Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32304533›Full record

ArticleOptometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry2020

The Effects of Age, Distraction, and Simulated Central Vision Impairment on Hazard Detection in a Driving Simulator.

Christine Ting Zhang, Alex R Bowers, Steven W Savage

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Christine Ting Zhang
Alex R BowersSchepens Eye Research Institute of Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Steven W Savage
Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary · US

Funding

VISION RESEARCHP30EY003790 · NEI · SCHEPENS EYE RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI Patricia Ann D'Amore · 1985 to 2026
$25.5M
Scanning and Detection at IntersectionsR01EY025677 · NEI · SCHEPENS EYE RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI Alexandra Rae Bowers · 2015 to 2026
$6.9M
SHORT TERM RES TRAINING AT THE NEW ENGLAND COLLEGE OFT35EY007149 · NEI · NEW ENGLAND COLLEGE OF OPTOMETRY · PI Athanasios Panorgias · 1999 to 2026
$1.5M
Driving Simulator for Vision ResearchS10RR028122 · NCRR · SCHEPENS EYE RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI PELI, ELI · 2010 to 2010
$333k
NCRR NIH HHS S10 RR028122NEI NIH HHS P30 EY003790NEI NIH HHS R01 EY025677NEI NIH HHS T35 EY007149
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

significanceDespite similar levels of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity reductions, simulated central vision impairment increased response times to a much greater extent in older than in younger participants. PURPOSE: Driving is crucial for maintaining independence in older age, but age-related vision impairments and in-vehicle auditory distractions may impair driving safety. We investigated the effects of age, simulated central vision impairment, and auditory distraction on detection of pedestrian hazards.

methodsThirty-two normally sighted participants (16 younger and 16 older) completed four highway drives in a simulator and pressed the horn whenever they saw a pedestrian. Pedestrians ran toward the road on a collision course with the approaching vehicle. Simulated central vision impairment was achieved by attaching diffusing filters to a pair of laboratory goggles, which reduced visual acuity to 20/80 and contrast sensitivity by 0.35 log units. For drives with distraction, subjects listened to an audiobook and repeated out loud target words.

resultsSimulated central vision impairment had a greater effect on reaction times (660-millisecond increase) than age (350-millisecond increase) and distraction (160-millisecond increase) and had a greater effect on older than younger subjects (828- and 492-millisecond increase, respectively). Simulated central vision impairment decreased safe response rates from 94.7 to 78.3%. Distraction did not, however, affect safety because older subjects drove more slowly when distracted (but did not drive more slowly with vision impairment), suggesting that they might have perceived greater threat from the auditory distraction than the vision impairment.

conclusionsOlder participants drove more slowly in response to auditory distraction. However, neither older nor younger participants adapted their speed in response to simulated vision impairment, resulting in unsafe detections. These results underline the importance of evaluating safety of responses to hazards as well as reaction times in a paradigm that flexibly allows participants to modify their driving behaviors.

Indexed as

Automobile DrivingComputer SimulationAccidents, TrafficAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAgingAttentionAuditory PerceptionContrast SensitivityDistracted DrivingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychomotor Performance

Identifiers

PMID32304533
PMCPMC7172002
OpenAlexW3016675747

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.