Impact of Hearing Impairment on Independent Travel in Individuals With Normal Vision, Low Vision, and Blindness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals with dual sensory impairment (DSI) often have reduced independence in their daily activities. Vision impairment is consistently reported to play a more dominant role than hearing impairment on home-based daily living, while little is known regarding the relative impact of vision and hearing impairments on tasks such as independent travel that require interacting with more complex environments. To address this knowledge gap, we administered a semistructured survey in a convenience sample of 161 individuals with normal vision, low vision, or blindness, with or without hearing impairment. A combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches was used to analyze the data. Compared to normal vision, low vision and blind participants were significantly less likely to be frequent travelers. Low vision participants reported that vision impairment had a greater impact than hearing impairment on their travel independence, while blind participants reported hearing impairment to have a greater impact than blindness on their travel independence. The unique challenges in blind individuals were highlighted by their concerns on localizing dynamic sounds such as traffic during travel. Seventy percent of the hearing-impaired participants wore hearing aids and reported high utility for speech perception, but there was a significant reduction in the utility of hearing aids for sound localization especially for the blind participants. Our results reveal the interaction between vision and hearing impairments on independent travel and emphasize the need for an integrated rehabilitation approach for this population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".