Literature DB >> 23023223

Driving simulation in the clinic: testing visual exploratory behavior in daily life activities in patients with visual field defects.

Johanna Hamel1, Antje Kraft, Sven Ohl, Sophie De Beukelaer, Heinrich J Audebert, Stephan A Brandt.   

Abstract

Patients suffering from homonymous hemianopia after infarction of the posterior cerebral artery (PCA) report different degrees of constraint in daily life, despite similar visual deficits. We assume this could be due to variable development of compensatory strategies such as altered visual scanning behavior. Scanning compensatory therapy (SCT) is studied as part of the visual training after infarction next to vision restoration therapy. SCT consists of learning to make larger eye movements into the blind field enlarging the visual field of search, which has been proven to be the most useful strategy(1), not only in natural search tasks but also in mastering daily life activities(2). Nevertheless, in clinical routine it is difficult to identify individual levels and training effects of compensatory behavior, since it requires measurement of eye movements in a head unrestrained condition. Studies demonstrated that unrestrained head movements alter the visual exploratory behavior compared to a head-restrained laboratory condition(3). Martin et al.(4) and Hayhoe et al.(5) showed that behavior demonstrated in a laboratory setting cannot be assigned easily to a natural condition. Hence, our goal was to develop a study set-up which uncovers different compensatory oculomotor strategies quickly in a realistic testing situation: Patients are tested in the clinical environment in a driving simulator. SILAB software (Wuerzburg Institute for Traffic Sciences GmbH (WIVW)) was used to program driving scenarios of varying complexity and recording the driver's performance. The software was combined with a head mounted infrared video pupil tracker, recording head- and eye-movements (EyeSeeCam, University of Munich Hospital, Clinical Neurosciences). The positioning of the patient in the driving simulator and the positioning, adjustment and calibration of the camera is demonstrated. Typical performances of a patient with and without compensatory strategy and a healthy control are illustrated in this pilot study. Different oculomotor behaviors (frequency and amplitude of eye- and head-movements) are evaluated very quickly during the drive itself by dynamic overlay pictures indicating where the subjects gaze is located on the screen, and by analyzing the data. Compensatory gaze behavior in a patient leads to a driving performance comparable to a healthy control, while the performance of a patient without compensatory behavior is significantly worse. The data of eye- and head-movement-behavior as well as driving performance are discussed with respect to different oculomotor strategies and in a broader context with respect to possible training effects throughout the testing session and implications on rehabilitation potential.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23023223      PMCID: PMC3490261          DOI: 10.3791/4427

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vis Exp        ISSN: 1940-087X            Impact factor:   1.355


  12 in total

1.  The effect of visual field defects on driving performance: a driving simulator study.

Authors:  Tanja R M Coeckelbergh; Wiebo H Brouwer; Frans W Cornelissen; Peter Van Wolffelaar; Aart C Kooijman
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  2002-11

2.  Simulator sickness during driving simulation studies.

Authors:  Johnell O Brooks; Richard R Goodenough; Matthew C Crisler; Nathan D Klein; Rebecca L Alley; Beatrice L Koon; William C Logan; Jennifer H Ogle; Richard A Tyrrell; Rebekkah F Wills
Journal:  Accid Anal Prev       Date:  2010-05

Review 3.  Eye movements in natural behavior.

Authors:  Mary Hayhoe; Dana Ballard
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 20.229

4.  Visually-guided behavior of homonymous hemianopes in a naturalistic task.

Authors:  Tim Martin; Meghan E Riley; Kristin N Kelly; Mary Hayhoe; Krystel R Huxlin
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 1.886

5.  Mental workload when driving in a simulator: effects of age and driving complexity.

Authors:  Vincent Cantin; Martin Lavallière; Martin Simoneau; Normand Teasdale
Journal:  Accid Anal Prev       Date:  2009-04-24

Review 6.  The effect of visual training for patients with visual field defects due to brain damage: a systematic review.

Authors:  Lies Bouwmeester; Joost Heutink; Cees Lucas
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  2006-11-29       Impact factor: 10.154

7.  VR for the elderly: quantitative and qualitative differences in performance with a driving simulator.

Authors:  L Liu; B Watson; M Miyazaki
Journal:  Cyberpsychol Behav       Date:  1999

8.  Comparing explorative saccade and flicker training in hemianopia: a randomized controlled study.

Authors:  T Roth; A N Sokolov; A Messias; P Roth; M Weller; S Trauzettel-Klosinski
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2009-01-27       Impact factor: 9.910

9.  Driving with hemianopia, I: Detection performance in a driving simulator.

Authors:  Alex R Bowers; Aaron J Mandel; Robert B Goldstein; Eli Peli
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2009-07-15       Impact factor: 4.799

Review 10.  Coordination of the eyes and head during visual orienting.

Authors:  Edward G Freedman
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-08-13       Impact factor: 1.972

View more
  11 in total

1.  Interventions for visual field defects in people with stroke.

Authors:  Alex Pollock; Christine Hazelton; Fiona J Rowe; Sven Jonuscheit; Ashleigh Kernohan; Jayne Angilley; Clair A Henderson; Peter Langhorne; Pauline Campbell
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-05-23

2.  Compensatory eye and head movements of patients with homonymous hemianopia in the naturalistic setting of a driving simulation.

Authors:  Markus Bahnemann; Johanna Hamel; Sophie De Beukelaer; Sven Ohl; Stefanie Kehrer; Heinrich Audebert; Antje Kraft; Stephan A Brandt
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  2014-11-09       Impact factor: 4.849

Review 3.  Driving with homonymous visual field loss: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Alex R Bowers
Journal:  Clin Exp Optom       Date:  2016-08-17       Impact factor: 2.742

4.  Driving with hemianopia: III. Detection of stationary and approaching pedestrians in a simulator.

Authors:  Concetta F Alberti; Eli Peli; Alex R Bowers
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2014-01-20       Impact factor: 4.799

5.  Driving with hemianopia: IV. Head scanning and detection at intersections in a simulator.

Authors:  Alex R Bowers; Egor Ananyev; Aaron J Mandel; Robert B Goldstein; Eli Peli
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2014-03-13       Impact factor: 4.799

6.  Homonymous Visual Field Loss and Its Impact on Visual Exploration: A Supermarket Study.

Authors:  Enkelejda Kasneci; Katrin Sippel; Martin Heister; Katrin Aehling; Wolfgang Rosenstiel; Ulrich Schiefer; Elena Papageorgiou
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2014-11-03       Impact factor: 3.283

7.  Age-related changes in visual exploratory behavior in a natural scene setting.

Authors:  Johanna Hamel; Sophie De Beukelaer; Antje Kraft; Sven Ohl; Heinrich J Audebert; Stephan A Brandt
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2013-06-21

8.  An assessment of driving fitness in patients with visual impairment to understand the elevated risk of motor vehicle accidents.

Authors:  Shiho Kunimatsu-Sanuki; Aiko Iwase; Makoto Araie; Yuki Aoki; Takeshi Hara; Toru Nakazawa; Takuhiro Yamaguchi; Hiroshi Ono; Tomoyuki Sanuki; Makoto Itoh
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-02-27       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Effects of driver compensatory behaviour on risks of critical pedestrian collisions under simulated visual field defects.

Authors:  Jieun Lee; Makoto Itoh
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-04-09       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Driving with binocular visual field loss? A study on a supervised on-road parcours with simultaneous eye and head tracking.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.