Predicting practical fitness to drive in drivers with visual field defects caused by ocular pathology

Comparison of visual requirements and regulations for obtaining a driving license in different European countries and some open questions on their adequacy

We reviewed the current state of knowledge regarding visual function and its suitability as part of medical examinations for driving licenses. We focused only on Group 1 drivers. According to previous studies, visual acuity, which is the most common test, is weakly associated with a higher risk of road accidents, with a greater role of visual field. The inclusion of the visual field test in medical examinations is therefore important, but the actual limit value is still unclear and further research in specific situations is needed. Color vision impairment was not found a threat to traffic safety. Contrast sensitivity decreases with age and is affected by abnormal eye conditions. Resulting glare can lead to an increased risk of traffic accidents during night driving in the elderly and others with conditions that impair contrast sensitivity. However, the universal cut-off limits have not been established either. The current European Union (EU) regulations therefore reflect minimum common denominator across the member states which may not entirely translate to optimal driving safety. Due to these open questions, standardized testing in simulators or on polygons that simulate real life conditions would be needed to better determine safe limits of visual function in different conditions. As there is a need to have better standardization across Europe regarding the requirements and rules regarding driving licenses in European countries, we first analyzed existing rules and compared them with each other, also in terms of deviations from the EU directive itself. We reviewed the literature in this field and prepared proposals for a more optimal regulation of the rules in the future. Particular attention is paid to the new method of examining the visual field that was created to respect the European directive. The paper can serve as a basis of information for research teams to design further protocols, as it gathers research findings to date on the importance and impact of various visual functions on driving safety, as well as a starting point for a debate on revising existing rules for obtaining and maintaining licenses, as it compares the current regulations in European countries and differences between them.

Influence of Vision on Drivers: A Pilot Study

Background: Driving is the main mode of transportation in many countries, and visual safety depends largely on good visual health. The objective of this study is to analyze the visual health of Spanish drivers; as well as analyze the difference between professional and non-professional drivers. Methods: A visual screening was carried out in Spanish drivers from all over Spain, in which the following tests were performed: monocular visual acuity in distance and near vision, visual field, stereopsis, contrast sensitivity, intraocular pressure and balance test binocular. Subsequently, a questionnaire was carried out on the patient’s driving data and ocular antecedents. Results: 74.5% of the drivers used glasses to drive, of which 61.5% used progressive glasses. However, 39.4% reported having difficulties seeing well. The mean visual acuity in the distance and near was 0.93 ± 0.13 and 0.94 ± 0.13, respectively. Significant differences have been found in accident risk based on visual acuity (p < 0.001). But no significant differences have been found in terms of visual field, stereopsis, contrast sensitivity, binocular balance and intraocular pressure (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Vision appears to play a key role in driving and a good visual assessment is recommended for early detection of visual problems that may affect road safety. A study with a larger sample size would be necessary to confirm the results of this pilot study.

The Impact of Visual Field Loss on Driving Skills: A Systematic Narrative Review

Purpose

To review the evidence on the impact of visual field loss on skills required for driving.

Methods

A literature search was undertaken using a systematic approach. Papers within scope were identified by two independent reviewers, and papers were grouped into similar themes for discussion.

Key findings

Evidence suggests that both binocular and monocular visual field defects have a negative impact on driving skills. Both central and peripheral cause difficulties, but the degree of impact is dependent on the defect severity and compensation ability. Many factors that affect compensation to visual field loss and the effects of visual field loss on driving skills are discussed, including cognitive status, age and duration of visual field loss. In summary, in central visual field loss compensation, strategies include reduction of overall driving speed; whereas, in peripheral field loss, increased scanning is reported to aid adaptation.

Conclusions

For driving, there is evidence that complete and/or binocular visual field loss poses more of a difficulty than partial and/or monocular loss, and central defects cause more problems than peripheral defects. A lack of evidence exists concerning the impact of superior versus inferior defects. The level of peripheral vision loss that is incompatible with safe driving remains unknown, as compensation abilities vary widely between individuals. This review highlights a lack of evidence in relation to the impact of visual field loss on driving skills. Further research is required to strengthen the evidence to allow clinicians to better support people with visual field loss with driving advice.

Driving and Low Vision: Validity of Assessments for Predicting Performance of Drivers

The authors conducted a systematic review to examine whether vision-related assessments can predict the driving performance of individuals who have low vision. The results indicate that measures of visual field, contrast sensitivity, cognitive and attention-based tests, and driver screening tools have variable utility for predicting real-world driving performance.

Effect of age and pop out distracter on attended field of view

PURPOSE

To investigate the functional field of view (FFOV) of younger and older individuals using the attended field of view (AFOV), a method which allows for eye and head movement. The impact of a pop out distracter and a dual task on the FFOV measure was also investigated.

METHODS

Nine young adult (25±6 years) and 9 older participants (72±4 years) took part in the experiment. The AFOV test involved the binocular detection and localization of a white target (Landolt-C) in a field of 24 white rings (distracters). The further AFOV tests were modified to include the presence of a pop out distracter, a dual task condition, and a combination of the two.

RESULTS

Older observers had lower viewing efficiency (log [1/presentation time]) in all conditions (pooled mean across conditions: older: 0.05±0.02; younger: 0.48±0.04) than the younger group. The addition of dual or a pop out distracter did not affect the older group (mean difference ∼104±150ms and ∼124±122ms respectively) but the additional pop out distracter reduced the efficiency of the younger group for targets near fixation (mean difference ∼68±35ms).

CONCLUSION

Better viewing efficiency was observed in younger individuals compared to older individuals. Difficulty in disregarding irrelevant stimuli and thereby resorting to inefficient search strategy is proposed as the reason for the differences. The finding that both older and younger individuals are not affected significantly by the presence of the irrelevant pop out distracter has implications in situations such as driving or hazard avoidance. In such scenarios, search performance is likely not impaired beyond what is found with distracters (visual clutter) in the environment.

Visual attention measures predict pedestrian detection in central field loss: a pilot study

PURPOSE

The ability of visually impaired people to deploy attention effectively to maximize use of their residual vision in dynamic situations is fundamental to safe mobility. We conducted a pilot study to evaluate whether tests of dynamic attention (multiple object tracking; MOT) and static attention (Useful Field of View; UFOV) were predictive of the ability of people with central field loss (CFL) to detect pedestrian hazards in simulated driving.

METHODS

11 people with bilateral CFL (visual acuity 20/30-20/200) and 11 age-similar normally-sighted drivers participated. Dynamic and static attention were evaluated with brief, computer-based MOT and UFOV tasks, respectively. Dependent variables were the log speed threshold for 60% correct identification of targets (MOT) and the increase in the presentation duration for 75% correct identification of a central target when a concurrent peripheral task was added (UFOV divided and selective attention subtests). Participants drove in a simulator and pressed the horn whenever they detected pedestrians that walked or ran toward the road. The dependent variable was the proportion of timely reactions (could have stopped in time to avoid a collision).

RESULTS

UFOV and MOT performance of CFL participants was poorer than that of controls, and the proportion of timely reactions was also lower (worse) (84% and 97%, respectively; p = 0.001). For CFL participants, higher proportions of timely reactions correlated significantly with higher (better) MOT speed thresholds (r = 0.73, p = 0.01), with better performance on the UFOV divided and selective attention subtests (r = -0.66 and -0.62, respectively, p<0.04), with better contrast sensitivity scores (r = 0.54, p = 0.08) and smaller scotomas (r = -0.60, p = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that brief laboratory-based tests of visual attention may provide useful measures of functional visual ability of individuals with CFL relevant to more complex mobility tasks.

Driving with central field loss I: effect of central scotomas on responses to hazards

OBJECTIVES

To determine how central field loss (CFL) affects reaction time to pedestrians and to test the hypothesis that scotomas lateral to the preferred retinal locus will delay detection of hazards approaching from that side.

METHODS

Participants with binocular CFL (scotoma diameter, 7°-25°; visual acuity, 0.3-1.0 logMAR) using lateral preferred retinal fixation loci and matched controls with normal vision drove in a simulator for approximately 1½ hours per session for 2 sessions a week apart. Participants responded to frequent virtual pedestrians who appeared on either the left or right sides and approached the participant's lane on a collision trajectory that, therefore, caused them to remain in approximately the same area of the visual field.

RESULTS

The study included 11 individuals with CFL and 11 controls with normal vision. The CFL participants had more detection failures for pedestrians who appeared in areas of visual field loss than did controls in corresponding areas (6.4% vs 0.2%). Furthermore, the CFL participants reacted more slowly to pedestrians in blind than nonscotomatous areas (4.28 vs 2.43 seconds, P < .001) and overall had more late and missed responses than controls (29% vs 3%, P < .001). Scotoma size and contrast sensitivity predicted outcomes in blind and seeing areas, respectively. Visual acuity was not correlated with response measures.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to causing visual acuity and contrast sensitivity loss, the central scotoma per se delayed hazard detection even though small eye movements could potentially compensate for the loss. Responses in nonscotomatous areas were also delayed, although to a lesser extent, possibly because of the eccentricity of fixation. Our findings will help practitioners advise patients with CFL about specific difficulties they may face when driving.

The Introduction of Bioptic Driving in The Netherlands

BACKGROUND: In many states of the U.S.A., people with moderately reduced visual acuity e.g., 20/50 - 20/200) can legally drive with the aid of a small, spectacle-mounted ("bioptic") telescope. We conducted a demonstration project to assess the viability of implementing bioptic driving in The Netherlands. In this paper we describe the framework of the project from conception through to realization of our primary objective - the introduction of bioptic driving as a legal option for visually impaired people in The Netherlands. METHODS: The project was based on bioptic driving programs in the U.S.A., which were adapted to fit within current driving training and assessment practices in The Netherlands. The project convened a consortium of organizations including the Netherlands Bureau of Driving Skills Certificates (CBR), service organizations for the visually impaired, and research departments at universities investigating driving and vision. All organizations were educated about bioptic driving and participating professionals were trained in their specific aspects of the project. Media publicity led to significant interest and helped recruitment that enabled the screening and selection of potential participants. OUTCOMES: The project demonstrated that people with moderately reduced visual acuity can be trained to achieve an adequate level of proficient and safe driving (as assessed by the local official driving licensing professionals) when using a bioptic telescope for the road conditions in the Netherlands. Based on the successful project outcomes, a request was made to the Minister to allow bioptic driving in the Netherlands. This request has been accepted; the legal procedures for implementation are in process.

Implications of vision testing for older driver licensing

OBJECTIVES

A range of medical conditions can lead to visual impairments either through effects on the eye or the visual pathways and brain. The prevalence of visual impairment increases with age. Furthermore, research evidence has shown that aging is related to a number of other processes that can lead to changes in cognitive functioning and sensory perception that may adversely affect driving (Marottoli and Drickamer, 1993; Stelmach and Nahom, 1992). This combination of factors is thought to contribute to older driver crash risk (Hakamies-Blomqvist, 1993; Stutts et al., 1998). Licensing authorities are the primary entity responsible for monitoring the medical fitness of their license holders. While it is important for licensing bodies to identify drivers who have conditions that place them at a heightened risk for crashes, at the same time, they should not unfairly restrict the mobility of disabled or aging drivers. Therefore, it is important that the licensing criteria for visual fitness to drive are based on scientific evidence establishing their effectiveness and predictive value for poor driving performance and unacceptable crash risk. The aim of this paper is to assess whether current licensing guidelines are consistent with the available scientific evidence on the effect of visual impairment on driving with a specific focus on older drivers.

METHODS

This article describes current licensing guidelines for vision from selected Western jurisdictions and reviews the available scientific evidence on visual impairment and driving performance on which such licensing decisions are based.

RESULTS

The findings of the review indicate that the predictive values of the vision tests commonly used for licensing decisions by the selected authorities are inconclusive.

DISCUSSION

The functional attributes of vision currently assessed for licensing do not adequately explain unsafe driving performance. Differences were observed across vision requirements for the selected jurisdictions, possibly reflecting the equivocal and inconclusive findings linking specific visual functions and impairment with crash risk. Setting benchmarks or performance thresholds on selected visual tests may be problematic for older drivers in particular, who are most vulnerable to underperforming. Driving involves a complex set of skills, and it is proposed that decisions about vision for safe driving need to be considered in the context of the driver's overall health and other functional abilities.

Current licensing authority standards for peripheral visual field and safe on-road senior aged automobile driving performance

BACKGROUND

The current licensing authority's (Austroads) visual field standards are met when a person demonstrates an intact visual field extending horizontally at least 120 degrees within 10 degrees above and below the horizontal midline. A person cannot be licensed unconditionally if they have a hemianopia, quadrantanopia or any significant visual field loss (scotoma) that is likely to impede driving performance. Despite fairly rigorous implementation of these vision standards by licensing authorities, there is little scientific evidence available to demonstrate that a driver will or will not be safe on road depending on the extent of their visual field.

METHODS

This study was developed to examine if the current licensing authority vision standards predict safe on-road driver performance in a cohort of 100 senior drivers. The study consisted of four stages in which participants underwent on-road assessment by a multidisciplinary team including a driving instructor, orthoptist and occupational therapist; off-road occupational therapy cognitive skills assessment using the Visual Recognition Slide Test (VRST-USyd); off-road orthoptic assessment including history, visual acuity and visual fields; and feedback from the team regarding the participant's visual and driving status. Visual fields were assessed using both the Goldmann and Esterman tests. Correlations were calculated to determine the relationship between visual field results and on-road driving performance.

RESULTS

Generally it was found that visual field test results did not predict driving performance accurately for both participants with and without visual field loss.

CONCLUSION

The results bring into question the current Austroads visual field standards for safe driving.

Kompensatorische und restitutive Methoden des Gesichtsfeldtrainings

Gesichtsfelddefekte sind eine häufige Folge von Hirnschäden. Es existieren zwei Behandlungsansätze: 1. Kompensation durch Spiegelbrillen, Prismen, sakkadische Augenbewegungen, exzentrisches Lesetraining und 2. Gesichtsfeldvergrößerung durch ein spezielles visuelles Restitutionstraining. Spiegelbrillen und Prismen wurden vielfach kritisiert, tauchen aber auch in aktuellen Studien immer wieder auf. Kompensation durch ein Training sakkadischer Augenbewegungen in den blinden Bereich führt rasch zu Alltagsverbesserungen und ist als Methode weitgehend unumstritten. Für ein exzentrisches Lesetraining wurde aktuell ein computergestütztes System entwickelt. Erste Forschungsergebnisse des Restitutionstrainings wurden positiv bewertet, seit der Jahrtausendwende tauchte jedoch zunehmende Kritik auf – insbesondere bezüglich mangelnder Fixationskontrolle. Der Artikel setzt sich mit diesen Kritikpunkten auseinander und gibt einen Überblick über aktuelle Forschungsergebnisse, die zeigen, dass eine Gesichtsfelderweiterung zwar klein, aber durchaus möglich ist. Alternativerklärungen wie z. B. sakkadische Augenbewegungen und Veränderungen der Aufmerksamkeit konnten in neuen Studien weitgehend ausgeräumt werden. Hinsichtlich der Fahreignung können offenbar viele Patienten den Defekt gut kompensieren; Studien hierzu sind aber widersprüchlich. Empfohlen wird die bessere Verquickung von restitutiven und kompensatorischen Behandlungsstrategien, um Patienten optimale Hilfe zu geben.

On-road driving with moderate visual field loss

PURPOSE

We examined the relationship between visual field extent and driving performance in an open, on-road environment using a detailed scoring method that assessed the quality of specific skills for a range of maneuvers. The purpose was to determine which maneuvers and skills should be included in future, larger scale investigations of the effect of peripheral field loss on driving performance.

METHODS

Twenty-eight current drivers (67 +/- 14 years) with restricted peripheral visual fields participated. Binocular visual field extent was quantified using Goldmann perimetry (V4e target). The useful field of view (UFOV) and Pelli-Robson letter contrast sensitivity tests were administered. Driving performance was assessed along a 14-mile route on roads in the city of Birmingham, Alabama. The course included a representative variety of general driving maneuvers, as well as maneuvers expected to be difficult for people with restricted fields.

RESULTS

Drivers with more restricted horizontal and vertical binocular field extents showed significantly (p < or = 0.05) poorer skills in speed matching when changing lanes, in maintaining lane position and keeping to the path of the curve when driving around curves, and received significantly (p < or = 0.05) poorer ratings for anticipatory skills. Deficits in UFOV performance and poorer contrast sensitivity scores were significantly (p < or = 0.05) correlated with overall driving performance as well as specific maneuver/skill combinations.

CONCLUSIONS

In a small sample of drivers, mild to moderate peripheral visual field restrictions were adversely associated with specific driving skills involved in maneuvers for which a wide field of vision is likely to be important (however most were regarded as safe drivers). Further studies using similar assessment methods with drivers with more restricted fields are necessary to determine the minimum field extent for safe driving.