Judith Ungewiss1, Thomas Kübler2, Katrin Sippel2, Kathrin Aehling3, Martin Heister3, Wolfgang Rosenstiel2, Enkelejda Kasneci2, Eleni Papageorgiou4. 1. Study course Ophthalmic Optics, University of Applied Sciences, Aalen, Germany. 2. Department of Computer Science, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital of Larissa, Mezourlo Area, 41222, Larissa, Greece. e_papage@yahoo.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: On-road testing is considered the standard for assessment of driving performance; however, it lacks standardization. In contrast, driving simulators provide controlled experimental settings in a virtual reality environment. This study compares both testing conditions in patients with binocular visual field defects due to bilateral glaucomatous optic neuropathy or due to retro-chiasmal visual pathway lesions. METHODS: Ten glaucoma patients (PG), ten patients with homonymous visual field defects (PH), and 20 age- and gender-matched ophthalmologically normal control subjects (CG and CH, respectively) participated in a 40-min on-road driving task using a dual brake vehicle. A subset of this sample (8 PG, 8 PH, 8 CG, and 7 CH) underwent a subsequent driving simulator test of similar duration. For both settings, pass/fail rates were assessed by a masked driving instructor. RESULTS: For on-road driving, hemianopia patients (PH) and glaucoma patients (PG) showed worse performance than their controls (CH and CG groups): PH 40%, CH 30%, PG 60%, CG 0%, failure rate. Similar results were obtained for the driving simulator test: PH 50%, CH 29%, PG 38%, CG 0%, failure rate. Twenty-four out of 31 participants (77%) showed concordant results with regard to pass/fail under both test conditions (p > 0.05; McNemar test). CONCLUSIONS: Driving simulator testing leads to results comparable to on-road driving, in terms of pass/fail rates in subjects with binocular (glaucomatous or retro-chiasmal lesion-induced) visual field defects. Driving simulator testing seems to be a well-standardized method, appropriate for assessment of driving performance in individuals with binocular visual field loss.
PURPOSE: On-road testing is considered the standard for assessment of driving performance; however, it lacks standardization. In contrast, driving simulators provide controlled experimental settings in a virtual reality environment. This study compares both testing conditions in patients with binocular visual field defects due to bilateral glaucomatous optic neuropathy or due to retro-chiasmal visual pathway lesions. METHODS: Ten glaucomapatients (PG), ten patients with homonymous visual field defects (PH), and 20 age- and gender-matched ophthalmologically normal control subjects (CG and CH, respectively) participated in a 40-min on-road driving task using a dual brake vehicle. A subset of this sample (8 PG, 8 PH, 8 CG, and 7 CH) underwent a subsequent driving simulator test of similar duration. For both settings, pass/fail rates were assessed by a masked driving instructor. RESULTS: For on-road driving, hemianopiapatients (PH) and glaucomapatients (PG) showed worse performance than their controls (CH and CG groups): PH 40%, CH 30%, PG 60%, CG 0%, failure rate. Similar results were obtained for the driving simulator test: PH 50%, CH 29%, PG 38%, CG 0%, failure rate. Twenty-four out of 31 participants (77%) showed concordant results with regard to pass/fail under both test conditions (p > 0.05; McNemar test). CONCLUSIONS: Driving simulator testing leads to results comparable to on-road driving, in terms of pass/fail rates in subjects with binocular (glaucomatous or retro-chiasmal lesion-induced) visual field defects. Driving simulator testing seems to be a well-standardized method, appropriate for assessment of driving performance in individuals with binocular visual field loss.
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: Kaushal M Kulkarni; Jason R Mayer; Luciano L Lorenzana; Jonathan S Myers; George L Spaeth Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2012-05-24 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Gera A de Haan; Bart J M Melis-Dankers; Wiebo H Brouwer; Ruud A Bredewoud; Oliver Tucha; Joost Heutink Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-09-11 Impact factor: 4.799
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
Authors: Craig Wilde; Ali Poostchi; Georgios D Panos; Jonathan G Hillman; Hamish K MacNab; Harminder Dua; Winfried M Amoaku; Stephen A Vernon Journal: J Ophthalmol Date: 2022-09-15 Impact factor: 1.974
Authors: Sonia Ortiz-Peregrina; Carolina Ortiz; Miriam Casares-López; José J Castro-Torres; Luis Jiménez Del Barco; Rosario G Anera Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-12 Impact factor: 3.390