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: 1.9). 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.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A range of medical conditions can lead to visual impairments either through effects on the eye or the visual pathways and brain. The prevalence of visual impairment increases with age. Furthermore, research evidence has shown that aging is related to a number of other processes that can lead to changes in cognitive functioning and sensory perception that may adversely affect driving (Marottoli and Drickamer, 1993; Stelmach and Nahom, 1992). This combination of factors is thought to contribute to older driver crash risk (Hakamies-Blomqvist, 1993; Stutts et al., 1998). Licensing authorities are the primary entity responsible for monitoring the medical fitness of their license holders. While it is important for licensing bodies to identify drivers who have conditions that place them at a heightened risk for crashes, at the same time, they should not unfairly restrict the mobility of disabled or aging drivers. Therefore, it is important that the licensing criteria for visual fitness to drive are based on scientific evidence establishing their effectiveness and predictive value for poor driving performance and unacceptable crash risk. The aim of this paper is to assess whether current licensing guidelines are consistent with the available scientific evidence on the effect of visual impairment on driving with a specific focus on older drivers. This article describes current licensing guidelines for vision from selected Western jurisdictions and reviews the available scientific evidence on visual impairment and driving performance on which such licensing decisions are based. The findings of the review indicate that the predictive values of the vision tests commonly used for licensing decisions by the selected authorities are inconclusive. The functional attributes of vision currently assessed for licensing do not adequately explain unsafe driving performance. Differences were observed across vision requirements for the selected jurisdictions, possibly reflecting the equivocal and inconclusive findings linking specific visual functions and impairment with crash risk. Setting benchmarks or performance thresholds on selected visual tests may be problematic for older drivers in particular, who are most vulnerable to underperforming. Driving involves a complex set of skills, and it is proposed that decisions about vision for safe driving need to be considered in the context of the driver's overall health and other functional abilities.
    Traffic injury prevention 09/2008; 9(4):304-13.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Measures of quality of life called utility values (UVs) are needed to deliver the most cost-effective health care for glaucoma patients. UVs are rarely measured in clinical research and practice whereas clinical outcomes such as visual field are routinely collected. The aim of this study was to develop an algorithm that calculates UVs directly from combinations of routine measures of binocular visual field, visual acuity, and contrast sensitivity. A total of 132 outpatients with primary open angle glaucoma were recruited. The Time Trade-off (TTO) question was administered during face-to-face interviews. Binocular ETDRS logMAR visual acuity (VA(B)), binocular Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity (CS(B)), and Humphrey 24-2 monocular visual field tests were performed on the same day. Integrated (binocular) visual field (IVF) scores were derived. Tobit regression analyses were used to model utility values based on combinations of IVF, VA(B), CS(B) and other controlling factors. UVs recorded for 123 cases correlated significantly with both clinical measures of binocular visual function (r = -0.47, IVF; r = -0.48, VA(B); r = 0.50, CS(B); P <0.0001) and measures of vision-specific quality of life (r = 0.54-0.6, P <0.0001). Two final models incorporate terms for IVF and VA(B), with or without living arrangements, and explain 22% and 31% of variation in utilities. CS(B) was not included in either model due to co-linearity between CS(B) and VA(B) confounding the models. The models provide preliminary algorithms for predicting the expected UVs for glaucoma populations directly from clinical outcomes collected routinely in clinical practice.
    Ophthalmic epidemiology 10/2011; 18(5):233-43. · 1.93 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Post-chiasmal visual pathway lesions and glaucomatous optic neuropathy cause binocular visual field defects (VFDs) that may critically interfere with quality of life and driving licensure. The aims of this study were (i) to assess the on-road driving performance of patients suffering from binocular visual field loss using a dual-brake vehicle, and (ii) to investigate the related compensatory mechanisms. A driving instructor, blinded to the participants' diagnosis, rated the driving performance (passed/failed) of ten patients with homonymous visual field defects (HP), including four patients with right (HR) and six patients with left homonymous visual field defects (HL), ten glaucoma patients (GP), and twenty age and gender-related ophthalmologically healthy control subjects (C) during a 40-minute driving task on a pre-specified public on-road parcours. In order to investigate the subjects' visual exploration ability, eye movements were recorded by means of a mobile eye tracker. Two additional cameras were used to monitor the driving scene and record head and shoulder movements. Thus this study is novel as a quantitative assessment of eye movements and an additional evaluation of head and shoulder was performed. Six out of ten HP and four out of ten GP were rated as fit to drive by the driving instructor, despite their binocular visual field loss. Three out of 20 control subjects failed the on-road assessment. The extent of the visual field defect was of minor importance with regard to the driving performance. The site of the homonymous visual field defect (HVFD) critically interfered with the driving ability: all failed HP subjects suffered from left homonymous visual field loss (HL) due to right hemispheric lesions. Patients who failed the driving assessment had mainly difficulties with lane keeping and gap judgment ability. Patients who passed the test displayed different exploration patterns than those who failed. Patients who passed focused longer on the central area of the visual field than patients who failed the test. In addition, patients who passed the test performed more glances towards the area of their visual field defect. In conclusion, our findings support the hypothesis that the extent of visual field per se cannot predict driving fitness, because some patients with HVFDs and advanced glaucoma can compensate for their deficit by effective visual scanning. Head movements appeared to be superior to eye and shoulder movements in predicting the outcome of the driving test under the present study scenario.
    PLoS ONE 01/2014; 9(2):e87470. · 3.53 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jun 5, 2014