ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT04639531VR-IOMSUpdated Sep 22, 2026Results posted

Virtual Reality-Base Intelligent Orientation and Mobility Specialists Trial

An interventional study of Orientation and Mobility Training with VR-IOMSs and Orientation and Mobility Training with COMS in Low Vision, Both Eyes, sponsored by University of Alabama at Birmingham. Completed at 2 sites in United States. Open to participants aged 13 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-09-22.

Sponsored by University of Alabama at Birmingham · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
117
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
13 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The human subject research is a randomized, controlled training trial that tests the effectiveness of three Virtual Reality-based Intelligent Orientation and Mobility Specialists (VR-IOMSs) in teaching orientation and mobility (O\&M) task skills to low vision patients. It will be conducted on two sites, University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) and Alabama Institute for Deaf and Blind (AIDB). The same protocol will be used on both sites. UAB will be the sIRB for the trial.

Three O\&M tasks will be studied, timing to cross a signalized street using the near lane parallel traffic surge skill, timing to cross an uncontrolled street using the traffic gap judgment skill and learning outdoor numbering system. A VR-IOMS will be develop for each task. The training does not involve research subjects walking into street traffic.

Low vision subjects who have difficulties with these O\&M tasks due to their impaired vision will be randomized into three groups, learning the task from a VR-IOMS (experimental group), from a human Certified Orientation \& Mobility Specialist (COMS) in real streets (active control group) and not learning the task but spending the same amount of time watching low vision education videos (placebo group). All subjects will be evaluated by COMSs in real streets around the two study sites before training (pre-training), within 3 days after the completion of training (post-training) and 3 months after the completion of training (follow up). Their ability to perform the O\&M tasks will be assess quantitatively using objective methods. COMSs who conduct these evaluations will be blinded for subject training assignment.

The primary outcome measure is the training effect, the difference in task performance between the pre-training and post-training real street evaluations. The training effects of the 3 groups will be compared to determine the training effectiveness of the VR-IOMS relative to human COMS. Secondary outcome measures include the retainment of the training effect. Objective assessment of the VR-IOMS training process and trainee subjective evaluation of the VR-IOMS training will also be analyzed.

Read the detailed description

The human subject research is a randomized, controlled training trial that tests the effectiveness of three Virtual Reality-based Intelligent Orientation and Mobility Specialists (VR-IOMSs) in teaching orientation and mobility (O\&M) task skills to individuals with low vision (LV). It will be conducted on two sites, University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) and Alabama Institute for Deaf and Blind (AIDB). The same protocol will be used on both sites. UAB will be the sIRB for the trial.

Three O\&M tasks will be studied, timing to cross a signalized street using the near lane parallel traffic surge skill (Task NLPT), timing to cross an uncontrolled street using the traffic gap judgment skill (Task TGJ) and learning outdoor numbering system (Task ONS). A VR-IOMS will be developed and validated for each task. The training does not involve research subjects walking into street traffic.

Low vision subjects who have difficulties with these O\&M tasks due to their impaired vision will be recruited from UAB and AIDB according to procedures approved by UAB IRB. Specifically, clinicians of UAB Center for Low Vision Rehabilitation will identify potential study subjects from records of existing patients and from new patient population. Recruitment letters from the clinicians will be sent to potential subjects. Patients who are interested in participating will initiate contact with UAB research team for initial evaluation and scheduling an enrollment visit. Certified O\&M specialist (COMS) faculty of AIDB's School for the Blind, the Gentry Facility and Alabama Freedom Center for the Blind will identify potential study subjects from new students/clients and will use a recruitment script to inform them about the study. Students/clients who are interested will contact the AIDB team to arrange initial evaluation and enrollment session.

Initial evaluation includes inquiries of visual and hearing impairment, mental status and O\&M training history. Potential subjects who pass the initial evaluation will attend an enrollment session where demographic information will be collect, visual and hearing functions will be assessed, if necessary and functional vision and ability to perform the study O\&M tasks will be evaluated by COMS on real streets. Informed consent/assent material approved by UAB IRB will be presented to potential subjects who meet the inclusion criteria and/or their legally authorized representatives. Research activity will not begin until written informed consent/assent is obtained according to approved procedure.

Enrolled subjects will be randomized into three groups, learning the task from a VR-IOMS (experimental group), from a human COMS in real streets (active control group) and not learning the task but spending the same amount of time watching LV education videos (placebo group). All subjects will be evaluated by COMSs in real streets around the two study sites before training (pre-training), within 3 days after the completion of training (post-training) and 3 months after the completion of training (follow up). Their ability to perform the O\&M tasks in real streets will be assessed quantitatively using objective methods. Specifically, in Task NLPT, the performance is measured by a safety score, which is determined by the time of the onset of the steady pedestrian WALK signal, the time when the first straight going car in the same direction as the traveler's crossing direction entering the street intersection and the time when the subject decides to start crossing (say GO). These times will be measured by the COMS using a stopwatch. The safety score, ranges from 0 to 1, represents the proportion of the duration of the pedestrian phase after the subject says GO. A larger score indicate a larger portion of pedestrian phase is available for the subject to walk across the street and is thus safer. A GO call in the steady DON'T WALK phase will be recorded as a negative number and is unsafe. This safety score was developed and used in the investigators' pilot research. The rule of thumb used by COMSs, start crossing within 7 seconds after the onset of the pedestrian WALK signal, will also be used. In Task TGJ, the performance is measured by a safety margin, which is the traffic gap width in seconds (the time interval in seconds between the first and second car passing in front of the traveler) minus the delay of the subject's crossing decision (say GO) and minus the time needed for the subject to walk across the street at the participant's preferred walking speed. Validated objective methods to measure the three times involved in safety margin determination have been used in previous studies of low vision patient TGJ performance and will be used in this research. A positive safety margin represents the time left of the traffic gap when the subject has reached the opposite side of the road, thus indicates a safe crossing decision. A negative safety margin represents the time when the subject is still in the road after the traffic gap has closed. It indicates an exposure of the subject to the traffic and thus indicates an unsafe decision. In Task ONS, the performance is measured by the correctness of the subject's plan to reach a destination in the neighborhood. The subject earns two points for making no error in the direction and the side of street of the destination, earns 1 point for getting one wrong and earns no point for getting both wrong. The subject will not walk into the traffic in any of the task evaluations in real streets.

COMSs who conduct real street evaluations will use paper data-entry forms to record objective performance assessment and subjective observation of subject performance. The original data-entry forms will be placed in the subject's data folder and secured in the PI's file locker after the data is transcribed to corresponding electronic forms and the transcription accuracy is versified by the PI or the research coordinator. Only computer generated subject IDs will be used on paper and electronic data forms.

COMSs who conduct real street evaluations will be blinded for subject training assignment. The objective nature of the performance measures ensures high inter-rater agreement, as shown in the investigators' pilot study. Nevertheless, COMSs of the UAB and AIDB sites will test the agreement of their evaluation outcome by evaluating the performance of the same subjects on real streets before the trial.

COMSs who are not involved in evaluation will train the active control group in real streets. The COMS will use their routine training procedure to conduct real street training to reflect the current practice in O\&M rehabilitation. COMSs have the freedom to customize their training procedure according to each subject's ability and need. However, the COMSs on UAB and AIDB who will conduct training will come to consensus on the exiting performance levels for the O\&M tasks and will confirm consistency of their exiting performance levels on the same low vision subjects before trial. The experimental group will be trained by the automated VR-IOMSs. A member of the research team will be in the room of the simulator for safety reason, but will not intervene VR-IOMS training. Members of the experimental group will also be asked to complete a survey of their learning experience with the VR-IOMSs. Members of the placebo group will watch low vision education video and discuss low vision issues not related to O\&M with COMSs.

COMSs who train subjects in real streets will keep an electronic training diary for each subject, which will include the participant's assessment of the subject's ability to perform the O\&M task entering and exiting training, observation of the subject's performance and progress during training. The VR-IOMSs automatically maintain detailed records of the teaching/practicing material, results of assessment, the errors made, the feedback/guidance provided and results of exit assessment. Subject will only be referred to using their study IDs in all training records.

Sample size computation for Task NLPT is based on the results of the investigators' pilot study, in which LV subjects received the NLPT surge training from COMSs. The mean pre- and post-training safety scores were 0.24±0.32 and 0.79±0.18. If the trial is designed to detect a 25% difference between the post-NLPT training safety scores of COMS and VR-IOMS training, and the enrollment is selectively stratified such that each group has an equal number of central and peripheral vision loss subjects, a sample size of 8 per group can achieve a power of 91% at a significance level of 0.05 in a one-way ANOVA study. Assuming that 20% of the enrolled subjects may not be able to complete the multi-session study, 30 LV subjects will be enrolled for the Task NLPT training trial. There have been no quantitative studies on TGJ training effect on LV patients. A quantitative study of 10 experienced LV travelers with mixed central and peripheral vision losses found a close match between their gap width judgments (safe gap width 4.6±0.54 sec) and cross times (0.48±0.88 sec). The authors' power analysis showed that the sample size, N=10, had 86% power to resolve a 0.5 second difference in the safety margin of the TGJ task. This resolution is good from a practical point of view (time for moving one step). the investigators will enroll 36 LV subjects (10 per group + 20% extra) for the TGJ VR-IOMS trial. No quantitative studies on LV patients learning the outdoor numbering system have been conducted. The investigators will use the subjects recruited for Task TGJ to conduct a pilot study to obtain training effects and standard deviations for sample size computation. For programmatic purpose, the investigators assume a sample size of 36 for the ONS VR-IOMS trial. This yields a total number of 102 LV subjects for the study.

02

Conditions studied

  • Low Vision, Both Eyes

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Orientation & Mobility
  • Virtual Reality
  • Intelligent Tutoring
  • Low Vision
03

In context

Vision, Low

98 studies on the registry are indexed under Vision, Low; 23 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 117 is above the median of 60 across 78 interventional studies indexed under Vision, Low.

Browse Vision, Low studies →

Lead sponsor

University of Alabama at Birmingham is the lead sponsor of 1,421 studies on the registry; 277 are open to participants now.

Of its 164 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 130 (79%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
13 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Have stable, late-onset visual impairment.
  • Not have had formal O\&M training. Potential participants will be taken to real streets by COMS and their performance on the 3 studied tasks will be evaluated.
  • Following visual function requirements for the three studied O\&M tasks

    • Task NLPT: best corrected visual acuity of 20/650 or worse
    • Task TGJ:

      • central vision loss - acuity 20/100-20/300, radius of field 50-80 deg
      • peripheral vision loss - acuity 20/15-20/100, radius of field 5-55 deg
    • Task ONS: visual function requirements for both Tasks NLPT \& TGJ
  • Possess sufficient functional vision to learn the O\&M tasks (evaluated by COMS in real streets)
  • Have O\&M as a rehabilitation goal
  • Normal or corrected to normal hearing
  • No cognitive impairment ( (MoCA) or MoCA-blind (MoCA-B) score exceeds education-adjusted cutoffs)
  • Dexterity to operate a pointing mouse or a joystick
  • Physical stamina to walk a few street blocks under guidance of COMSs and to stand or sit for 30-min training sessions on the street or in the VR simulator

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients in the rapid progression phase of ocular diseases, such as wet macular degeneration
  • Patients under aggressive treatment of ocular diseases, such as VEGF injection for retinal diseases
  • Patients with congenital visual impairment will be excluded.
  • Participants will be excluded from the training for the skills that they already master.
  • Participants who have a history of epileptic seizure or are prone to motion sickness will be excluded.
  • Have difficulty in verbal communication in English.
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(1)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

MMSE and MoCA

Short tests of memory and thinking, each scored out of 30. Lower scores suggest more difficulty; criteria give a range, either to include people with memory problems or to leave them out.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
117 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Orientation and Mobility Training with VR-IOMSs

    Low vision subjects with Orientation and Mobility (O\&M) difficulties learning O\&M skills from Virtual Reality-base Intelligent O\&M Specialists (VR-IOMSs). VR-IOMSs are intelligent, computer-controlled automatic O\&M skill training programs in virtual streets.

    Behavioral: Orientation and Mobility Training with VR-IOMSs

  • Active comparator
    Orientation and Mobility Training with COMS

    Low vision subjects with Orientation and Mobility (O\&M) difficulties learning O\&M skills from human Certified O\&M Specialists (COMS) in real streets

    Behavioral: Orientation and Mobility Training with COMS

  • Placebo comparator
    No Orientation and Mobility Training

    Low vision subjects with Orientation and Mobility (O\&M) difficulties watching low vision education videos and discuss low vision issues not related to O\&M with COMSs.

    Behavioral: No Orientation and Mobility Training

Interventions

  • BehavioralOrientation and Mobility Training with VR-IOMSs

    Learning Orientation and Mobility skills from virtual-reality-based, automated, intelligent computer training programs - VR-IOMSs

  • BehavioralOrientation and Mobility Training with COMS

    Learning Orientation and Mobility skills from human Certified Orientation and Mobility Specialists (COMS)

  • BehavioralNo Orientation and Mobility Training

    No Orientation and Mobility training. Watch low vision education videos and discuss low vision issues not related to O\&M with COMS

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Pre-Training Proportion of Success

    Proportion of O\&M Task Success (In NLPT training, a success is a safe timing to cross street; in MBC, a success is a safe decision to cross or no cross a street; in ODNS, a success is a good trip plan to visit an unfamiliar address). Numbers are all between 0 and 1.

    Time frame: Within 3 days before commencement of Orientation and Mobility training

  2. Post-Training Proportion of Success

    Proportion of O\&M Task Success (In NLPT training, a success is a safe timing to cross street; in MBC, a success is a safe decision to cross or no cross a street; in ODNS, a success is a good trip plan to visit an unfamiliar address). Numbers are all between 0 and 1.

    Time frame: Within 1 week after completion of Orientation and Mobility training

Secondary outcomes

  1. Number of Participants That Completed the Subjective Learning Experience With VR-IOMS

    Structured and/or open-end questionnaire about automated skill learning in virtual streets.

    Time frame: Within 30 minutes after completion of VR-IOMS training

  2. Number of Participant Reponses to the Post VR-IOMS Training Experience Survey

    Structured and/or open-end questionnaire about automated skill learning in virtual streets.

    Time frame: Within 30 minutes after completion of VR-IOMS training

  3. Training Course Completion Duration (the Time Between the Start of the Training Course to the End. Measured by Computer or by Watch)

    The time taken (in minutes) for a participant to complete the assigned training course. In the Experimental arms, the time is measured from the VR-IOMS training course to the end by the VR simulator. In the Active Control arms, the COMS takes the participant to the pre-selected real streets, conducts training, and writes down training starting and ending times. In the Placebo arms, a COMS guides the participant to a quiet room, starts the low vision education video clips, chats with the participant, and writes down the duration of the session. The training time includes rest breaks or lunch breaks.

    Time frame: From the commencement of orientation & mobility training to its completion (may spread in multiple days) / within one week

07

Results

Posted Sep 22, 2026

Participant flow

A total of 134 participants were recruited from 08/24/2023 to 05/12/2025 from 2 sites for the "Virtual Reality-Base Intelligent Orientation and Mobility Specialists Trial". 111 were recruited from the EH Gentry Facility of Alabama Institute for Deaf and Blind (AIDB), and 23 were recruited from the University of Alabama at Birmingham (Low Vision Clinic of School of Optometry, Center for Low Vision Rehabilitation, and self-referred patients).

NLPT Module
Participant flow — NLPT Module
MilestoneActive ArmExperimental ArmPlacebo Arm
Started151616
Completed121416
Not completed320
Withdrew: Lost to follow-up220
Withdrew: Vision too poor100
MBC Module
Participant flow — MBC Module
MilestoneActive ArmExperimental ArmPlacebo Arm
Started201617
Completed181315
Not completed232
Withdrew: Lost to follow-up222
Withdrew: Vision too poor010
ODNS Module
Participant flow — ODNS Module
MilestoneActive ArmExperimental ArmPlacebo Arm
Started665
Completed554
Not completed111
Withdrew: Lost to follow-up011
Withdrew: Vision too poor100

Outcome measures

PrimaryPre-Training Proportion of Success

Proportion of O\&M Task Success (In NLPT training, a success is a safe timing to cross street; in MBC, a success is a safe decision to cross or no cross a street; in ODNS, a success is a good trip plan to visit an unfamiliar address). Numbers are all between 0 and 1.

Time frame:
Within 3 days before commencement of Orientation and Mobility training
Reported as:
Mean · Proportion of Success (between 0 and 1)
Pre-Training Proportion of Success
Proportion of Success (between 0 and 1)Experimental-Near Lane Parallel Traffic Surge Training With VR-IOMSsActive Comparator-Near Lane Parallel Traffic Surge Training With COMSPlacebo Comparator-Near Lane Parallel Traffic No Orientation and Mobility TrainingExperimental-Mid Block Crossing Training With VR-IOMSsActive Comparator-Mid Block Crossing Training With COMSPlacebo Comparator-Mid Block Crossing No Orientation and Mobility TrainingExperimental-Outdoor Numbering System Training With VR-IOMSsActive Comparator-Outdoor Numbering System Training With COMSPlacebo Comparator-Outdoor Numbering System No Orientation and Mobility Training
Pre-Training Proportion of Success0.42 ± 0.300.38 ± 0.320.53 ± 0.220.57 ± 0.280.58 ± 0.380.69 ± 0.330.60 ± 0.420.97 ± 0.070.79 ± 0.42
PrimaryPost-Training Proportion of Success

Proportion of O\&M Task Success (In NLPT training, a success is a safe timing to cross street; in MBC, a success is a safe decision to cross or no cross a street; in ODNS, a success is a good trip plan to visit an unfamiliar address). Numbers are all between 0 and 1.

Time frame:
Within 1 week after completion of Orientation and Mobility training
Reported as:
Mean · Proportion of success (between 0 and 1)
Post-Training Proportion of Success
Proportion of success (between 0 and 1)Experimental-Near Lane Parallel Traffic Surge Training With VR-IOMSsActive Comparator-Near Lane Parallel Traffic Surge Training With COMSPlacebo Comparator-Near Lane Parallel Traffic No Orientation and Mobility TrainingExperimental-Mid Block Crossing Training With VR-IOMSsActive Comparator-Mid Block Crossing Training With COMSPlacebo Comparator-Mid Block Crossing No Orientation and Mobility TrainingExperimental-Outdoor Numbering System Training With VR-IOMSsActive Comparator-Outdoor Numbering System Training With COMSPlacebo Comparator-Outdoor Numbering System No Orientation and Mobility Training
Post-Training Proportion of Success0.51 ± 0.340.73 ± 0.220.47 ± 0.320.79 ± 0.220.76 ± 0.230.56 ± 0.270.87 ± 0.140.97 ± 0.070.88 ± 0.16
Statistical analysis
  • Experimental-Near Lane Parallel Traffic Surge Training With VR-IOMSs vs Active Comparator-Near Lane Parallel Traffic Surge Training With COMS vs Placebo Comparator-Near Lane Parallel Traffic No Orientation and Mobility Training vs Experimental-Mid Block Crossing Training With VR-IOMSs vs Active Comparator-Mid Block Crossing Training With COMS vs Placebo Comparator-Mid Block Crossing No Orientation and Mobility Training vs Experimental-Outdoor Numbering System Training With VR-IOMSs vs Active Comparator-Outdoor Numbering System Training With COMS vs Placebo Comparator-Outdoor Numbering System No Orientation and Mobility Training · ANCOVA · p = 0.05Post training average safety score was dependent (outcome) variable. Pre-training (baseline) average safety score was a covariate, a control variable.
  • Experimental-Near Lane Parallel Traffic Surge Training With VR-IOMSs vs Active Comparator-Near Lane Parallel Traffic Surge Training With COMS vs Placebo Comparator-Near Lane Parallel Traffic No Orientation and Mobility Training vs Experimental-Mid Block Crossing Training With VR-IOMSs vs Active Comparator-Mid Block Crossing Training With COMS vs Placebo Comparator-Mid Block Crossing No Orientation and Mobility Training vs Experimental-Outdoor Numbering System Training With VR-IOMSs vs Active Comparator-Outdoor Numbering System Training With COMS vs Placebo Comparator-Outdoor Numbering System No Orientation and Mobility Training · ANCOVA · p = 0.02Post training average safety score was dependent (outcome) variable. Pre-training (baseline) average safety score was a covariate, a control variable.
  • Experimental-Near Lane Parallel Traffic Surge Training With VR-IOMSs vs Active Comparator-Near Lane Parallel Traffic Surge Training With COMS vs Placebo Comparator-Near Lane Parallel Traffic No Orientation and Mobility Training vs Experimental-Mid Block Crossing Training With VR-IOMSs vs Active Comparator-Mid Block Crossing Training With COMS vs Placebo Comparator-Mid Block Crossing No Orientation and Mobility Training vs Experimental-Outdoor Numbering System Training With VR-IOMSs vs Active Comparator-Outdoor Numbering System Training With COMS vs Placebo Comparator-Outdoor Numbering System No Orientation and Mobility Training · ANCOVA · p = 0.77 (Post training average safety score was dependent (outcome) variable. Pre-training (baseline) average safety score was a covariate, a control variable.)
SecondaryNumber of Participants That Completed the Subjective Learning Experience With VR-IOMS

Structured and/or open-end questionnaire about automated skill learning in virtual streets.

Time frame:
Within 30 minutes after completion of VR-IOMS training
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Number of Participants That Completed the Subjective Learning Experience With VR-IOMS
ParticipantsPost-VR-IOMS Training Participant Experience Survey Analysis
What did you like (no)27
SecondaryNumber of Participant Reponses to the Post VR-IOMS Training Experience Survey

Structured and/or open-end questionnaire about automated skill learning in virtual streets.

Time frame:
Within 30 minutes after completion of VR-IOMS training
Reported as:
Number · participant responses
Number of Participant Reponses to the Post VR-IOMS Training Experience Survey
participant responsesPost-VR-IOMS Training Participant Experience Survey Analysis
VR training was a clear benefit/helpful25
VR training was a conditional benefit1
VR training has no benefit1
VR training like: realism/realistic graphics15
VR training like: clear instructions6
VR training like: Safe way to practice5
VR training like: Helpful feedback3
VR training like: Seeing traffic scenarios4
VR training dislike: Nothing/no complaints20
VR training dislike: Glitches/Screen alignment3
VR training dislike: Limited field of view1
VR training dislike: cognitive load1
VR training improvement: No improvements needed15
VR training improvement: add sound3
VR training improvement: more realism (lighting, headset)3
VR training improvement: more scenes/more practice3
VR improvement: additional building/environments2
SecondaryTraining Course Completion Duration (the Time Between the Start of the Training Course to the End. Measured by Computer or by Watch)

The time taken (in minutes) for a participant to complete the assigned training course. In the Experimental arms, the time is measured from the VR-IOMS training course to the end by the VR simulator. In the Active Control arms, the COMS takes the participant to the pre-selected real streets, conducts training, and writes down training starting and ending times. In the Placebo arms, a COMS guides the participant to a quiet room, starts the low vision education video clips, chats with the participant, and writes down the duration of the session. The training time includes rest breaks or lunch breaks.

Time frame:
From the commencement of orientation & mobility training to its completion (may spread in multiple days) / within one week
Reported as:
Median · Minute
Training Course Completion Duration (the Time Between the Start of the Training Course to the End. Measured by Computer or by Watch)
MinuteExperimental-Near Lane Parallel Traffic Surge Training With VR-IOMSsActive Comparator-Near Lane Parallel Traffic Surge Training With COMSPlacebo Comparator-Near Lane Parallel Traffic No Orientation and Mobility TrainingExperimental-Mid Block Crossing Training With VR-IOMSsActive Comparator-Mid Block Crossing Training With COMSPlacebo Comparator-Mid Block Crossing No Orientation and Mobility TrainingExperimental-Outdoor Numbering System Training With VR-IOMSsActive Comparator-Outdoor Numbering System Training With COMSPlacebo Comparator-Outdoor Numbering System No Orientation and Mobility Training
Training Course Completion Duration (the Time Between the Start of the Training Course to the End. Measured by Computer or by Watch)100 (89 to 127)22 (15 to 30)42 (35 to 46)68 (63 to 73)15 (12 to 15)40 (31 to 42)131 (119 to 136)30 (30 to 30)48 (43 to 51)

Adverse events

Collected over One and half weeks. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Experimental-Near Lane Parallel Traffic Surge Training With VR-IOMSs0/16 (0%)0/16 (0%)0/16 (0%)
Active Comparator-Near Lane Parallel Traffic Surge Training With COMS0/15 (0%)0/15 (0%)0/15 (0%)
Placebo Comparator-Near Lane Parallel Traffic No Orientation and Mobility Training0/16 (0%)0/16 (0%)0/16 (0%)
Experimental-Mid Block Crossing Training With VR-IOMSs0/16 (0%)0/16 (0%)0/16 (0%)
Active Comparator-Mid Block Crossing Training With COMS0/20 (0%)0/20 (0%)0/20 (0%)
Placebo Comparator-Mid Block Crossing No Orientation and Mobility Training0/17 (0%)0/17 (0%)0/17 (0%)
Experimental-Outdoor Numbering System Training With VR-IOMSs0/6 (0%)0/6 (0%)0/6 (0%)
Active Comparator-Outdoor Numbering System Training With COMS0/6 (0%)0/6 (0%)0/6 (0%)
Placebo Comparator-Outdoor Numbering System No Orientation and Mobility Training0/5 (0%)0/5 (0%)0/5 (0%)

Baseline characteristics

Age, Categorical
Age, Categorical(Participants)Experimental-Near Lane Parallel Traffic Surge Training With VR-IOMSsActive Comparator-Near Lane Parallel Traffic Surge Training With COMSPlacebo Comparator-Near Lane Parallel Traffic No Orientation and Mobility TrainingExperimental-Mid Block Crossing Training With VR-IOMSsActive Comparator-Mid Block Crossing Training With COMSPlacebo Comparator-Mid Block Crossing No Orientation and Mobility TrainingExperimental-Outdoor Numbering System Training With VR-IOMSsActive Comparator-Outdoor Numbering System Training With COMSPlacebo Comparator-Outdoor Numbering System No Orientation and Mobility TrainingTotal
<=18 years20122121213
Between 18 and 65 years141515141816453104
>=65 years0000000000
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Experimental-Near Lane Parallel Traffic Surge Training With VR-IOMSsActive Comparator-Near Lane Parallel Traffic Surge Training With COMSPlacebo Comparator-Near Lane Parallel Traffic No Orientation and Mobility TrainingExperimental-Mid Block Crossing Training With VR-IOMSsActive Comparator-Mid Block Crossing Training With COMSPlacebo Comparator-Mid Block Crossing No Orientation and Mobility TrainingExperimental-Outdoor Numbering System Training With VR-IOMSsActive Comparator-Outdoor Numbering System Training With COMSPlacebo Comparator-Outdoor Numbering System No Orientation and Mobility TrainingTotal
Female64559731444
Male10111111111035173
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected(Participants)Experimental-Near Lane Parallel Traffic Surge Training With VR-IOMSsActive Comparator-Near Lane Parallel Traffic Surge Training With COMSPlacebo Comparator-Near Lane Parallel Traffic No Orientation and Mobility TrainingExperimental-Mid Block Crossing Training With VR-IOMSsActive Comparator-Mid Block Crossing Training With COMSPlacebo Comparator-Mid Block Crossing No Orientation and Mobility TrainingExperimental-Outdoor Numbering System Training With VR-IOMSsActive Comparator-Outdoor Numbering System Training With COMSPlacebo Comparator-Outdoor Numbering System No Orientation and Mobility TrainingTotal
Count of participants—————————0
Region of Enrollment
Region of Enrollment(Participants)Experimental-Near Lane Parallel Traffic Surge Training With VR-IOMSsActive Comparator-Near Lane Parallel Traffic Surge Training With COMSPlacebo Comparator-Near Lane Parallel Traffic No Orientation and Mobility TrainingExperimental-Mid Block Crossing Training With VR-IOMSsActive Comparator-Mid Block Crossing Training With COMSPlacebo Comparator-Mid Block Crossing No Orientation and Mobility TrainingExperimental-Outdoor Numbering System Training With VR-IOMSsActive Comparator-Outdoor Numbering System Training With COMSPlacebo Comparator-Outdoor Numbering System No Orientation and Mobility TrainingTotal
United States161516162017665117
08

Study locations

2 sites
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham
    Birmingham, Alabama 35226, United States
  • Alabama Institute for Deaf and Blind
    Talladega, Alabama 35160, United States
09

References and documents

Study documents

PDFs hosted by the registry, ClinicalTrials.gov.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No — Only summary data will be published and made available to other researchers.

10

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Sep 22, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04639531
Collaborators
New Jersey Institute of Technology, National Eye Institute (NEI)
Responsible party
Lei Liu (Professor, University of Alabama at Birmingham) — Principal investigator
First posted
Nov 20, 2020
Start date
Aug 24, 2023
Primary completion
Jun 30, 2025
Completion
Jun 30, 2025
Results posted
Sep 22, 2026
Last update
Sep 22, 2026

Study contacts

Lei Liu, PhD
principal investigator · University of Alabama at Birmingham

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Sep 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion