I will say just a little more on this topic in response to the comments
received since my first epistle.
David Andrews commented:
> Finally, my observations tell me that very few foreign people have
> good cane travel training like we do at our centers.
> If they did, I wonder how much they would be interested in
> these electronic aids.
> They may be using them as a substitute for good travel training,
> which they don't know about. They don't have many expectations of
> good cane travel.
With the greatest respect, or as much respect as us Neanderthals from
the antipodes can muster, I make two points. The first is that long
cane training in Australia seems to be as good as anywhere else. I have
worked with a number of American instructors and their approach was very
consistent with Australian instructors. Secondly, to the proficient
electronic travel aid (ETA) user, the comment that these aids are being
used in lieu of good cane travel is parallel to saying that many blind
people now use speech and/or electronic Braille output because they
haven't been taught to use a slate and stylus properly. Yes, one can
travel safely with a long cane only. You can also do all your writing
on a slate and stylus.
When visiting America some years ago, I was walking with another blind
man. The area was very familiar to him and totally unfamiliar to me
(though not complicated). I called to him to stop. He didn't and his
cane clanged against the side of the car parked across the footpath. As
he worked his way around the car he conceded, "Those things must do
something." Not only did I know that there was an obstacle, but I knew
it was a car.
Let me stress that I am not suggesting that current ETAs are perfect, or
anywhere near it. That so few people do benefit from them is proof
enough of that. Is the problem in the way information is presented, is
it expectation of potential users and/or instructors or something less
readily identifiable? How do we want information presented about the
environment? Full vision has strong appeal for me, but that's getting a
bit greedy.
But let me reiterate a point I made in my earlier note. We know that
only a very small number of blind people reach real proficiency with
existing ETAs. We do not know all of the reasons for this. I must
stress again, though, that my skill level continued to improve over
several years. Simply putting an aid on, particularly indoors, and
expecting to make sense of the information is an exercise in futility.
Furthermore, if any long term blind person were to have full vision
bestowed upon them today, that would not allow them to interact
immediately with the environment in the same way as other sighted
people. In fact, evidence suggests that there is a period of
considerable confusion upon sight restoration, even for people who have
previously had vision. Given all of that, what are the implications for
the bionic eye, which is apparently getting closer? That promises to
open a whole new can of worms.
I had the pleasure of spending a week with Prof Kay in early 1982. My
experience with the Trisensor then was that it was not very different to
the SonicGuide. As one would expect, the straight ahead signal was a
bit stronger. I still have some reservations about automatic gain
controls on these things. Very briefly, I sometimes want different
volume settings in the same location.
I would be interested to hear of any further developments with the
Trisensor, or other ETAs.
Curtis Chong raised the issue of the cost of ETAs. I totally agree that
the cost should be as low as possible. Incidentally, my Mowat Sensor
cost about $700 in Australia, so may be less in America. Even that is
considerably more expensive than a long cane. Going back to my previous
analogy, though, the speech output system I am using is also rather more
expensive than my slate and stylus. That is because it is doing a great
deal more. In the same way, an ETA is (or should be) performing a very
different role to a long cane. If we are prepared to spend sometimes
thousands of dollars to have independent access to information, why
should we not be prepared to pay for a vastly improved method of travel?
That assumes, of course (a bold assumption for many) that the improved
travel is realized. While on the question of cost, by far the most
expensive mobility aid of all is the dog guide. While I have heard
agencies in this country raise cost as an issue in relation to ETAs, the
cost of training dogs has never been seen as a deterrent. I am in no
way opposed to dogs and in fact gained much benefit from using one for
ten years. I would also stress that my current level of mobility is
very comparable to when I had the dog - sometimes easier and sometimes
not.
I will give more thought to criteria for travel aids. I should stress,
however, that I would be most surprised if an aid is both quick and easy
to learn and provides much environmental information. This makes
evaluation of new aids very difficult. Even remember how many hours of
practice it took to be able to use a long cane really well. When
considering criteria, it is important to consider what we want to have,
not what we are used to. I wonder whether the comparison between ETAs
and canes is helpful.
Happy travelling
Andrew Downie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 02 2012 - 01:30:03 PST