Literature DB >> 12502165

Age and visual impairment decrease driving performance as measured on a closed-road circuit.

Joanne M Wood1.   

Abstract

In this study the effects of visual impairment and age on driving were investigated and related to visual function. Participants were 139 licensed drivers (young, middle-aged, and older participants with normal vision, and older participants with ocular disease). Driving performance was assessed during the daytime on a closed-road driving circuit. Visual performance was assessed using a vision testing battery. Age and visual impairment had a significant detrimental effect on recognition tasks (detection and recognition of signs and hazards), time to complete driving tasks (overall course time, reversing, and maneuvering), maneuvering ability, divided attention, and an overall driving performance index. All vision measures were significantly affected by group membership. A combination of motion sensitivity, useful field of view (UFOV), Pelli-Robson letter contrast sensitivity, and dynamic acuity could predict 50% of the variance in overall driving scores. These results indicate that older drivers with either normal vision or visual impairment had poorer driving performance compared with younger or middle-aged drivers with normal vision. The inclusion of tests such as motion sensitivity and the UFOV significantly improve the predictive power of vision tests for driving performance. Although such measures may not be practical for widespread screening, their application in selected cases should be considered.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12502165     DOI: 10.1518/0018720024497664

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Factors        ISSN: 0018-7208            Impact factor:   2.888


  41 in total

Review 1.  Aging and vision.

Authors:  Cynthia Owsley
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2010-10-23       Impact factor: 1.886

Review 2.  Vision and driving.

Authors:  Cynthia Owsley; Gerald McGwin
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2010-05-23       Impact factor: 1.886

Review 3.  Clinical assessment of two new contrast sensitivity charts.

Authors:  Kavitha Thayaparan; Michael D Crossland; Gary S Rubin
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2006-12-13       Impact factor: 4.638

4.  The effects of simulated acuity and contrast sensitivity impairments on detection of pedestrian hazards in a driving simulator.

Authors:  Garrett Swan; Maha Shahin; Jacqueline Albert; Joseph Herrmann; Alex R Bowers
Journal:  Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav       Date:  2019-07

Review 5.  A roadmap for interpreting the literature on vision and driving.

Authors:  Cynthia Owsley; Joanne M Wood; Gerald McGwin
Journal:  Surv Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-02-07       Impact factor: 6.048

6.  SPARCS and Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity testing in normal controls and patients with cataract.

Authors:  L Gupta; V Cvintal; R Delvadia; Y Sun; E Erdem; C Zangalli; L Lu; S S Wizov; J Richman; E Spaeth; G L Spaeth
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2017-01-20       Impact factor: 3.775

7.  Quantitative assessment of driving performance in Parkinson's disease.

Authors:  J M Wood; C Worringham; G Kerr; K Mallon; P Silburn
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 10.154

8.  Bilateral cataract surgery and driving performance.

Authors:  J M Wood; T P Carberry
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2006-07-06       Impact factor: 4.638

9.  A practical approach to measuring the visual field component of fitness to drive.

Authors:  D P Crabb; F W Fitzke; R A Hitchings; A C Viswanathan
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 4.638

10.  Visual and cognitive predictors of performance on brake reaction test: Salisbury eye evaluation driving study.

Authors:  Lei Zhang; Kevin Baldwin; Beatriz Munoz; Cynthia Munro; Kathleen Turano; Shirin Hassan; Constantine Lyketsos; Karen Bandeen-Roche; Sheila K West
Journal:  Ophthalmic Epidemiol       Date:  2007 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.648

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.