2016
DOI: 10.1111/cxo.12432
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Driving with central field loss III: vehicle control

Abstract: Background Visual impairment associated with central field loss (CFL) may make vehicle control more difficult due to the degraded view of the road. We evaluated how CFL affects vehicle control in a driving simulator. Procedures Nineteen participants with binocular CFL (acuity 20/30 to 20/200), and fifteen controls with normal vision (NV), drove 10 scenarios, each about 8–12 minutes. Speed, lane offset and steering wheel reversal rate were measured on straights, left and right curves, along city (~50 km/h) an… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
9
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
1
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Secondly, if the angular width between the reference line and the proximity of RNFL defect, or angle α, is correlated with central scotoma, we may use this as an indicator for earlier or more aggressive treatment [8] since central visual field defect drastically affects patient's life quality [9]. In fact, patients with central visual field defect are associated with reading difficulty [10], worsening of driving performance [11], and are at greater risk of visual acuity loss [12]. The verified method can possibly be adopted as a new parameter in optical coherence tomography (OCT).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Secondly, if the angular width between the reference line and the proximity of RNFL defect, or angle α, is correlated with central scotoma, we may use this as an indicator for earlier or more aggressive treatment [8] since central visual field defect drastically affects patient's life quality [9]. In fact, patients with central visual field defect are associated with reading difficulty [10], worsening of driving performance [11], and are at greater risk of visual acuity loss [12]. The verified method can possibly be adopted as a new parameter in optical coherence tomography (OCT).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Average lane position was slightly (0.34 meters) to the right of lane center, consistent with the magnitude of the rightward lane positions of normally sighted and visually impaired observers driving along similar roads in prior studies in the same driving simulator. 26,27 Lane position was more variable in segments with sign+pedestrian events, compared with segments when not using the bioptic. However, the magnitude of the difference was relatively small and the variability was still well within the range of normally sighted participants in prior studies.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…However, the magnitude of the difference was relatively small and the variability was still well within the range of normally sighted participants in prior studies. 26,27 More variable lane position suggests that steering was less stable in sign+pedestrian events when using the bioptic and also responding to pedestrians. The average rightward lane position resulted in participants going out of lane to the right more often than to the left.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Those with central loss also reacted more slowly to pedestrians in their blind area and missed more responses: 29% versus 3% by controls (Bronstad et al 2013). This work was updated in 2016 when the effect of central field loss on vehicle control was evaluated (Bronstad et al 2016). This study highlighted a higher steering wheel reversal rate in drivers with central visual field loss, suggesting that these visually impaired drivers had to allocate extra steering effort to maintain their lane position, which could in turn reduce attentional resources for other driving tasks.…”
Section: Peripheral Versus Central Lossmentioning
confidence: 99%