MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792792080 · doi:10.21037/aes.2018.ab098

AB098. Perceptual, motor and cognitive factors related to braille reading performance in aging: a scoping review

2018· review· en· W2792792080 on OpenAlexaff
Natalina Martiniello, Walter Wittich

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Eye Science · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicErgonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalCentre Intégré de Santé et de Services Sociaux des LaurentidesAssociation for Canadian StudiesMAB-Mackay Rehabilitation CentreCentre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de la Montérégie-CentreCentre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de Chaudière-AppalachesCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)BraillePerceptionCognitionCognitive psychologyPsychologyAudiologyComputer scienceMedicineNeuroscienceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: A growing number of older adults with vision loss require vision rehabilitation services to address reading difficulties. Braille may be the most appropriate option for those with functional blindness, poor visual prognoses or dual sensory loss. While standardized braille assessment and training protocols are in place to guide interventions with children, there is a high degree of inconsistency and a lack of evidence-based knowledge about best practices to use with adults and seniors who require braille training. Age-related declines in tactile acuity, motor dexterity and cognition present unique barriers to braille training, but very little is known about the impact of aging on factors related to braille reading performance. The aim of this scoping review is to identify the perceptual, motor, and cognitive factors related to braille reading performance and to determine how these factors have been assessed or measured among blind adults and elderly individuals in prior studies. Methods: Using the scoping review method, a comprehensive search was conducted in three databases: PubMed, Educational Resource Information Center (ERIC), and the Cochrane library. Two reviewers screened articles for inclusion to ensure internal agreement, based on identified exclusion criteria. Results: The initial search resulted in 1,565 qualitative and quantitative articles. The results synthesize the perceptual, motor and cognitive factors known to predict braille reading performance, how these variables are impacted by the aging process, and how they have been measured in prior studies. Conclusions: This scoping review is the first step in working towards the development of evidence-based assessment and training protocols to standardized practice with adult and senior clients who require braille training. It also serves to clarify where current knowledge gaps exist in order to guide future studies on braille reading and aging.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0200.018
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.125
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.344 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Eye ScienceSame topicErgonomics and Musculoskeletal DisordersFrench-language works237,207