ArticlePloS one2024
Knowing me, knowing you-A study on top-down requirements for compensatory scanning in drivers with homonymous visual field loss.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of unilateral cortical blindness on lane position and gaze behavior in a virtual reality steering task.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveIt is currently still unknown why some drivers with visual field loss can compensate well for their visual impairment while others adopt ineffective strategies. This paper contributes to the methodological investigation of the associated top-down mechanisms and aims at validating a theoretical model on the requirements for successful compensation among drivers with homonymous visual field loss.
methodsA driving simulator study was conducted with eight participants with homonymous visual field loss and eight participants with normal vision. Participants drove through an urban surrounding and experienced a baseline scenario and scenarios with visual precursors indicating increased likelihoods of crossing hazards. Novel measures for the assessment of the mental model of their visual abilities, the mental model of the driving scene and the perceived attention demand were developed and used to investigate the top-down mechanisms behind attention allocation and hazard avoidance.
resultsParticipants with an overestimation of their visual field size tended to prioritize their seeing side over their blind side both in subjective and objective measures. The mental model of the driving scene showed close relations to the subjective and actual attention allocation. While participants with homonymous visual field loss were less anticipatory in their usage of the visual precursors and showed poorer performances compared to participants with normal vision, the results indicate a stronger reliance on top-down mechanism for drivers with visual impairments. A subjective focus on the seeing side or on near peripheries more frequently led to bad performances in terms of collisions with crossing cyclists.
conclusionThe study yielded promising indicators for the potential of novel measures to elucidate top-down mechanisms in drivers with homonymous visual field loss. Furthermore, the results largely support the model of requirements for successful compensatory scanning. The findings highlight the importance of individualized interventions and driver assistance systems tailored to address these mechanisms.
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.