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: 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.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
151 Views
  • [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.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: ABSTRACT With a brief introduction, 10 tables summarize the findings from the literature describing screening and assessment tools used with older adults to identify risk or determine fitness to drive. With a focus on occupational therapy's duty to address driving as a valued activity, this paper offers information about tools used by occupational therapy practitioners across practice settings and specialists in driver rehabilitation. The tables are organized into groups of key research studies of assessment tools, screening batteries, tools used in combination (i.e., as a battery), driving simulation as an assessment tool, and screening/assessment for individuals with stroke, vision impairment, Parkinson's disease, dementia, and aging. Each table has a summary of important concepts to consider as occupational therapists choose the methods and tools to evaluate fitness to drive.
    Occupational Therapy in Health Care 04/2014; 28(2):82-121.
  • [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

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
86 Downloads
Available from
Jun 5, 2014