Article

On-road driving with moderate visual field loss.

The Schepens Eye Research Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
Optometry and Vision Science (Impact Factor: 2.04). 08/2005; 82(8):657-67. DOI: 10.1097/01.opx.0000175558.33268.b5
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We examined the relationship between visual field extent and driving performance in an open, on-road environment using a detailed scoring method that assessed the quality of specific skills for a range of maneuvers. The purpose was to determine which maneuvers and skills should be included in future, larger scale investigations of the effect of peripheral field loss on driving performance.
Twenty-eight current drivers (67 +/- 14 years) with restricted peripheral visual fields participated. Binocular visual field extent was quantified using Goldmann perimetry (V4e target). The useful field of view (UFOV) and Pelli-Robson letter contrast sensitivity tests were administered. Driving performance was assessed along a 14-mile route on roads in the city of Birmingham, Alabama. The course included a representative variety of general driving maneuvers, as well as maneuvers expected to be difficult for people with restricted fields.
Drivers with more restricted horizontal and vertical binocular field extents showed significantly (p < or = 0.05) poorer skills in speed matching when changing lanes, in maintaining lane position and keeping to the path of the curve when driving around curves, and received significantly (p < or = 0.05) poorer ratings for anticipatory skills. Deficits in UFOV performance and poorer contrast sensitivity scores were significantly (p < or = 0.05) correlated with overall driving performance as well as specific maneuver/skill combinations.
In a small sample of drivers, mild to moderate peripheral visual field restrictions were adversely associated with specific driving skills involved in maneuvers for which a wide field of vision is likely to be important (however most were regarded as safe drivers). Further studies using similar assessment methods with drivers with more restricted fields are necessary to determine the minimum field extent for safe driving.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
173 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE. To conduct an evidence-based review of intervention studies of older drivers with medical conditions. METHOD. We used the American Occupational Therapy Association's classification criteria (Levels I-V, I = highest level of evidence) to identify driving interventions. We classified studies using letters to represent the strength of recommendations: A = strongly recommend the intervention; B = recommend intervention is provided routinely; C = weak evidence that the intervention can improve outcomes; D = recommend not to provide the intervention; I = insufficient evidence to recommend for or against the intervention. RESULTS. For clients with stroke, we recommend a graded simulator intervention (A) and multimodal training in traffic theory knowledge and on-road interventions (B); we make no recommendation for or against Dynavision, Useful Field of View, or visual-perceptual interventions (I). For clients with visual deficits, we recommend educational intervention (A) and bioptic training (B); we make no recommendation for or against prism lenses (I). For clients with dementia, we recommend driving restriction interventions (C) and make no recommendation for or against use of compensatory driving strategies (I). CONCLUSION. Level I studies are needed to identify effective interventions for medically at-risk older drivers.
    The American journal of occupational therapy.: official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association 07/2014; 68(4):e107-14. · 1.70 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To investigate the relationship between visual field (VF) damage and history of motor vehicle collisions (MVCs) in subjects with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). MVC history and driving habits were recorded using patient questionnaires in 247 POAG patients. Patients' driving attitudes (carefulness) were estimated using Rasch analysis. The relationship between MVC outcomes and 52 total deviation (TD) values of integrated binocular VF (IVF), better and worse visual acuities (VAs), age and gender was analyzed using principal component analysis and logistic regression. 51 patients had the history of MVCs. Significant difference was observed between patients with and without history of MVCs only for: better VA, a single TD value in the superior-right VF, and the typical distance driven in a week (unpaired t-test, p = 0.002, 0.015 and 0.006, respectively). There was not a significant relationship between MVCs and mean deviation (MD) of IVF (p = 0.41, logistic regression). None of the principal components were significantly correlated with MVC outcome (p>0.05, polynomial logistic regression analysis). There was a significant relationship between IVF MD and Rasch derived Person parameter (R2 = 0.023, p = 0.0095). There was also a significant positive relationship between MVCs and the distance driven in a week (p = 0.005, logistic regression). In this study of POAG patients, MVCs were not related to central binocular VF damage. These results suggest the relationship between visual function and driving is not straightforward, and careful consideration should be given when predicting patients' driving ability using their VF.
    PLoS ONE 12/2014; 9(12):e115572. · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: ABSTRACT This paper offers a summary based on the findings of an evidence-based review previously conducted to determine the effectiveness of interventions for medically at risk drivers with stroke, visual deficits, or cognitive decline. Specifically, this work offers occupational therapy practitioners clinically applicable recommendations and intervention strategies. Because driving is a key instrumental activity of daily living for continued independence, autonomy, and quality of life, the recommendations provided in this review may enable the clinical reasoning and decision-making skills of occupational therapists working with medically at risk older drivers.
    Occupational Therapy in Health Care 04/2014; 28(2):223-8.

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
120 Downloads
Available from
Jun 5, 2014