PURPOSE: To compare self-reported driving difficulty by persons with hemianopic or quadrantanopic field loss with that reported by age-matched drivers with normal visual fields; and to examine how their self- reported driving difficulty compares to ratings of driving performance provided by a certified driving rehabilitation specialist (CDRS). METHOD: Participants were 17 persons with hemianopic field loss, 7 with quadrantanopic loss, and 24 age-matched controls with normal visual fields, all of whom had current driver's licenses. Information was collected via questionnaire regarding driving difficulties experienced in 21 typical driving situations grouped into three categories (involvement of peripheral vision, low visibility conditions, and independent mobility). On-road driving performance was evaluated by a CDRS using a standard assessment scale. RESULTS: Drivers with hemianopic and quadrantanopic field loss expressed significantly more difficulty with driving maneuvers involving peripheral vision and independent mobility, compared to those with normal visual fields. Drivers with hemianopia and quadrantanopia who were rated as unsafe to drive based upon an on-road assessment by the CDRS were no more likely to report driving difficulty than those rated as safe. CONCLUSION: This study highlights aspects of driving that hemianopic or quadrantanopic persons find particularly problematic, thus suggesting areas that could be focused on driving rehabilitation. Some drivers with hemianopia or quadrantanopia may inappropriately view themselves as good drivers when in fact their driving performance is unsafe as judged by a driving professional.
PURPOSE: To compare self-reported driving difficulty by persons with hemianopic or quadrantanopic field loss with that reported by age-matched drivers with normal visual fields; and to examine how their self- reported driving difficulty compares to ratings of driving performance provided by a certified driving rehabilitation specialist (CDRS). METHOD:Participants were 17 persons with hemianopic field loss, 7 with quadrantanopic loss, and 24 age-matched controls with normal visual fields, all of whom had current driver's licenses. Information was collected via questionnaire regarding driving difficulties experienced in 21 typical driving situations grouped into three categories (involvement of peripheral vision, low visibility conditions, and independent mobility). On-road driving performance was evaluated by a CDRS using a standard assessment scale. RESULTS: Drivers with hemianopic and quadrantanopic field loss expressed significantly more difficulty with driving maneuvers involving peripheral vision and independent mobility, compared to those with normal visual fields. Drivers with hemianopia and quadrantanopia who were rated as unsafe to drive based upon an on-road assessment by the CDRS were no more likely to report driving difficulty than those rated as safe. CONCLUSION: This study highlights aspects of driving that hemianopic or quadrantanopic persons find particularly problematic, thus suggesting areas that could be focused on driving rehabilitation. Some drivers with hemianopia or quadrantanopia may inappropriately view themselves as good drivers when in fact their driving performance is unsafe as judged by a driving professional.
Authors: Joanne M Wood; Gerald McGwin; Jennifer Elgin; Michael S Vaphiades; Ronald A Braswell; Dawn K DeCarlo; Lanning B Kline; Cynthia Owsley Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-03-02 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Cristina Alvarez-Peregrina; Clara Martinez-Perez; Cesar Villa-Collar; Miguel Ángel Sánchez-Tena Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-11-18 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Enkelejda Kasneci; Katrin Sippel; Kathrin Aehling; Martin Heister; Wolfgang Rosenstiel; Ulrich Schiefer; Elena Papageorgiou Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-02-11 Impact factor: 3.240