ArticleBMC ophthalmology2024
Could driving help us to "see better"? A comparative assessment of saccadic efficiency, visual speed, and attention.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Investigation of drivers' visual attributes in highway entrance zones utilizing Self-Organizing Mapping neural network.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Estimating the Impact of Aging on Visual Function Using Useful Field of View (UFOV) with a Focus on the Population of Gangwon-do in Korea.Brain sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed at comparing drivers' and non-drivers' results in the Adult Developmental Eye Movement with Distractors test (ADEMd) and the Useful Field of View test (UFOV).
methodsOne hundred and twenty Spaniards (mean age 50.90 ± 17.32 years) without eye disease voluntarily participated in this cross-sectional descriptive study. Participants in a single experimental session completed a questionnaire on sociodemographic, health, eyesight, and driving information. They also performed the ADEMd and UFOV tests randomly following standardized protocols. The ADEMd is a visual-verbal test that measures saccadic efficiency and visual attention. Brown-Forsythe (B-F) tests with Games-Howell post-hoc adjustments were conducted to assess differences between groups. Groups were formed according to sex, age (young adults, adults, and older adults), and driver/non-driver for further analysis. Additionally, associations between dependent variables were assessed through Spearman's correlations.
resultsDrivers obtained significantly better results in the ADEMd compared with non-drivers. Non-significant differences between drivers and non-drivers were encountered in the UFOV. Additionally, significant differences were observed between sexes and age groups. It is worth highlighting that non-driver's age significantly correlated with worse ADEMd performance (rho = .637 to .716). This correlation was non-significant in drivers. Similarly, reading hours significantly correlated with better ADEMd performance in non-drivers (rho = - .291 to - .363), but not in drivers. The only significant correlations between ADEMd and UFOV tests were found in drivers (rho = .307 to .410).
conclusionConsidering all the discussed results, it could be hypothesized that the driving task promotes abilities, such as oculomotor and cognitive function, which are relevant for the performance in the ADEMd. However, this hypothesis is based on correlational outcomes and further studies should causally assess this possible relation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.