Useful visual field reduction as a function of age and risk of accident in simulated car driving

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 46, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 1774-1779

  Rogé, Joceline ^a,b   Pébayle, Thierry ^a   Campagne, Aurélie ^a   Muzet, Alain ^a  

^a Centre d'Etudes de Physiologie Appliquee   (France)

^b UPS 858   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CAR DRIVING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRIVING ABILITY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PERIPHERAL VISION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK FACTOR; SIMULATION; TASK PERFORMANCE; TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL FIELD DEFECT; AGING; ATTENTION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSIOLOGY;

ACCIDENTS, TRAFFIC; ADULT; AGED; AGING; ATTENTION; AUTOMOBILE DRIVING; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; RISK FACTORS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 20444452032     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.04-0540     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Verriest G, Barca L, Dubois-Poulsen A. The occupational visual field: I. Theoretical aspects: the normal functional visual field. In: Greve EL, Heijl A, eds. 6th International Visual Field Symposium. The Hague: Dr W. Junk Publishers; 1983:165-185.
2. Ball K, Owsley C. The useful field of view test: a new technique for evaluating age related declines in visual function. J Am Optom Assoc. 1993:64:71-79.
3. Scialfa CT, Thomas DM, Joffe KM. Age differences in the useful field of view: an eye movement analysis. Optom Vis Sci. 1994;71: 736-742.
4. Mackworth NH. Visual noise causes vision tunnel. Psychonom Sci. 1965;3:67-68.
5. Ball K, Owsley C, Sloane ME, Roenker DL, Bruni JR. Visual attention problems as a predictor of vehicle crashes in older drivers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1993;34:3110-3123.
6. Sanders AF. Some aspects of the selective process in the functional visual field. Ergonomics. 1970;13:101-117.
7. Ball KK, Beard BL, Roenker DL, Miller RL, Griggs DS. Age and visual search: expanding the useful field of view. JAMA. 1988;5:2210-2219.
8. Scialfa C, Kline D, Lyman B. Age differences in target identification as a function of retinal location and noise level: examination of the useful field of view. Psychol Aging. 1987;2:14-19.
9. Leibowitz HW, Abernethy CN, Buskirk ER, Bar-Or O, Hennessy RT. The effect of heat stress on reaction time to centrally and peripherally presented stimuli. Hum Fact. 1972;14:93-97.
10. Williams LJ, Lefton LA. Processing of alphabetic information presented in the fovea or the periphery: functional visual field and cognitive load. Perception. 1981;10:645-650.
11. Williams LJ. Cognitive load and the functional field of view. Hum Fact Soc. 1982;12:684-692.
12. Williams LJ. Information processing in near peripheral vision. J Gen Psychol. 1984;111:201-206.
13. Williams LJ. Tunnel vision induced by a foveal load manipulation. Hum Fact. 1985127:221-227.
14. Williams LJ. Tunnel vision or general interference?-cognitive load and attentional bias are both important. Am J Psychol. 1988; 101:171-191.
15. Williams LJ. Visual field tunneling in aviators induced by memory demands. J Gen Psychol. 1995;122:225-235.
16. Ikeda M, Takeuchi T. Influence of foveal load on the functional visual field. Percept Psychophys. 1975;18:255-260.
17. Seiple W, Szlyk JP, Yang S, Holopigian K. Age-related functional field losses are not eccentricity dependent. Vision Res. 1996;36: 1859-1866.
18. Owsley C, Burton-Danner K, Jackson GR. Aging and spatial localization during feature search. Gerontology. 2000;46:300-305.
19. Sekuler AB, Bennett PJ, Mamelak M. Effects of aging on the useful field of view. Exp Aging Res. 2000;26:103-120.
20. Chan HS, Courtney AJ. Effects of cognitive foveal load on a peripheral single-target detection task. Percept Motor Skill. 1993;77: 515-533.
21. Chan HS, Courtney AJ. Effects of priority assignment of attentional resources, order of testing and response sequence on tunnel vision. Percept Motor Skill. 1994;78:899-914.
22. Chan HS, Courtney AJ. Stimulus size scaling and foveal load as determinants of peripheral target detection. Ergonomics. 1998;41: 1433-1452.
23. Leibowitz HW, Appelle S. The effect of a central task on luminance thresholds for peripherally presented stimuli. Hum Fact. 1969;11: 387-392.
24. Edwards DC, Goolkasian PA. Peripheral vision location and kinds of complex processing. J Exp Psychol. 1974;102:244-249.
25. Holmes DL, Cohen KM, Haith MM, Morrison FJ. Peripheral visual processing. Percept Psychophys. 1977;22:571-577.
26. Noble M, Sanders AF. Searching for traffic signals while engaged in compensatory tracking. Hum Fact. 1980;22:89-102.
27. Ward NJ, Pakes A, Crone PR. Effects of background scene complexity and field dependence on the legibility of head-up displays for automotive applications. Hum Fact. 1995;37:735-745.
28. Owsley C. Vision and driving in the elderly. Optom Vis Sci. 1994; 71:727-735.
29. Sims RV, McGwin GJ, Allman RM, Ball K, Owsley C. Exploratory study of incident vehicle crashes among older drivers. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2000;55:M22-M27.
30. Ball KK, Roenker DL, Bruni JR: Developmental changes in attention and visual search throughout adulthood. Adv Psychol. 1990; 69:489-508.
31. Owsley C, Ball K, McGwin G, et al. Visual processing impairment and risk of motor vehicle crash among older adults. JAMA. 1998; 279:1083-1088.
32. Owsley C, McGwin G. Vision impairment and driving. Surv Ophthalmol. 1999;43:535-550.
33. Myers R, Ball K, Kalina T, Roth D, Goode K. Relation of useful field of view and other screening tests to on-road driving performance. Percept Mot Skills. 2000;91:279-290.
34. Owsley C, McGwin GJ, Ball K. Vision impairment, eye disease, and injurious motor vehicle crashes in the elderly. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1998;5:101-113.
35. Etienne R. Un nouveau périmètre. Annales d'Oculistique. 1954;5: 461-466.
36. Muzet V. Conception, Réalisation et Validation d'un Système de Mesure du Champ Visuel Utile Chez l'homme. Thesis. Strasbourg, France: Université Louis Pasteur; 1998:241.
37. Siegel S, Castellan NJ. Nonparametric Statistics for Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill International; 1988:399.
38. Mackworth NH: Stimulus density limits the useful field of view. In: Monty R, Senders JW, eds. Eye Movements and Psychological Processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates; 1976: 307-321.