Register or Submit a manuscript.
Quick Link
OBM Neurobiology

(ISSN 2573-4407)

OBM Neurobiology is an international peer-reviewed Open Access journal published quarterly online by LIDSEN Publishing Inc. By design, the scope of OBM Neurobiology is broad, so as to reflect the multidisciplinary nature of the field of Neurobiology that interfaces biology with the fundamental and clinical neurosciences. As such, OBM Neurobiology embraces rigorous multidisciplinary investigations into the form and function of neurons and glia that make up the nervous system, either individually or in ensemble, in health or disease. OBM Neurobiology welcomes original contributions that employ a combination of molecular, cellular, systems and behavioral approaches to report novel neuroanatomical, neuropharmacological, neurophysiological and neurobehavioral findings related to the following aspects of the nervous system: Signal Transduction and Neurotransmission; Neural Circuits and Systems Neurobiology; Nervous System Development and Aging; Neurobiology of Nervous System Diseases (e.g., Developmental Brain Disorders; Neurodegenerative Disorders).

OBM Neurobiology publishes a variety of article types (Original Research, Review, Communication, Opinion, Comment, Conference Report, Technical Note, Book Review, etc.). Although the OBM Neurobiology Editorial Board encourages authors to be succinct, there is no restriction on the length of the papers. Authors should present their results in as much detail as possible, as reviewers are encouraged to emphasize scientific rigor and reproducibility.

Publication Speed (median values for papers published in 2024): Submission to First Decision: 7.6 weeks; Submission to Acceptance: 13.6 weeks; Acceptance to Publication: 6 days (1-2 days of FREE language polishing included)

Current Issue: 2025  Archive: 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017
Open Access Original Research

Technology to Help People with Blindness and Intellectual Disability Manage Indoor Travel: Anticipating and Bypassing Obstacles

Giulio E. Lancioni 1,*, Gloria Alberti 1 ORCID logo, Chiara Filippini 1, Nirbhay N. Singh 2, Mark F. O’Reilly 3, Jeff Sigafoos 4

  1. Lega F. D’Oro Research Center, Osimo (AN), Italy

  2. College of Medicine, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA

  3. Department of Special Education, University of Texas at Austin, TX, USA

  4. Faculty of Education, Health, and Psychological Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

* Correspondence: Giulio E. Lancioni

Academic Editor: Fady Alnajjar

Received: August 18, 2025 | Accepted: November 21, 2025 | Published: November 27, 2025

OBM Neurobiology 2025, Volume 9, Issue 4, doi:10.21926/obm.neurobiol.2504313

Recommended citation: Lancioni GE, Alberti G, Filippini C, Singh NN, O’Reilly MF, Sigafoos J. Technology to Help People with Blindness and Intellectual Disability Manage Indoor Travel: Anticipating and Bypassing Obstacles. OBM Neurobiology 2025; 9(4): 313; doi:10.21926/obm.neurobiol.2504313.

© 2025 by the authors. This is an open access article distributed under the conditions of the Creative Commons by Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is correctly cited.

Abstract

Recent work with people with blindness and intellectual disability assessed a technology-aided program intended to help eight participants travel indoor routes to reach relevant destinations. The technology included a smartphone, two barcode readers worn by the participants at their ankles, barcodes displayed at specific points of the travel routes, and a mini speaker. The technology ensured that participants received verbal instructions on how to proceed (e.g., take a left turn, cross from one side to the other of a corridor, or go straight ahead and follow the handrail) when their barcode readers detected the barcodes along the routes. The present study was an extension of the aforementioned work with the same eight participants. It was aimed at enabling the participants to (a) anticipate and bypass obstacles available on the routes in relation to verbal warnings and (b) maintain the ability to travel the routes correctly with the help of verbal instructions. In practice, the study (a) added a second module to the technology system used in previous work (i.e., a module consisting of a smartphone fitted with a special application that informed the participants about obstacles on the routes), (b) assessed the suitability and impact of such module in helping the participants anticipate and bypass obstacles, and (c) monitored the participants’ ability to travel the routes correctly (i.e., the ability that they had acquired previously) by continuing to use the same technology-regulated instructions. The results showed that introducing the second technology module enabled all participants to anticipate and bypass obstacles encountered along the routes. The participants also maintained their ability to travel the routes and reach the target destinations. Based on these results, it might be argued that combining the previously developed technology system with the technology module added in this study can be an effective strategy for helping people with blindness and intellectual disability travel indoor routes in a relatively accurate and safe manner.

Keywords

Technology; barcodes; barcode readers; intellectual disability; blindness; indoor travel; obstacle avoidance

1. Introduction

One of the main problem areas of people with blindness and intellectual disability concerns orientation and mobility [1,2,3,4,5]. These people, in fact, may have limited opportunities to develop adequate and functional maps of the indoor and outdoor spaces that are part of their daily lives. This difficulty may cause them to remain uncertain and inefficient in their mobility even within relatively small, familiar contexts [5,6,7,8]. The most immediate consequence of such uncertainty/inefficiency is a tendency toward sedentary and passive behavior, with negative implications for their independence and self-determination, their involvement in task performance, their health, and their social interactions [8,9,10,11,12,13,14].

Staff or caregivers’ physical and verbal support may help increase their opportunities to travel within their own context without failure. Yet, the availability of such support may prolong/extend their dependence on others rather than fostering their autonomy and self-determination [15,16]. Research efforts to develop technology systems to promote independent orientation and mobility have primarily focused on people with blindness or severe visual impairment who do not have intellectual disability [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. Those systems known in the literature with acronyms such as ASSIST, ROBOCANE, MagNav, PERCEPT, PARTHA, and ANSVIP were generally designed to work as sensory substitution devices and help the participants travel successfully by using sensory (e.g., auditory and vibrotactile) inputs that replaced the visual stimuli unavailable to them [25,26,27,28,29]. While the use of these systems and the inputs they provide may be feasible and helpful for people with regular intellectual functioning, a different picture may emerge among those who combine blindness with intellectual disability [30,31,32,33]. The presence of intellectual disability may, in fact, require that the technology works independently of specific handling requirements and provides sensory inputs that are immediately clear and simple to follow (i.e., offers instructions and warnings that the participants can promptly translate into explicit navigation actions) [5,6,32,33]. In line with this, the technology solutions available for these people have generally involved the automatic presentation of auditory cues marking the destinations they were to reach [34,35]. For example, an electronic device (e.g., a computer or smartphone) could activate a sound source at the workstations that people were to reach (e.g., to take or deliver objects), thus allowing them to successfully move to those workstations and carry out functional occupational responses within an activity room (i.e., within a relatively circumscribed area) [36,37,38].

Recent research work by Lancioni et al. [7] assessed a technology-aided program with people with blindness and moderate or moderate-to-severe intellectual disability [7]. The program was intended to help these people travel relatively long indoor routes (i.e., 70-140 meters) to reach relevant destinations. The technology involved (a) a smartphone linked to two barcode readers that the participants wore at their ankles, (b) barcodes printed on A-4 sheets of paper and displayed along the travel routes, and (c) a mini speaker. As soon as the barcodes were detected by the barcode readers the participants wore, the system delivered verbal instructions. Those instructions served to inform participants about how they were to proceed on their journey (e.g., whether they were to take a left turn, continue along the handrail or wall, or cross from one side to the other of a corridor). The results of the Lancioni et al. study [7] were auspicious, with the eight participants acquiring the ability to travel the routes independently of staff support and thus reach relevant destinations correctly.

The present study aimed to extend the study by Lancioni et al. [7] described above and involved the same participants. Specifically, the new study was designed to enable the participants to (a) anticipate and bypass obstacles available on the routes in relation to verbal warnings and (b) maintain the previously acquired ability of traveling the routes correctly with the help of verbal instructions [7]. In view of this, the new study (a) added a second technology module to that used by Lancioni et al. [7] (i.e., a new module consisting of a smartphone fitted with a special application that warned the participants about obstacles on the routes), (b) assessed the suitability and impact of such module in helping the participants anticipate and bypass the obstacles encountered on the routes, and (c) monitored the participants’ ability to travel the routes correctly (i.e., the ability that they had acquired previously [7]) by continuing to use the same technology-regulated instructions.

2. Method

2.1 Participants

The participants, previously identified with the pseudonyms of David, Gabriel, Jaxon, Axel, Roxanne, Damian, Hope, and Abel [7], were 30-65 years old and attended rehabilitation and care centers. All of them presented with congenital blindness and intellectual disability. Their age equivalents, obtained via the second edition of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales [39,40], ranged from 3 years and 1 month to 4 years and 7 months for daily living skills (personal sub-domain) and from 3 years and 8 months to 6 years and 6 months for receptive communication. While no Intelligence Quotient scores were available for them, their level of intellectual disability was estimated to be within the moderate or moderate-to-severe range by the psychological services of the rehabilitation and care centers that they attended. They were (a) able to discriminate simple verbal instructions (and could thus follow the instructions that were programmed to help them travel the routes and reach the destinations [7]) and (b) interested in various forms of environmental events (e.g., meeting and chatting with people, getting a coffee from the coffee machines). Those events were accessible to them when they reached the destinations.

2.2 Ethical Considerations

The participants, who had expressed their willingness to be involved in the previous study, confirmed their willingness also for the present study (i.e., for using an additional device that would alert/warn them about the presence of obstacles on the routes). However, given the uncertainty about whether they understood the study details and their inability to read and sign a consent form, their legal representatives were involved in the consent process. Specifically, the legal representatives read and signed the consent form, explicitly agreeing that the participants could opt out of the study at any time. The study complied with institutional and national ethical standards and the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments, and was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Lega F. D’Oro, Osimo (AN), Italy (P090220243).

2.3 Setting, Travel Routes, Traveling Trials, Instructions, and Research Assistants

The setting was the same as that used in the Lancioni et al. study [7] and involved the rehabilitation and care centers that the participants attended. Nine to 12 travel routes, 70-140 meters in length, were available to each participant. They allowed the participants to reach relevant destinations (e.g., the coffee corner and the reception desk; see Lancioni et al. [7]). Table 1 presents the list of travel routes (with their start and end/destination points) used for one of the participants (i.e., David). Walking through a route to reach a destination was counted as a traveling trial. In every route, participants received instructions on how to proceed at specific points of their traveling (i.e., in concomitance with barcodes displayed at specific points of the route; see the Technology System section). The instructions were delivered via the smartphone-connected mini speaker, which was at the participants' chest (see the Technology System section).

Table 1 List of travel routes (with their start and end/destination points) used for one of the participants.

Figure 1 provides a schematic representation of a route with five barcodes at different points of it (with the distance between the barcodes averaging about 19 meters). At each barcode (i.e., as soon as the barcode was identified by one of the barcode readers that the participants wore at their ankles), the smartphone provided the participants with a specific instruction. The instructions occurring along the route concerned (1) taking a right turn, (2) crossing the corridor and following the wall with the left hand, (3) taking a left turn, (4) crossing the corridor and following the wall with the right hand, and (5) entering the music room, respectively. The instructions programmed for the smartphone to present could have different formulations for the different participants. The differences were based on the assessment of participants’ general language and performance skills carried out prior to the start of the Lancioni et al. study [7]. For example, “Follow the handrail with the right hand” would change to “Follow the handrail with the hand with the watch” for participants who had some uncertainty about the “left” and “right” instruction words (see Lancioni et al. [7]). “Cross the corridor and search the handrail with your right hand” could change to “Open the arm with the watch and find the handrail with it”.

Click to view original image

Figure 1 Schematic representation of a travel route including five barcode areas (see black squares with the numerals 1-5) in relation to which the participants received traveling instructions.

During the intervention phase of the present study, participants would also receive warnings in relation to any obstacles encountered along the route (e.g., “Careful” or “Careful, chair”). The warnings were delivered by a second smartphone (i.e., other than the one providing route instructions; see the Technology System section). Smartphones’ delivery of instructions and warnings was to (a) ensure the participants’ full reliance on the technology and independence from research assistants and (b) guarantee the uniformity/reliability of the intervention conditions (e.g., of the instructions and warnings’ timing, formulation, and tone) across sessions. The four research assistants who had carried out the previous study were also in charge of the present study. They had a university degree in psychology and were experienced in implementing technology-aided interventions for people with severe disabilities and in data recording.

2.4 Technology System

The technology system included two modules. The first module was the one previously used by Lancioni et al. [7] and provided participants with instructions at specific points of the routes and thus helped them reach the destinations. The second module was explicitly designed for the present study and served to provide warnings about obstacles available along the routes. The first module had been validated through real-use testing prior to the start of Lancioni et al. study [7] and had shown reliable barcode recognition and instruction presentation throughout that study. The second module had been validated through real-use testing prior to the start of this study, and 50 consecutive instances of reliable obstacle recognition and warning presentation had been obtained for each obstacle.

2.4.1 First Module

The first module included (a) a smartphone linked to two barcode readers that the participants wore at their ankles, (b) barcodes printed on A-4 sheets of paper, which were displayed at specific points of the travel routes, and (c) a mini speaker that was at the participants’ chest. The smartphone, which the participants carried with them (in a pocket), operated on Android and was fitted with a special application that is freely available (https://osf.io/csqwy/). The application was developed using React Native and JavaScript and runs within the Expo environment on Android devices. A JSON configuration file, manually provided and loaded into the application, contains the barcode-to-audio mapping and is read at runtime to link each scanned barcode to the corresponding audio file (i.e., instruction).

The barcode readers were commercial devices (NETUM Bluetooth 2D Barcode Scanner available via Amazon) linked to the smartphone via Bluetooth. They weighed 55 grams, were in a continuous scanning mode, and read the barcodes at distances of 7-150 cm with a 70-degree scan angle. For each route, the special application determined the instruction that the smartphone would deliver (via the mini speaker) in relation to every barcode identified by one of the participants’ barcode readers (i.e., the one at their right ankle or the one at their left ankle; see Lancioni et al. [7]).

The barcodes were produced through a free online barcode generator (https://barcode.tec-it.com). Three to eight barcode areas were available within the travel routes (i.e., each barcode area consisted of several A-4 sheets with multiple reproductions of the same barcode, which were attached to specific points of the route’s walls). The variations in the number of barcode areas were due to the characteristics and length of the routes.

2.4.2 Second Module

The second module involved a smartphone (other than the one used in the first module), running Android and equipped with an application that recognized objects in real time using the smartphone's built-in camera. The application, which is freely available (https://gray-moss-0ac899410.4.azurestaticapps.net/), was built with JavaScript and uses TensorFlow.js, a machine learning library, to run a COCO-SSD object detection model directly in the browser via Web Assembly. The application continuously analyzes the camera feed and plays a selected audio warning when an object (identified as an obstacle) is within a specified distance.

The smartphone was tied to the participants’ belt so its camera would point straight ahead to detect whether a potential obstacle was in front of them. For practical reasons, only three objects/obstacles (i.e., chair, plant, and person) were used in this study. These objects were considered the most plausible obstacles in the rehabilitation and care contexts that the participants attended. When the participants’ distance from one of those obstacles was about 3 meters, the smartphone delivered warnings through the mini speaker of the first module. Warnings were repeated for as long as the camera saw the obstacle.

2.5 Data Recording

The research assistants recorded: (a) the number of traveling trials managed correctly (i.e., trials in which the participants followed the traveling instructions and reached the destinations in spite of possible problems in anticipating and bypassing the obstacles encountered), and (b) the number of obstacles along the routes that the participants anticipated (by putting their arm/hand forward) and bypassed successfully. Interrater agreement was checked over about 23% of the routes traveled and obstacles encountered by having a reliability observer join the data recording. The percentage of interrater agreement (computed by dividing the routes and the obstacles on which both the research assistants and the reliability observer had the same score by the total number of routes and obstacles on which interrater agreement was checked and multiplying by 100%) was above 95% for each of the participants.

2.6 Experimental Conditions and Data Analysis

The participants were divided into two groups of four. Each group was exposed to the study according to a nonconcurrent multiple baseline design across participants [41]. The study started with a baseline phase during which the participants walked different numbers of routes and encountered different numbers of obstacles (i.e., as required by the design) and continued with an intervention phase. During the baseline phase, participants used the first technology module, whereas during the intervention phase, they used both technology modules. To ensure high procedural fidelity [42], research assistants received regular feedback on their performance from a study supervisor. Feedback served to underscore accurate performance and correct potential inaccuracies (which were virtually absent, thereby substantiating the research assistants’ dependability).

The data were reported in graphic form. The data points in the graphs represent mean percentages of traveling trials managed correctly and mean percentages of obstacles anticipated and bypassed successfully over blocks of routes and obstacles, respectively. The “Percentage of Nonoverlapping Data” (PND) and the “Nonoverlap of All Pairs” (NAP) methods [43,44] were used for each participant to compare the intervention and baseline data on the obstacles anticipated and bypassed successfully.

2.7 Baseline

During the baseline phase, the participants were to use the first technology module, that is, the one employed in the previous study [7], which provided them with instructions for traveling the routes. The difference from the previous study was that the participants found a mean of about two obstacles (e.g., a chair and a plant) along each route (at each traveling trial). Specifically, participants were presented with 16 to 27 traveling trials over 1 to 2 weeks (typically 2 to 4 trials per day, 5 or 6 days a week). In those trials, participants encountered 32 to 54 obstacles (generally 2 obstacles per trial, with a range of 1 to 3). The baseline phase determined whether the participants (a) anticipated the obstacles present on the routes (i.e., put the arm/hand forward before reaching them) and bypassed them, and (b) maintained the ability to travel the routes correctly, that is, the ability acquired in the previous study (in spite of possible problems in anticipating and bypassing the obstacles). To ensure the participants’ safety, the research assistants provided verbal and physical guidance when the participants neared an obstacle without showing any anticipatory behavior (i.e., without putting the arm/hand forward). This type of guidance did not interfere with the scoring of a traveling trial as correct, provided the participants continued to respond to the instructions delivered by the first technology module and reached the destination successfully.

2.8 Intervention

During the intervention phase, both technology modules were available. The first module worked as in the baseline phase. The second module ensured that warnings were presented to help participants anticipate and bypass the obstacles encountered along the routes. The participants were presented with 81 to 106 traveling trials over 6 to 8 weeks (typically 2 to 4 trials per day, 5 or 6 days a week). Within each trial, participants typically encountered 2 obstacles (range of 1 to 3 per trial), with the total number of obstacles encountered across all trials varying from 160 to 215. The position of the obstacles on the routes could change across trials to confirm that the participants’ ability to anticipate and bypass those obstacles was due to the warnings received rather than to the obstacles’ position. Caution was always used to ensure that obstacles would not conceal the barcode areas. The first three to five obstacles encountered during the phase were used to introduce the participants to the system’s warnings and the required response. Specifically, the research assistants (a) emphasized (repeated) the warnings provided by the system and then (b) guided the participants to slow down, reach forward with their arm/hand, touch the obstacle (e.g., a chair), and bypass it. Following this brief introduction, research assistants’ guidance occurred if the participants did not show anticipatory behaviors (putting their arm/hand forward) in response to the warnings and were at risk of colliding with the obstacle. Research assistants also provided guidance when participants failed to follow the route instructions (see the Baseline section).

3. Results

The results are summarized in Figure 2 and Figure 3, which report the data for Roxanne, Gabriel, Jaxon, and Axel, and for Abel, Damian, Hope, and David, respectively. The black dots represent the mean percentage of traveling trials managed correctly over blocks of three trials. The empty squares represent the mean percentage of obstacles anticipated and bypassed successfully over blocks of 5-7 obstacles (i.e., a mean of about two obstacles per traveling trial). Blocks differing from those mentioned above are marked with numerals that indicate how many traveling trials and obstacles were encompassed. The figures do not include the initial 3-5 obstacles (and related traveling trials) that introduced the participants to the system’s warnings and the required response (see the Intervention section). Those obstacles and trials are also excluded from any data computation and analysis.

Click to view original image

Figure 2 The four graphs report the data for Roxanne, Gabriel, Jaxon, and Axel, respectively. The black dots represent the mean percentage of traveling trials managed correctly over blocks of three trials. The empty squares represent the mean percentage of obstacles anticipated and bypassed successfully over blocks of 5-7 obstacles. Blocks differing from those mentioned above are marked with numerals that indicate how many traveling trials (upper numeral) and obstacles (lower numeral) were included.

Click to view original image

Figure 3 The four graphs report the data for Abel, Damian, Hope, and David, respectively. Data are plotted as in Figure 2.

During the baseline phase (including between 16 and 27 traveling trials with totals of 32 to 54 obstacles), the participants’ mean percentage of obstacles anticipated and bypassed successfully was 0%. In fact, the participants did not show any anticipatory behavior in relation to the obstacles along the routes and thus were provided with research assistants’ guidance (i.e., were helped to bypass the obstacles without colliding with them). The participants’ mean percentage of traveling trials managed correctly ranged from 94 to 100%, indicating that the participants maintained the ability they had acquired in the previous study [7].

During the intervention phase (including 81 to 106 traveling trials with totals of 160 to 215 obstacles), the participants’ mean percentage of obstacles anticipated and bypassed successfully increased to between about 85.5% (Axel) and 99% (Gabriel), highlighting the positive effects of the new technology module. Most of the unsuccessful responding occurred at the start of the intervention phase. The mean percentage of traveling trials managed correctly remained high (i.e., above 95%) for all participants, indicating that this skill was maintained while the participants acquired and consolidated the new skill of anticipating and bypassing obstacles.

With regard to anticipating and bypassing obstacles successfully, it may be noted that (a) there was minimal or no overlap between the participants’ intervention and baseline data, (b) the comparison of these sets of data for the single participants using the PND and NAP methods provided indices of 0.93-1.0, and (c) the change observed during the intervention was clear in terms of level and level stability over time. All these points seem to confirm that the intervention had a positive impact on the participants’ ability to anticipate and bypass obstacles successfully.

4. Discussion

The results of this study suggest that the second technology module was suitable for detecting the obstacles and providing the participants with timely warnings. Those warnings were sufficient to enable the participants to anticipate and bypass the obstacles successfully. Meanwhile, the first technology module (i.e., the one introduced in the previous study by Lancioni et al. [7] and available throughout the baseline and intervention phases of this study) maintained its effectiveness in helping the participants travel the routes and reach the destinations correctly. Specifically, the verbal instructions provided by this module at key points along the routes were effective in guiding the participants through the routes and enabling them to manage their traveling. By the end of this study, the participants were able to orient and travel to relevant destinations and successfully/safely anticipate and bypass obstacles along the way. In light of these results, a few considerations may be put forward.

First, helping people with blindness and intellectual disability achieve this goal may have significant positive implications for their independence and self-determination, their involvement in task performance, their health, their social interactions, and their quality of life [11,12,13,14,15,45,46]. In practice, this achievement (a) marks a new stage in the participants’ developmental and rehabilitative process that offers them new opportunities for enhancing their perspectives and fulfilling their rights, and (b) also provides their context with encouraging evidence as to the possibility of reaching objectives previously considered elusive [47,48,49,50,51].

Second, the participants in this study, who could hardly be expected to use the technology systems developed for individuals with blindness or visual impairment (i.e., without intellectual disability) [20,24,35], seemed comfortable with the support provided by the technology modules available to them. The warnings about the presence of obstacles ahead helped the participants develop anticipatory behaviors and typically bypass the obstacles successfully (i.e., avoiding collisions). The presentation of easily decoded (clear to follow) instructions at specific points of the travel routes continued to be effective in helping the participants navigate the routes and reach the destinations (i.e., confirming the data previously reported [7]).

Third, the two technology modules, which worked smoothly throughout the study, may serve as a basis for further development in the area. To improve the suitability and effectiveness of such a basis, two steps could be readily taken. One step would be to integrate the two technology modules used in this study. Such integration would ensure that (a) the participants will carry only one smartphone rather than two, and (b) there will be no risks of overlap between travel instructions and obstacle warnings. The other step would consist of increasing the size of some of the barcode areas so that (a) an obstacle present in connection with those areas would never totally conceal them, and thus (b) the participants would regularly receive the travel instructions connected to those areas. A third possible step may be the development of a new system that replaces barcodes and barcode readers with Bluetooth beacons or other innovative technologies [52,53,54,55].

4.1 Limitations and Future Research

Two fundamental limitations of the study concern the (a) lack of assessment of the participants’ views about the technology and its support in reaching the destinations and avoiding obstacles, and (b) lack of assessment of staff opinion on the friendliness and acceptability of the technology and on its applicability in daily contexts. Two other potential limitations concern the use of only a few objects as obstacles and the relatively small number of participants in the study. To amend the first limitation, new studies would need to include strategies to assess participants’ views on the technology. These strategies may consist of (a) making the participants choose between traveling the routes with and without technology, and (b) recording signs of happiness and signs of anxiety within the two traveling situations [56,57]. To amend the second limitation, new studies would need to survey staff and gather their opinion on the technology after showing them videos of participants traveling the routes and dealing with obstacles with and without the technology [58,59]. Formal scales about the usability of the technology (e.g., the System Usability Scale) may also be used in the survey [60].

Regarding the obstacles, new studies may extend their number by (a) using objects whose presence is likely within the participants’ context, (b) training the special (object-tracking) application to recognize those objects, and (c) ensuring that those objects are familiar to the participants before being introduced along the traveling routes. Participants would be expected to respond successfully to the system’s warnings about the new object obstacles and to bypass them safely.

Regarding the number of participants included in the study, two considerations arise. First, the single-subject research design adopted in the study is apparently adequate to ensure the internal validity of the reported data [61,62,63]. Second, replication studies using single-case designs and group designs (comparing experimental and control groups) would be needed to assess the external validity of the data [64,65,66].

5. Conclusions

The data suggest that introducing the second technology module (i.e., the module regulating the presentation of obstacle warnings) helped the participants successfully anticipate and bypass the obstacles encountered along the routes. Meanwhile, the participants maintained their ability to travel the routes and reach the target destinations correctly (i.e., the ability that they had acquired using the first technology module, which continued to be in use throughout the present study). These findings are encouraging and suggest that combining the technology module developed by Lancioni et al. [7] with the technology module added in this study can be an effective strategy for helping people with blindness and moderate or moderate-to-severe intellectual disability travel indoor routes in a relatively accurate and safe manner. Before one can make any definite statements about the findings, however, new research will need to address the limitations of the present study. New research may also seek to integrate and simplify the two technology modules used in the present study, or to devise new technology solutions to make the interventions in this area more practical and easily acceptable.

Author Contributions

GEL was responsible for setting up the study, acquiring and analyzing the data, and writing the manuscript. GA and CF, collaborated in setting up the study and the technology system, contributed in acquiring and analyzing the data, and in editing the manuscript. NNS, MFO'R, and JS collaborated in setting up the study, analyzing the data, and writing/editing the manuscript.

Competing Interests

Authors declare no conflict of interest. The special applications for the smartphone used in the first and second modules of the technology are freely available (https://osf.io/csqwy/) and (https://gray-moss-0ac899410.4.azurestaticapps.net/).

Data Availability Statement

The original data contributions presented in the study are reproduced in the graphs included in the article. Datasets are available on request.

References

  1. Dijkhuizen A, Hilgenkamp TI, Krijnen WP, van der Schans CP, Waninge A. The impact of visual impairment on the ability to perform activities of daily living for persons with severe/profound intellectual disability. Res Dev Disabil. 2016; 48: 35-42. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  2. Dijkhuizen A, Waninge A, Hermans S, van der Schans CP, Krijnen WP. Progressive resistance training for persons with intellectual disabilities and visual impairment. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2019; 32: 1194-1202. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  3. Fellinger J. Intellectual disability and sensory impairment. In: Textbook of psychiatry for intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorder. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2022. pp. 849-867. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  4. Jarjoura W. Disorientation and loss of wayfinding in individuals with congenital blindness and other affecting comorbidities. Br J Vis Impair. 2019; 37: 240-247. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  5. Parker AT. Considering a practical orientation and mobility framework to design communication interventions for people with visual impairments, deafblindness, and multiple disabilities. Perspect ASHA Spec Interest Groups. 2017; 2: 89-97. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  6. Hsu PJ, Chou HS, Pan YH, Ju YY, Tsai CL, Pan CY. Sedentary time, physical activity levels and physical fitness in adults with intellectual disabilities. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18: 5033. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  7. Lancioni GE, Alberti G, Filippini C, Abbinante F, Singh NN, O'Reilly MF, et al. Technology and instructions to help people with blindness and intellectual disability manage indoor travel: A case series study. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2025; 20: 3085-3096. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  8. Mahoney WJ, Roberts E, Bryze K, Parker Kent JA. Occupational engagement and adults with intellectual disabilities. Am J Occup Ther. 2016; 70: 7001350030p1-7001350030p6. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  9. Zahabi M, Zheng X, Maredia A, Shahini F. Design of navigation applications for people with disabilities: A review of literature and guideline formulation. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2023; 39: 2942-2964. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  10. Blaskowitz MG, Johnson KR, Bergfelt T, Mahoney WJ. Evidence to inform occupational therapy intervention with adults with intellectual disability: A scoping review. Am J Occup Ther. 2021; 75: 7503180010. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  11. Mumbardó-Adam C, Vicente E, Balboni G. Self-determination and quality of life of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities: Past, present, and future of close research paths. J Policy Pract Intellect Disabil. 2024; 21: e12460. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  12. Shpigelman CN, HaGani N. The impact of disability type and visibility on self-concept and body image: Implications for mental health nursing. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2019; 26: 77-86. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  13. Syriopoulou-Delli CK. Quality of life in people with intellectual and developmental disability, autism: Advances in practice and research. Int J Dev Disabil. 2023; 69: 359-361. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  14. Vicente E, Mumbardó-Adam C, Guillén VM, Coma-Roselló T, Bravo-Álvarez MÁ, Sánchez S. Self-determination in people with intellectual disability: The mediating role of opportunities. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17: 6201. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  15. Wouters M, Evenhuis HM, Hilgenkamp TI. Physical activity levels of children and adolescents with moderate-to-severe intellectual disability. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2019; 32: 131-142. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  16. Chang YJ, Wang TY. Indoor wayfinding based on wireless sensor networks for individuals with multiple special needs. Cybern Syst. 2010; 41: 317-333. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  17. Cuturi LF, Aggius-Vella E, Campus C, Parmiggiani A, Gori M. From science to technology: Orientation and mobility in blind children and adults. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2016; 71: 240-251. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  18. Dees J, Dirks S. Cognitive Accessibility of Indoor Navigation Apps. In: Assistive Technology: Shaping a Sustainable and Inclusive World. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press; 2023. pp. 222-229. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  19. Khan S, Nazir S, Khan HU. Analysis of navigation assistants for blind and visually impaired people: A systematic review. IEEE Access. 2021; 9: 26712-26734. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  20. Kim IJ. Recent advancements in indoor electronic travel aids for the blind or visually impaired: A comprehensive review of technologies and implementations. Univers Access Inf Soc. 2025; 24: 173-193. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  21. Kiuru T, Metso M, Utriainen M, Metsävainio K, Jauhonen HM, Rajala R, et al. Assistive device for orientation and mobility of the visually impaired based on millimeter wave radar technology—Clinical investigation results. Cogent Eng. 2018; 5: 1450322. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  22. Mashiata M, Ali T, Das P, Tasneem Z, Badal MF, Sarker SK, et al. Towards assisting visually impaired individuals: A review on current status and future prospects. Biosens Bioelectron X. 2022; 12: 100265. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  23. Messaoudi MD, Menelas BA, Mcheick H. Review of navigation assistive tools and technologies for the visually impaired. Sensors. 2022; 22: 7888. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  24. Nair V, Olmschenk G, Seiple WH, Zhu Z. ASSIST: Evaluating the usability and performance of an indoor navigation assistant for blind and visually impaired people. Assist Technol. 2022; 34: 289-299. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  25. Chebat DR, Schneider FC, Ptito M. Spatial competence and brain plasticity in congenital blindness via sensory substitution devices. Front Neurosci. 2020; 14: 815. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  26. Jicol C, Lloyd-Esenkaya T, Proulx MJ, Lange-Smith S, Scheller M, O'Neill E, et al. Efficiency of sensory substitution devices alone and in combination with self-motion for spatial navigation in sighted and visually impaired. Front Psychol. 2020; 11: 1443. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  27. Kubanek M, Bobulski J. Device for acoustic support of orientation in the surroundings for blind people. Sensors. 2018; 18: 4309. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  28. Neugebauer A, Rifai K, Getzlaff M, Wahl S. Navigation aid for blind persons by visual-to-auditory sensory substitution: A pilot study. PLoS One. 2020; 15: e0237344. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  29. Tang S, Huang G. Navigation Assistance Via Haptic Technology for Blind or Low-Vision Users: A Scoping Review. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications; 2025. doi: 10.1177/10711813251360706. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  30. Koustriava E, Alexiadis M, Chronopoulou E, Skalidis N. The contribution of assistive technology in the development of orientation and mobility skills: The case of twins with mild intellectual disability and blindness. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Software Development and Technologies for Enhancing Accessibility and Fighting Info-exclusion; 2024 November 13-15; Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  31. Kuriakose B, Shrestha R, Sandnes FE. Tools and technologies for blind and visually impaired navigation support: A review. IETE Tech Rev. 2022; 39: 3-18. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  32. Lancioni GE, Singh NN, O'Reilly MF, Sigafoos J, Boccasini A, La Martire ML, et al. Orientation technology to help persons with blindness and multiple disabilities manage indoor travel and travel-related anxiety. J Intellect DevDisabil. 2014; 39: 198-205. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  33. Parker AT, Swobodzinski M, Wright JD, Hansen K, Morton B, Schaller E. Wayfinding tools for people with visual impairments in real-world settings: A literature review of recent studies. Front Educ. 2021; 6: 723816. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  34. Lancioni GE, Singh NN, O'Reilly MF, Sigafoos J, Alberti G, Chiariello V, et al. Fostering functional occupation and mobility in people with intellectual disability and visual impairment through technology-aided support. Adv Neurodev Disord. 2023; 7: 392-402. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  35. Wang J, Liu E, Geng Y, Qu X, Wang R. A survey of 17 indoor travel assistance systems for blind and visually impaired people. IEEE Trans Hum Mach Syst. 2021; 52: 134-148. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  36. Lancioni GE, Singh NN, O'Reilly MF, Sigafoos J, Alberti G, Campodonico F, et al. A technology-aided program to support basic occupational engagement and mobility in persons with multiple disabilities. Front Public Health. 2017; 5: 338. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  37. Lancioni GE, Singh NN, O'Reilly MF, Sigafoos J, Alberti G, Chiariello V, et al. Helping people with intellectual and visual disabilities manage object use and mobility via technology-regulated instructions, spatial cues, and stimulation. Disabilities. 2024; 4: 632-645. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  38. Uslan MM, Russell L, Weiner C. A 'musical pathway' for spacially disoriented blind residents of a skilled nursing facility. J Vis Impair Blind. 1988; 82: 21-24. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  39. Balboni G, Belacchi C, Bonichini S, Coscarelli A. Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales Second Edition–Survey Form–Standardizzazione Italiana. Florence, Italy: Giunti O.S.; 2016. [Google scholar]
  40. Sparrow SS, Cicchetti DV, Balla DA. Vineland adaptive behavior scales. 2nd ed. Minneapolis, MN: Pearson; 2005. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  41. Ledford JR, Gast DL. Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Routledge; 2018. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  42. Morris C, Jones SH, Oliveira JP. A practitioner's guide to measuring procedural fidelity. Behav Anal Pract. 2024; 17: 643-655. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  43. Manolov R, Tanious R. Assessing nonoverlap in single-case data: Strengths, challenges, and recommendations. J Behave Educ. 2024; 34: 869-901. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  44. Parker RI, Vannest KJ, Davis JL. Effect size in single-case research: A review of nine nonoverlap techniques. Behav Modif. 2011; 35: 303-322. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  45. Di Maggio I, Shogren KA, Wehmeyer ML, Nota L. Self-determination and future goals in a sample of adults with intellectual disability. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2020; 64: 27-37. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  46. Wehmeyer ML. The importance of self-determination to the quality of life of people with intellectual disability: A perspective. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17: 7121. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  47. Falk K, Sansour T. Self-concept and achievement in individuals with intellectual disabilities. Disabilities. 2024; 4: 348-367. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  48. Gudelytė U, Ruškus J, McCrea KT. "Help me to decide": A study of human rights-based supported decision making with persons with intellectual disabilities. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2024; 94: 297-310. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  49. Joyce A, Campbell P, Crosbie J, Wilson E. Workplace structures and culture that support the wellbeing of people with an intellectual disability. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2024; 21: 1453. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  50. Lecomte U, de los Ríos Berjillos A, Lethielleux L, Deroy X, Thenot M. Social understanding of disability: Determinants and levers for action. Behav Sci. 2024; 14: 733. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  51. Wehmeyer ML, Davies DK, Stock SE, Tanis S. Applied cognitive technologies to support the autonomy of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Adv Neurodev Disord. 2020; 4: 389-399. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  52. García-Paterna PJ, Martínez-Sala AS, Sánchez-Aarnoutse JC. Empirical study of a room-level localization system based on Bluetooth low energy beacons. Sensors. 2021; 21: 3665. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  53. Mackey A, Spachos P, Song L, Plataniotis KN. Improving BLE beacon proximity estimation accuracy through Bayesian filtering. IEEE Internet Things J. 2020; 7: 3160-3169. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  54. Rosiak M, Kawulok M, Maćkowski M. The effectiveness of UWB-based indoor positioning systems for the navigation of visually impaired individuals. Appl Sci. 2024; 14: 5646. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  55. Tyagi N, Sharma D, Singh J, Sharma B, Narang S. Assistive navigation system for visually impaired and blind people: A review. Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Vision (AIMV); 2021 September 24-26; Gandhinagar, India. New York, NY: IEEE. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  56. Ramey D, Healy O, McEnaney E. Defining and measuring indices of happiness and unhappiness in children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Behav Anal Pract. 2023; 16: 194-209. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  57. Wu PF, Cannella-Malone HI, Wheaton JE, Tullis CA. Using video prompting with different fading procedures to teach daily living skills: A preliminary examination. Focus Autism Other Dev Disabil. 2016; 31: 129-139. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  58. Stasolla F, Caffò AO, Perilli V, Boccasini A, Damiani R, D'Amico F. Assistive technology for promoting adaptive skills of children with cerebral palsy: Ten cases evaluation. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019; 14: 489-502. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  59. Worthen D, Luiselli JK. Comparative effects and social validation of support strategies to promote mindfulness practices among high school students. Child Fam Behav Ther. 2019; 41: 221-236. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  60. Lewis JR. The System Usability Scale: Past, present, and future. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2018; 34: 577-590. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  61. Kazdin AE. Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2020. [Google scholar]
  62. Slocum TA, Joslyn PR, Nichols B, Pinkelman SE. Revisiting an analysis of threats to internal validity in multiple baseline designs. Perspect Behav Sci. 2022; 45: 681-694. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  63. Slocum TA, Pinkelman SE, Joslyn PR, Nichols B. Threats to internal validity in multiple-baseline design variations. Perspect Behav Sci. 2022; 45: 619-638. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  64. Coiera E, Tong HL. Replication studies in the clinical decision support literature–frequency, fidelity, and impact. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2021; 28: 1815-1825. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  65. Tanious R, Manolov R, Onghena P, Vlaeyen JW. Single-case experimental designs: The importance of randomization and replication. Nat Rev Methods Primers. 2024; 4: 27. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  66. Walker SG, Carr JE. Generality of findings from single-case designs: It's not all about the "N". Behav Anal Pract. 2021; 14: 991-995. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
Journal Metrics
2024
CiteScore SJR SNIP
1.20.2050.249
Newsletter
Download PDF Download Full-Text XML Download Citation
0 0
Newsletter  

TOP