Different materials that are used in manufacturing long cane shafts were assessed for their ability to transmit vibration and their sensitivity to tactile information, flexibility, and durability. It was found that the less flexible a cane shaft is, the better it transmits vibrations that are useful for discriminating surface textures and that shafts with less weight transmit energy at higher natural frequencies. A combination of decreased flexibility and decreased weight in a cane appears to optimize the cane's usefulness in discriminating the characteristics of surfaces.
BallM. J. (1964). Mobility in perspective. Blindness: AAWB Annual, 107–141.
3.
BrisbenA. J., HsiaoS. S., & JohnsonK. O. (1999). Detection of vibration transmitted through an object grasped in the hand. Journal of Neurophysiology, 81, 1548–1558.
4.
ChanT.-C., & TurveyM. T. (1991). Perceiving the vertical distances of surfaces by means of a hand-held probe. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 347–358.
5.
DrouillardR. C. (1967). A study comparing the conductive qualities of three collapsible canes with the conductive qualities of a non-collapsible cane. Unpublished master's thesis, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo.
6.
FoulkeE. (1967, December). The cane as a channel for the communication of information. Proceedings of the Conference for Mobility Trainers and Instructors (pp. 19–26). Cambridge, MA: Sensory Aids and Evaluation Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
7.
FoulkeE. (1975). The development of an improved cane for use by blind pedestrians. In Perceptual Alternatives Laboratory: Annual report to the dean of the Graduate School July 1, 1974 through June 30, 1975 (pp. 57–69). Louisville, KY: Perceptual Alternatives Laboratory, University of Louisville.
8.
GibsonJ. J. (1962). Observations on active touch. Psychological Review, 69, 477–491.
HooverR. (1946). Foot travel at Valley Forge. New Outlook for the Blind and the Teachers Forum, 40, 246–251.
11.
HooverR. E. (1962). The cane as a travel aid. In ZahlP. A. (Ed.), Blindness (2nd ed.) (pp. 353–365). New York: Hafner.
12.
JohanssonR. S., LandstromU., & Lund-stromR. (1982). Responses of mechanoreceptive afferent units in the glabrous skin of the human hand to sinusoidal skin displacements. Brain Research, 244, 17–25.
13.
RodgersM. D., & Wall EmersonR. (2005). Human factor analysis of long cane design: Weight and length. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 99, 622–632.
14.
RollerD. E., & BlumR. (1981). Physics: Volume 1, Mechanics, waves and thermodynamics.Holden-Day: San Francisco.
15.
SchenkmanB. N. (1986). Identification of ground materials with the aid of tapping sounds and vibrations of long canes for the blind. Ergonomics, 29, 985–998.
16.
SchultzB. (1985). Comparing canes: The textural transmitting ability of the Equipoise Cane versus that of the WCIB collapsible cane. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Blind Rehabilitation, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo.
17.
SolomonH. Y. (1988). Movement produced invariants in haptic explorations: An example of a self-organizing, information-driven, intentional system. Human Movement Science, 7, 201–223.
18.
SuterkoS. (1967, December). Long cane training: Its advantages and problems. Proceedings of the Conference for Mobility Trainers and Technologists (pp. 13–18). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
19.
TurveyM. T., BurtonG., PaganoC. C., SolomonH. Y., & RunesonS. (1992). Role of the inertia tensor in perceiving object orientation by dynamic touch. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 714–727.
20.
WalravenJ. (1982). Ergonomics, mechanics, and functional aspects of the long cane.Soesterberg, The Netherlands: Institute for Perception, the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research.
