and youth. Paper presented at the Conference of California State Teachers of the Blind, Palo Alto, Calif., 1971.Google Scholar
  21. Cutsforth, T. D. The blind in school and society. New York: American Foundation for the Blind, 1951.Google Scholar
  22. Deutsch, F. The sense of reality in persons born blind. Journal of Psychology, 1940, 10, 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Doggett, D., and Richards, L. G. A reexamination of the effect of word length on recognition thresholds. American Journal of Psychology, 1975, 88 (4), 583–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dokecki, P. C. Verbalism and the blind.: A critical review of the concept and the literature. Exceptional Children, 1966, 32, 525–530.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Eakin, W. M., and McFarland, T. L. Type, printing and the partially seeing child. Pittsburgh: Stanwix House, 1960.Google Scholar
  26. Eakin, W. M., Pratt, R. J. A., and McFarland, T. L. Type size research for the partially seeing child. Pittsburgh: Stanwix House, 1961.Google Scholar
  27. Fertsch, P. An analysis of braille reading. Outlook for the Blind, 1946, 240, 128–131.Google Scholar
  28. Foulke, E. The role of experience in the formation of concepts. International Journal for the Education of the Blind, 1962, 72, 1–6.Google Scholar
  29. Foulke, E. Transfer of a complex perceptual skill. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1964, 18, 733–740.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Foulke, E. The comprehension of rapid speech by the blind—Part III (Interim Progress Report Cooperative Research Project No. 2430 ). Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Health Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, 1967.Google Scholar
  31. Foulke, E. Listening comprehension as a function of word rate. Journal of Communication, 1968, 18 (3), 198–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Foulke, E. The perceptual basis for mobility. American Foundation for the Blind Research Bulletin, 1970, 23, 1–8.Google Scholar
  33. Foulke, E. The Perceptual Alternatives Laboratory: Annual report to the Dean of the Graduate School, 1973–1974. Louisville, Ky.: Perceptual Alternatives Laboratory, University of Louisville, 1974.Google Scholar
  34. Foulke, E. The Perceptual Alternatives Laboratory: Annual report to the Dean of the Graduate School, 1974–1975. Louisville, Ky.: Perceptual Alternatives Laboratory, University of Louisville, 1975.Google Scholar
  35. Foulke, E., and Sticht, T. G. Review of research on the intelligibility and comprehension of accelerated speech. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 72, 50–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Foulke, E., and Wirth, E. M. The role of identification in the reading of braille and print. In E. Foulke (Ed.), The development of an expanded reading code for the blind: Part I I. Louisville, Ky.: Perceptual Alternatives Laboratory, University of Louisville, 1973.Google Scholar
  37. Fraiberg, S. Parallel and divergent patterns in blind and sighted infants. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 1968, 23, 264–300.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Fraiberg, S., Siegal, B., and Gibson, R. The role of sound in the search behavior of a blind infant. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 1966, 21, 327–357.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Fraiberg, S., Smith, M., and Adelson, E. An educational program for blind infants. Journal of Special Education, 1969, 3, 121–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Franks, F. L., and Nolan, C. Y. Development of geographical concepts in blind children. Education of the Visually Handicapped, 1970, 2, 1–18.Google Scholar
  41. Franks, F. L., and Nolan, C. Y. Measuring geographical concept attainment in visually handicapped students. Education of the Visually Handicapped, 1971, 3, 11–17.Google Scholar
  42. Freedman, D. A., and Cannady, C. Delayed emergence of prone locomotion. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1911, 153, 108–117.Google Scholar
  43. Gallo, D. R. National assessment of educational progress: Reading rate and comprehension 1970–71 assessment (Education Commission of the States No. 02-R-09). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.Google Scholar
  44. Genensky, S. M. Closed circuit TV and the education of the partially sighted. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corporation, 1970. (P–4343).Google Scholar
  45. Genensky, S. M., Barak, P., Moshin, H. L., and Steingold, H. A closed circuit TV system for the visually handicapped. American Foundation for the Blind Research Bulletin, 1969, 19, 191–204.Google Scholar
  46. Gill, J. M., and James, G. A. A study of the disc rim inability of tactual point symbols. American Foundation for the Blind Research Bulletin, 1973, 26, 19–34.Google Scholar
  47. Graystone, P., and McLenna, H. Evaluation of an audible mobility aid for the blind. American Foundation for the Blind Research Bulletin, 1968, 77, 173–179.Google Scholar
  48. Grunwald, A. P. A braille-reading machine. Science, 1966, 154 (3754), 144–146.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hatfield, E. M. Why are they blind? Sight Saving Review, 1975, 45, 3–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Hoover, R. E. The cane as a travel aid. In P. A. Zahl (Ed.), Blindness. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1950.Google Scholar
  51. Johnson, W., Darley, F., and Spriestersbach, D. C. Diagnostic methods in speech pathology. New York: Harper and Row, 1963.Google Scholar
  52. Kamisar, H., and Pollet, D. Those missing readers: The visually and physically handicapped. Catholic Library World, 1975, 46 (10), 426–431.Google Scholar
  53. Kay, L. Evaluation of the ultrasonic binaural sensory aid for the blind. Paper presented at the Conference on Evaluation of Sensory Aids for the Visually Handicapped, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1972.Google Scholar
  54. Kay, L. Towards a mobility theory for the blind (Electrical Engineering No. 22 ). Christchurch, New Zealand: University of Canterbury, 1974.Google Scholar
  55. Keller, H. Holiday in England. Outlook for the Blind, 1930, 24, 14–16.Google Scholar
  56. Kephart, J. G., Kephart, C. P., and Schwarz, G. C. A journey into the world of the blind. Exceptional Children, 1974, 40, 421–427.Google Scholar
  57. Lowenfeld, B. Psychological foundation of special methods in teaching blind children. In P. A. Zahl (Ed.), Blindness. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1950.Google Scholar
  58. Lowenfeld, B. Psychological considerations. In B. Lowenfeld (Ed.), The visually handicapped child in school. New York: John Day Co., 1973.Google Scholar
  59. Lowenfeld, G., Abel, G. L., and Hatlen, P. H. Blind children learn to read. Springfield, HI.: Charles C Thomas, 1969.Google Scholar
  60. Mauch, H. A., and Smith, G. C. The development of personal reading machines for the blind. (VA Bulletin of Prosthetics Research, BPR 10–22). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974, pp. 427–432.Google Scholar
  61. Meyers, E., Ethington, D., and Ashcroft, S. C. Readability of braille as a function of three spacing variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1958, 42, 163–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Nolan, C. Y. Readability of large types: A study of type sizes and type styles. International Journal for the Education of the Blind, 1959, 9, 41–44.Google Scholar
  63. Nolan, C. Y. Legibility of ink and paper color combinations for readers of large type. International Journal for the Education of the Blind, 1961, 10, 82–84.Google Scholar
  64. Nolan, C. Y., and Kederis, C. J. Perceptual factors in braille word recognition. American Foundation for the Blind, Research Series, 1969, 20.Google Scholar
  65. Nolan, C. Y., and Morris, J. E. Improvement of tactual symbols for blind children (Final Report Grant No. OEG–32–27-0000–1012, Project No. 5-0421 ). Louisville, Ky.: American Printing House for the Blind, 1971.Google Scholar
  66. Nolan, C. Y., Morris, J. E., Kederis, C. J., Fieg, K. E., and Smith, M. G. Reading and listening in learning by the blind (Progress Report PHS Grant No. NB-04870-04). Louisville, Ky.: American Printing House for the Blind, 1966.Google Scholar
  67. Nolan, C. Y., Foulke, E., Davis, K., and Murr, M. J. Comparison of three vocal indexes for tape recordings. In C. Y. Nolan (Ed.), Facilitating the education of the visually handicapped through research in communication: Part II—Indexes for tape recordings (Final Report Grant No. OEG-0–73-0624). Louisville, Ky.: American Printing House for the Blind, 1976.Google Scholar
  68. Norris, M., Spaulding, P. J., and Brodie, F. H. Blindness in children. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.Google Scholar
  69. Reading Machine Prototype. Programs for the Handicapped August 11, 1975, p. 9. Publication of the Office for Handicapped Individuals, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  70. Russell, L. Evaluation of mobility aids for the blind—Pathsounder Travel Aid evaluation. Paper presented at the National Academy of Engineers, Washington, D.C., 1971.Google Scholar
  71. San Diego Unified School District. San Diego Optacon Project 1971–72. San Diego, Calif., 1972.Google Scholar
  72. Schiff, W. Raised line drawing research project (Final Report HEW, VRA Grant No. RD–1571–5). New York: Recording for the Blind, Inc., 1966.Google Scholar
  73. Schiff, W., Kaufer, L., and Mosak, S. Informative tactile stimuli in the perception of direction. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1966, 23, 1315–3335.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Scott, R. A. The socialization of blind children. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969.Google Scholar
  75. Scott, R. J. Computers for speech time compression. In E. Foulke (Ed.), Proceedings of the Louisville Conference on Time-Compressed Speech. Louisville, Ky.: Perceptual Alternatives Laboratory, University of Louisville, 1966.Google Scholar
  76. Shingledecker, C. A. The development of a methodology for the measurement of blind mobility performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Louisville, 1976.Google Scholar
  77. Sloan, L. B. Optical magnification for subnormal vision: A historical survey. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 1972, 62, 162–168.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Speech compressors: Actual and imminent. CRCR Newsletter, January/February, 1976, pp. 1–4. Publication of the Center for Rate-Controlled Recordings, Perceptual Alternatives Laboratory, University of Louisville, Louisville, Ky.Google Scholar
  79. Sykes, K. C. A comparison of the effectiveness of standard print and large print in facilitating the reading skills of visually impaired students. Education of the Visually Handicapped, 1971, 3, 97–105.Google Scholar
  80. Tobin, M. J., James, W. R., McVeigh, A., and Irving, R. M. Print reading by the blind: An evaluation of the Optacon and an investigation of some larger learner variables and teaching methods. Birmingham, England: Research Centre for the Education of the Visually Handicapped, School of Education, University of Birmingham, 1973.Google Scholar
  81. Troxell, D. E. Experiments in tactile and visual reading. IEEE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, 1967, HFE 8 (4), 261–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. van Katwijk, A., and’t Hart, J. A. A complex unit of intelligibility: The syllable. Psycholinguistique (Actes Du Xe Congres International Des Linguistes). Bucarest: Editions de l’Académie de la République Socialiste de Roumanie, 1970.Google Scholar
  83. Warren, D. H., and Kocon, J. A. Factors in the successful mobility of the blind. American Foundation for the Blind Research Bulletin, 1974, 28, 191–218.Google Scholar
  84. Weisgerber, R. A., Crawford, J. J., Everett, B. E., Lalush, S. E., and Rodebaugh, B. J. Educational evaluation of the Optacon (Optical-to-tactile converter) as a reading aid to blind elementary and secondary students (Interim Technical Report: Phase I, Contract No. OEG-O–72- 5180 ). Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, U.S. Office of Education, September 1973.Google Scholar
  85. Weisgerber, R. A., Everett, B. E., and Smith, C. A. Evaluation of an ink print reading aid for the blind: The Stereotoner (Final Report: Contract No. V101(134)P–163). New York: Research Center for Prosthetics, Veterans Administration, 1975.Google Scholar
  86. Wiedel, J. W. Tactual maps for the visually handicapped: Some developmental problems. New Outlook for the Blind, 1969, 63, 80–88.Google Scholar
  87. Wiedel, J. W., and Groves, P. A. Designing and producing tactual maps for the visually handicapped. New Outlook for the Blind, 1969, 63, 196–201.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emerson Foulke
    • 1
  • Edward P. Berlá
    • 2
  1. 1.Perceptual Alternatives LaboratoryUniversity of LouisvilleLouisvilleUSA
  2. 2.Special Education Unit. School of EducationUniversity of LouisvilleLouisvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations