MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306167938 · doi:10.2196/39366

How Face Masks Affect the Use of Echolocation by Individuals With Visual Impairments During COVID-19: International Cross-sectional Online Survey

2022· article· en· W4306167938 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Chantal Kreidy, Natalina Martiniello, Joseph Paul Nemargut, Walter Wittich

Bibliographic record

VenueInteractive Journal of Medical Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal and Optic Conditions
Canadian institutionsSanté MontérégieCentre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de la Montérégie-CentreCentre de réadaptation Lethbridge-Layton-MackayUniversité de MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
FundersMinistère de la SantéMinistère de la Santé et des Services sociaux
KeywordsFace masksCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Human echolocationPsychologyOrientation and MobilityAffect (linguistics)AudiologyLow visionCross-sectional studyPandemicMedicineCommunicationOptometryVisually impaired

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although a critical safety measure, preliminary studies have suggested that the use of a face mask may pose a problem for some users with disabilities. To date, little is known about how the wearing of a traditional face mask may pose a barrier to individuals with visual impairments who draw on auditory cues and echolocation techniques during independent travel. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to document the difficulties, if any, encountered during orientation and mobility due to the use of a face mask during the COVID-19 pandemic and the strategies used to address these barriers. METHODS: In total, 135 individuals aged 18 years and older who self-identified as being blind, being deafblind, or having low vision and who could communicate in either English or French completed an anonymous cross-sectional online survey between March 29 and August 23, 2021. RESULTS: In total, 135 respondents (n=52, 38.5%, men; n=83, 61.5%, women) between the ages of 18 and 79 (mean 48.22, SD 14.48) years participated. Overall, 78 (57.7%) self-identified as blind and 57 (42.3%) as having low vision. In addition, 13 (9.6%) identified as having a combined vision and hearing loss and 3 (2.2%) as deafblind. The most common face coverings used were cloth (n=119, 88.1%) and surgical masks (n=74, 54.8%). Among the barriers raised, participants highlighted that face masks made it more difficult to locate people (n=86, 63.7%), communicate with others (n=101, 74.8%), and locate landmarks (n=82, 60.7%). Although the percentage of those who used a white cane before the pandemic did not substantially change, 6 (14.6%) of the 41 participants who were guide dog users prior to the pandemic reported no longer working with a guide dog at the time of the survey. Moreover, although guide dog users reported the highest level of confidence with independent travel before the pandemic, they indicated the lowest level of confidence a year after the pandemic began. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that participants were less able to draw on nonvisual cues during independent travel and social interactions due to the use of a facemask, contributing to a reduction in perceived self-confidence and independence. Findings inform the development of evidence-based recommendations to address identified barriers.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInteractive Journal of Medical ResearchSame topicRetinal and Optic ConditionsFrench-language works237,207