Article

On-road driving with moderate visual field loss

Department of Ophthalmology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States
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.

Full-text

Available from: Eli Peli, Jun 03, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
190 Views
  • Source
    Alzheimer's Research and Therapy 12/2015; 7(1). DOI:10.1186/s13195-015-0099-0 · 3.50 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Over the past several decades there has been a sharp increase in the number of studies focused on the relationship between vision and driving. The intensified attention to this topic has most likely been stimulated by the lack of an evidence basis for determining vision standards for driving licensure and a poor understanding about how vision impairment impacts driver safety and performance. Clinicians depend on the literature on vision and driving to advise visually impaired patients appropriately about driving fitness. Policy makers also depend on the scientific literature in order to develop guidelines that are evidence-based and are thus fair to persons who are visually impaired. Thus it is important for clinicians and policy makers alike to understand how various study designs and measurement methods should be interpreted so that the conclusions and recommendations they make are not overly broad, too narrowly constrained, or even misguided. We offer a methodological framework to guide interpretations of studies on vision and driving that can also serve as a heuristic for researchers in the area. Here, we discuss research designs and general measurement methods for the study of vision as they relate to driver safety, driver performance, and driver-centered (self-reported) outcomes. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Survey of Ophthalmology 02/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.survophthal.2015.01.005 · 3.51 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. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0115572 · 3.53 Impact Factor