Advertisement

Air Sonars with Acoustical Display of Spatial Information

  • Leslie Kay
Part of the NATO Advanced Study Institutes Series book series (volume 28)

Abstract

The development of aids to spatial perception for blind persons has been actively pursued over a period in excess of two decades by a number of individuals or groups (Benham (6), Kay (23), Benjamin (7), Russell (42), Collins (15), Armstrong (2), Brindley (11) and Dobelle (16), to mention only a few who are well known researchers in the field. The primary goal in the late 50’s and the early 60’s was to improve mobility in the blind through the use of a sensory aid. Now most aids are designed to complement the Long Cane (36) which emerged during the 60’s as a primary mobility aid, following its introduction in the U.S.A. in 1947. This was partly brought about through the strong influence of the teachers of orientation and mobility for the blind, whose teaching skills are based on Long Cane travel. This demands reliance on the natural sense of hearing as well as the probing of the cane ahead of the user. Thus, whilst the design of a sensory aid remains the prerogative of the electronic engineer it is most important that he pays adequate cognizance to the experience and views of these teachers before allowing his fertile imagination free rein. It is against this background that three distinctly different sensory aid philosophies have developed.

Keywords

Spatial Information Tone Complex Blind Person Blind Child Direction Code 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Airasian, P.W. “Evaluation of the Binaural Sensory Aid”, Research Bulletin No.26, pp.51–71, June 1973.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Armstrong, J.D. “Summary Report of the Research Programme on Electronic Mobility Aids”, Report, Psychology Dept, University of Nottingham, 1973.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Armstrong, J.D. “An Independent Evaluation of the Kay Binaural Sensor”. Report to St.Dunstan’s Scientific Committee. (St.Dunstan’s, London, 1972).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bach-y-Rita, P. “A Tactile Vision Substitution System Based on Sensory Plasticity”, in (Sterling, T.D., et al. Eds) Visual Prosthesis, the Interdisciplinary Dialogue, (Academic Press, New York, 1971).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baird, A.S. “Electronic Aids: Can They Help Children”? J.Visual Impairment and Blindness 71, No.3, pp.97–101, March 1977.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Benham, T.A. “The Bionic Instruments Travel Aid” in (Dufton, R. Ed.), International Conference on Sensory Devices for the Blind. (St.Dunstan’s, London, 1966).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Benjamin, J.M. “The Bionic Instruments C-4 Laser Cane” in (Nye, P.W. Ed.), Evaluation of Mobility Aids, (National Academy of Engineering, Washington, D.C. 1971).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bower, T.G.R. “Blind Babies See with their Ears, New Scientist, 73, pp.255–257, 1977.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bower, T.G.R. “Babies are More Important than Machines”, New Scientist, 74, pp.712–714, 1977.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boys, J.T., Strelow, E.R., Clark, G.R.S. “A Prosthetic Aid for a Developing Blind Child”, Ultrasonics, 17, pp.37–42, 1979.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brindley, G.S., Lewin, W.S. “The Sensations Produced by Electrical Stimulation of the Visual Cortex”. J.Physiol. 196, pp. 479–493, 1968.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brabyn, J.A., Strelow, E.R. “Computer-analysed measures of characteristics of human locomotion and Mobility”, Behaviour Research Methods and Instrumentation, Vol.9(5), pp. 456–462, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brabyn, J.A. “Laboratory Studies of Aided Blind Mobility”, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Canterbury, N.Z., 1978.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bui, S.T. “A Single Object Sensor as a Mobility Aid for the Blind”. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Canterbury, N.Z., 1979.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Collins, C.C. “Tactile Vision Synthesis” in (Sterling, T.D., et al.), Visual Prosthesis, (Academic Press, New York, 1971).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dobelle, W.H. “Current Status of Research on Providing Sight to the Blind by Electrical Stimulation of the Brain”. J.Visual Impairment and Blindness, 71, pp.289–297, 1977.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Do, M.A. “Perception of Spatial Information in a Multiple Object Auditory Space”, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Canterbury, N.Z., 1977.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Do, M.A., Kay, L. “Resolution in an Artificially Generated Multiple Object Auditory Space Using New Auditory Sensations”, Acustica, 36, pp.9–15, 1976/77.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Elliot, E., Elliot, P.H., Roskilly, D. “Sonic Mobility Aid, St.Dunstan’s Instruction Manual”, (St.Dunstan’s, London, 1969).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fletcher, H. “Speech and Hearing in Communication” (D. Van Nostrand Co.Inc., N.Y. 1953).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gibson, J.J. “Visually Controlled Locomotion and Visual Orientation in Animals”, Brit.J.Psychology, 49, pp.182–194, 1958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Guttman, N. (Ed.) “Evaluation of Sensory Aids for the Visually Handicapped”,(National Academy of Sciences, Wash. D.C., 1972).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kay, L. “Active Energy Radiating Systems: Ultrasonic Guidance for the Blind” in (Clark, L.L., Ed.) Proceedings of the International Congress on Technology and Blindness, (The American Foundation for the Blind, N.Y. 1963).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kay, L. “Auditory Perception and its Relation to Ultrasonic Blind Guidance Aids”. J. Brit. I.R.E., 24, pp.309–317, 1962.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kay, L. “An Ultrasonic Sensing Probe as a Mobility Aid for the Blind”, Ultrasonics, 2, pp.53–59, 1964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kay, L. “A Sonar Aid to Enhance Spatial Perception of the Blind: Engineering Design and Evaluation”. The Radio and Electronic Engineer, 44, pp.605–627, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kay, L., Do, M.A. “An Artificially Generated Multiple Object Auditory Space for Use Where Vision is Impaired”, Acustica, 36, pp.1–8, 1976/77.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kay, L. “Evaluation of the Ultrasonic Binaural Sensory Aid for the Blind” in (Guttman, N. Ed.), Evaluation of Sensory Aids for the Visually Handicapped, pp.85–94, (National Academy of Sciences, Wash.D.C. 1972).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kay, L. “Towards Objective Mobility Evaluation: Some Thoughts on a Theory”. (American Foundation for the Blind, N.Y.1974).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kay, L. “The Sonic Glasses Evaluated”, The New Outlook for the Blind, 67, pp.7–11, 1973.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kay, L. “Evaluation of the Ultrasonic Binaural Sensory Aid for the Blind” in (Guttman, N. Ed.), Evaluation of Sensory Aids for the Visually Handicapped, Appendix C., pp.1–33, (National Academy of Sciences, Wash.D.C., 1972).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kay, L., Strelow, E.R. “Blind Babies Need Specially Designed Aids”, New Scientist, 74, pp.709–712, 1977.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kay, L., Bui, S.T., Brabyn, J.A., Strelow, E.R. “Single Object Sensor: A Simplified Binaural Mobility Aid”, J.Visual Impairment and Blindness, 71, pp.210–213, 1977.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kay, L. “Enhanced Environmental Sensing by Ultrasonic Waves” in (Busnel, R.G., Ed.), Animal Sonar Systems, Tome II, pp.757–781, (Laboratoire De Physiologie Acoustique, Jouy-en-Josas 78, 1966).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Keen, K. “Coupling the Output of the “Sonicguide” to the Ear of the User”, The New Outlook for the Blind, 70, pp.304–306, 1976.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Keith, W.J., “Adaption to Distortion of Auditory Space, M.Sc. Thesis, University of Auckland, 1971.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Long Cane; The Cane as a Mobility Aid for the Blind, (National Academy of Sciences, Wash.D.C., 1972).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Newcommer, J. “Sonicguide: Its Use with Public School Blind Children”, J.Visual Impairment and Blindness, 77, pp.268–271.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nye, P.W. (Ed.), Evaluation of Mobility Aids for the Blind, (National Academy of Engineering, Wash. D.C. 1971).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Plomp, R,Steeneken, A.J.M., “Interference Between Two Simple Tones”. J.Acoustical Soc. Am. 43, pp.883–884, 1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rice, C.E. “The Human Sonar System” in (Busnel, R.G., Ed.) Animal Sonar Systems, Tome II, pp.719–755, (Laboratoire De Physiologie Acoustique, Jouy-en-Josas 78, 1966).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rowell, D. “Auditory Display of Spatial Information”, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Canterbury, N.Z., 1970.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Russell, L. “Travel Path Sounder” in (R. Dufton, Ed.) International Conference on Sensory Devices for the Blind, pp.293–296 (St.Dunstan’s, London, 1966).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Saunders, S.D. “The Distortion of an Auditory Display with Noise”, M.E. Thesis, University of Canterbury, N.Z., 1974.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Scionie, M.W. “Electronic Sensory Aids in a Concept Development Program for Congenitally Blind Young Adults”, J. of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 72, pp.88–93, 1978.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sharpe, R. “The Evaluation of the St.Dunstan’s Manual of Instruction for the Kay Sonic Aid”, Report, Dept of Psychology, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Stewart, W.G., Hovda, O. “The Intensity Factor in Sound Localization; an Extension of Weber’s Law”, Psychol. Rev. 25, pp.242–251, 1918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Strelow, E.R., Kay, N., Kay, L. “Binaural Sensory Aid: Case Studies of Its Use by Two Children”, J.Visual Impairment and Blindness, 72, pp.1–9, 1978.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Strelow, E.R., Boys, J.T. “The Canterbury Child’s Aid: A Binaural Spatial Sensor for Research with Blind Children”, Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness [in press 1979].Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Strelow, E.R., Kay, N., Kay, L. “Binaural Sensory Aid: Response to Comments by Smith and Dailey”, J. Visual Impairment and Blindness, 72, pp.320–321, 1978.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Subcommittee on Sensory Aids, “Selected Research, Development and Organisational Needs to Aid the Visually Impaired”. (National Academy of Engineering, Wash. D.C., 1973).Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Thornton, W. “The Binaural Sensor as a Mobility Aid”, The New Outlook for the Blind”, 65, pp.324–326, 1971.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Thornton, W. “The Binaural Sensor as a Mobility Aid: An Individual Evaluation of Its Use in Conjunction with the Long Cane”, (St.Dunstan’s, London, 1971).Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Thornton, W. “Evaluation of the Binaural Sensor or Sonic Glasses”, (St.Dunstan’s London, 1972).Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Webster, F.A. “Interception Performance of Echolocating Bats in the Presence of Interference”, in (Busnel, R.G., Ed.), Animal Sonar Systems, Tome I, pp.673–712, (Laboratoire De Physiologie Acoustique, Jouy-en-Josas 78, 1966).Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Warren, D.H. “Blindness and Early Childhood Development”, (American Foundation for the Blind, N.Y., 1977).Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Wormald Sensory Aids International Ltd., “Mowat Sensor” a commercial product. Christchurch, New Zealand.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leslie Kay
    • 1
  1. 1.University of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations