Literature DB >> 23357031

Comparison of driving simulator performance with real driving after alcohol intake: a randomised, single blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial.

Arne Helland1, Gunnar D Jenssen, Lone-Eirin Lervåg, Andreas Austgulen Westin, Terje Moen, Kristian Sakshaug, Stian Lydersen, Jørg Mørland, Lars Slørdal.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to establish and validate a driving simulator method for assessing drug effects on driving. To achieve this, we used ethanol as a positive control, and examined whether ethanol affects driving performance in the simulator, and whether these effects are consistent with performance during real driving on a test track, also under the influence of ethanol. Twenty healthy male volunteers underwent a total of six driving trials of 1h duration; three in an instrumented vehicle on a closed-circuit test track that closely resembled rural Norwegian road conditions, and three in the simulator with a driving scenario modelled after the test track. Test subjects were either sober or titrated to blood alcohol concentration (BAC) levels of 0.5g/L and 0.9g/L. The study was conducted in a randomised, cross-over, single-blind fashion, using placebo drinks and placebo pills as confounders. The primary outcome measure was standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP; "weaving"). Eighteen test subjects completed all six driving trials, and complete data were acquired from 18 subjects in the simulator and 10 subjects on the test track, respectively. There was a positive dose-response relationship between higher ethanol concentrations and increases in SDLP in both the simulator and on the test track (p<0.001 for both). In the simulator, this dose-response was evident already after 15min of driving. SDLP values were higher and showed a larger inter-individual variability in the simulator than on the test track. Most subjects displayed a similar relationship between BAC and SDLP in the simulator and on the test track; however, a few subjects showed striking dissimilarities, with very high SDLP values in the simulator. This may reflect the lack of perceived danger in the simulator, causing reckless driving in a few test subjects. Overall, the results suggest that SDLP in the driving simulator is a sensitive measure of ethanol impaired driving. The comparison with real driving implies relative external validity of the simulator.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23357031     DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2012.12.042

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Accid Anal Prev        ISSN: 0001-4575


  12 in total

1.  Insomnia and driving ability.

Authors:  Joris C Verster; Thomas Roth
Journal:  Sleep       Date:  2014-09-01       Impact factor: 5.849

2.  Effects of alcohol hangover on simulated highway driving performance.

Authors:  Joris C Verster; Adriana C Bervoets; Suzanne de Klerk; Rick A Vreman; Berend Olivier; Thomas Roth; Karel A Brookhuis
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2014-02-22       Impact factor: 4.530

3.  Validity and reliability of a driving simulator for evaluating the influence of medicinal drugs on driving performance.

Authors:  Mari Iwata; Kunihiro Iwamoto; Iwao Kitajima; Takasuke Nogi; Koichi Onishi; Yu Kajiyama; Izumi Nishino; Masahiko Ando; Norio Ozaki
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2020-11-24       Impact factor: 4.530

4.  Effects of alcohol on automated and controlled driving performances.

Authors:  Catherine Berthelon; Guy Gineyt
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2013-11-30       Impact factor: 4.530

5.  Driving performance under alcohol in simulated representative driving tasks: an alcohol calibration study for impairments related to medicinal drugs.

Authors:  Ramona Kenntner-Mabiala; Yvonne Kaussner; Monika Jagiellowicz-Kaufmann; Sonja Hoffmann; Hans-Peter Krüger
Journal:  J Clin Psychopharmacol       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 3.153

6.  Personality, Executive Control, and Neurobiological Characteristics Associated with Different Forms of Risky Driving.

Authors:  Thomas G Brown; Marie Claude Ouimet; Manal Eldeb; Jacques Tremblay; Evelyn Vingilis; Louise Nadeau; Jens Pruessner; Antoine Bechara
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-02-24       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Support Vector Machine Classification of Drunk Driving Behaviour.

Authors:  Huiqin Chen; Lei Chen
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2017-01-23       Impact factor: 3.390

8.  Development of an fMRI-compatible driving simulator with simultaneous measurement of physiological and kinematic signals: The multi-biosignal measurement system for driving (MMSD).

Authors:  Hyung-Sik Kim; Kyung-Ryoul Mun; Mi-Hyun Choi; Soon-Cheol Chung
Journal:  Technol Health Care       Date:  2020       Impact factor: 1.285

9.  Physiological indices and driving performance of drivers at tunnel entrances and exits: A simulated driving study.

Authors:  Jinliang Xu; Xiaodong Zhang; Huan Liu; Kaige Yang; Fangchen Ma; Haoru Li; Yufei Sun
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-12-17       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Driving simulator scenarios and measures to faithfully evaluate risky driving behavior: A comparative study of different driver age groups.

Authors:  Jesse Michaels; Romain Chaumillon; David Nguyen-Tri; Donald Watanabe; Pierro Hirsch; Francois Bellavance; Guillaume Giraudet; Delphine Bernardin; Jocelyn Faubert
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-10-10       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.