Assessing visual fields for driving in patients with paracentral scotomata

British Journal of Ophthalmology

Volumn 92, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 225-230

  Chisholm, C M ^a,b   Rauscher, F G ^b   Crabb, D C ^b   Davies, L N ^c   Dunne, M C ^c   Edgar, D F ^b   Harlow, J A ^b   James Galton, M ^d   Petzold, A ^d   Plant, G T ^d,e   Viswanathan, A C ^e   Underwood, G J ^f   Barbur, J L ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRADFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b CITY UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c ASTON UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^d NATIONAL HOSPITAL FOR NEUROLOGY AND NEUROSURGERY   (United Kingdom)

^e MOORFIELDS EYE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^f UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; CENTRAL SCOTOMA; DRIVING ABILITY; HUMAN; KAPPA STATISTICS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NEUROLOGIC DISEASE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCORING SYSTEM; UNITED KINGDOM; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL FIELD;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AUTOMOBILE DRIVING; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PSYCHOPHYSICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SCOTOMA; VISION TESTS; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 38949202343     PISSN: 00071161     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2007.129726     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Petzold A, Plant GT. Central and paracentral visual field defects and driving abilities. Ophthalmologica 2005;219:191-201.
2. Szlyk JP, Mahler CL, Seiple W, et al. Driving performance of glaucoma patients correlates with peripheral visual field loss. J Glaucoma 2005;14:145-50.
3. Coeckelbergh TRM, Brouwer WH, Cornelissen FW, et al. The effect of visual field defects on driving performance - A driving simulator study. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120:1509-16.
4. Esterman B. Functional scoring of the binocular field. Ophthalmology 1982;89:1226-34.
5. Drivers Medical Group. At a glance guide to the current medical standards of fitness to drive. Swansea: Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency August 2006:36-8. http://www.dvla.gov.uk/media/pdf/medical/aagv1.pdf (accessed 25 Oct 2007).
6. Rauscher FG, Chisholm CM, Crabb DP, et al. Central scotomata and driving. Road safety research report 79, compiled for UK Department for Transport, 2007.
7. Colenbrander A, De Laey J. Vision requirements for driving safety. International Council of Ophthalmology. August 2006;1-26. http://www.icoph.org/standards (accessed 25 Oct 2007).
8. van Rijn IJ, Baten G, van den Berg TJTP, et al. New standards for the visual functions of drivers. European commission - Eyesight working group 2005:1-35. http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsafety/behavior/doc/ new_standards_final_version_en.pdf (accessed 25 Oct 2007).
9. Jampel HD, Friedman DS, Quigley H, et al. Correlation of the binocular visual field with patient assessment of vision. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002;43:1059-67.
10. Crabb DP, Viswanathan AC. Integrated visual fields: a new approach to measuring the binocular field of view and visual disability. Graefes Ach Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2005;243:210-6.
11. Crabb DP, Viswanathan AC, McNaught AI, et al. Simulating binocular visual field status in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 1998;82:1236-41.
12. Crabb DP, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA, et al. A practical approach to measuring the visual field component of fitness to drive. Br J Ophthalmol 2004;88:1191-6.
13. Ball K, Owsley C, Sloane ME, et al. Visual attention problems as a predictor of vehicle crashes in older drivers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1993;34:3110-23.
14. Owsley C, Ball K, McGwin G, et al. Visual processing impairment and risk of motor vehicle crash among older adults. JAMA 1998;279:1083-8.
15. Clay OJ, Wadley VG, Edwards JD, et al. Cumulative meta-analysis of the relationship between useful field of view and driving performance in older adults: Current and future implications. Optom Vis Sci 2005;82:724-31.
16. Drasdo N, Haggerty CM. A comparison of the British number plate and Snellen vision tests for car drivers. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1981;1:39-54
17. Viswanathan AC, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA. Early detection of visual field progression in glaucoma: a comparison of PROGRESSOR and Statpac 2. Br J Ophthalmol 1997;81:1037-41.
18. 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;64:71-9.
19. Goode KT, Ball KK, Sloane M, et al. Useful field of view and other neurocognitive indicators of crash risk in older adults. J Clin Psychol Med Settings 1998;5:425-40.
20. Stewart WC, Shields MB. The peripheral visual field in glaucoma - reevaluation in the age of automated perimetry. Sur Ophthalmol 1991;36:59-69.
21. Owsley C, Ball K, Keeton DM. Relationship between visual sensitivity and target localization in older adults. Vision Res 1995;35:579-87.
22. Richards E, Bennett PJ, Sekuler AB. Age related differences in learning with the useful field of view. Vision Res 2006;46:4217- 31.
23. Edwards JD, Ross LA, Wadley VG, et al. The useful field of view test: Normative data for older adults. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2006;21:275-86.
24. Sekuler AB, Bennett PJ, Mamelak M. Effects of aging on the useful field of view. Exp Aging Res 2000;26:103-20.