The Influence of Information Acquisition Strategies on Foot Proprioception and Obstacle Avoidance Pattern in People with Low Vision

  • Tadashi UnoEmail author
  • Ping Yeap Loh
  • Satoshi Muraki
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 819)


The purpose of this study was to understand the influence of various information acquisition strategies on foot proprioception and obstacle avoidance in people with low vision. Ten adult males (41.0 ± 7.1 years) with pigmentary retinal degeneration were recruited for this study. Participants acquired obstacle information (obstacle height: 4 cm and 15 cm) through three different strategies, namely, front (A), downward (B), and tactile (C). Subsequently, the participants performed two different tasks; Task 1: After identification of the obstacles, the participants reproduced the obstacle height by lifting their foot while standing still (10 times). Task 2: Following the acquisition of the obstacle information through conditions B and C, participants performed obstacle step-over from a standing position. In task 1, condition B showed significantly higher toe-rise and coefficient of variance in toe-rise (p < 0.05) than in conditions A and C, which both displayed similar toe-rise. Likewise, in task 2, the highest points of the leading and trailing feet while stepping over the obstacle were significantly higher (p < 0.05) in condition B than in condition C. Additionally, the coefficient of effort in condition B was significantly larger (p < 0.05) than that of condition C. These results suggest that differences in information acquisition strategies have an impact on the foot trajectory during obstacle step-over. Out of the three methods used in this study, information acquisition through the tactile sense may be the best obstacle avoidance feedback method for people with low vision.


Low vision Pigmentary retinal degeneration Information acquisition strategies 



This work is supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers 15K16413.


  1. 1.
    Masaki T, Motohiro O (1995) A present situation and problems of independent travel of blind and visual impaired. Soc Instrum Control Eng 34(2):140–146. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cardin S, Thalmann D, Vexo F (2007) A wearable system for mobility improvement of visually impaired people. Vis Comput 23(2):109–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization. Accessed 23 Apr 2018
  4. 4.
    Zijlstra GR, Ballemans J, Kempen GI (2013) Orientation and mobility training for adults with low vision: a new standardized approach. Clin Rehabil 27(1):3–18. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cappagli G, Finocchietti S, Baud-Bovy G, Cocchi E, Gori M (2017) Multisensory rehabilitation training improves spatial perception in totally but not partially visually deprived children. Front Integr Neurosci 11:1–11. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ishmael D (2015) The use of auditory, tactual, olfactory and kinaesthetic senses in developing orientation and mobility (O & M) skills to learners with congenital blindness (CB). IOSR J Humanit Soc Sci 20(2):34–44. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Newell FN (2004) Cross-modal object recognition. In: Galvert G, Spence C, Stein BE (eds) The hand-book of multisensory processes. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 123–139Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wada Y (2007) Vision influences on tactile discrimination of grating orientation. Jpn J Psychol 78(3):297–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ernst MO, Bülthoff HH (2004) Merging the senses into a robust percept. Trends Cogn Sci 8(4):162–169. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of TechnologyTokuyama CollegeYamaguchiJapan
  2. 2.Graduate School of DesignKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan
  3. 3.Faculty of DesignKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan

Personalised recommendations