Search

Purpose: To examine the effects of optical blur, auditory distractors, and age on eye movement patterns while performing a driving hazard perception test (HPT)., Methods: Twenty young (mean age 27.1 ± 4.6 years) and 20 older (73.3 ± 5.7 years) drivers with normal vision completed a HPT in a repeated-measures counterbalanced design while their eye movements were recorded. Testing was performed under two visual (best-corrected vision and with +2.00DS blur) and two distractor (with and without auditory distraction) conditions. Participants were required to respond to road hazards appearing in the HPT videos of real-world driving scenes and their hazard response times were recorded., Results: Blur and distractors each significantly delayed hazard response time by 0.42 and 0.76 s, respectively (p < 0.05). A significant interaction between age and distractors indicated that older drivers were more affected by distractors than young drivers (response with distractors delayed by 0.96 and 0.60 s, respectively). There were no other two- or three-way interaction effects on response time. With blur, for example, both groups fixated significantly longer on hazards before responding compared to best-corrected vision. In the presence of distractors, both groups exhibited delayed first fixation on the hazards and spent less time fixating on the hazards. There were also significant differences in eye movement characteristics between groups, where older drivers exhibited smaller saccades, delayed first fixation on hazards, and shorter fixation duration on hazards compared to the young drivers., Conclusions: Collectively, the findings of delayed hazard response times and alterations in eye movement patterns with blur and distractors provide further evidence that visual impairment and distractors are independently detrimental to driving safety given that delayed hazard response times are linked to increased crash risk.

Purpose: Anecdotal evidence suggests that some sunglass users prefer yellow tints for outdoor activities, such as driving, and research has suggested that such tints improve the apparent contrast and brightness of real-world objects. The aim of this study was to establish whether yellow filters resulted in objective improvements in performance for visual tasks relevant to driving., Methods: Response times of nine young (age [mean ± SD], 31.4 ± 6.7 years) and nine older (age, [mean ± SD], 74.6 ± 4.8) adults were measured using video presentations of traffic hazards (driving hazard perception task) and a simple low-contrast grating appeared at random peripheral locations on a computer screen. Response times were compared when participants wore a yellow filter (with and without a linear polarizer) versus a neutral density filter (with and without a linear polarizer). All lens combinations were matched to have similar luminance transmittances (~27%)., Results: In the driving hazard perception task, the young but not the older participants responded significantly more rapidly to hazards when wearing a yellow filter than with a luminance-matched neutral density filter (mean difference, 450 milliseconds). In the low-contrast grating task, younger participants also responded more quickly for the yellow filter condition but only when combined with a polarizer. Although response times increased with increasing stimulus eccentricity for the low-contrast grating task, for the younger participants, this slowing of response times with increased eccentricity was reduced in the presence of a yellow filter, indicating that perception of more peripheral objects may be improved by this filter combination., Conclusions: Yellow filters improve response times for younger adults for visual tasks relevant to driving.