Search

Purpose: To determine the correlations of the Useful Field of View (UFOV), compared to other clinical tests of Parkinson's disease (PD); vision; and cognition with measures of on-road driving assessments and to quantify the UFOV's ability to indicate passing/failing an on-road test in people with PD., Methods: Nineteen randomly selected people with idiopathic PD, mean age = 74.8 (6.1), 14 (73.7%) men, 18 (94.7%) Caucasians, were age-matched to 104 controls without PD. The controls had a mean age of 75.4 (6.4), 59 (56.7%) men, 96 (92.3%) Caucasians. Both groups were referred for a driving evaluation after institutional review board approval., Results: Compared to neuropsychological and clinical tests of vision and cognition, the UFOV showed the strongest correlations (r > .75, p < 0.05) with measures of failing a standardized road test and number of driving errors. Among PD patients, the UFOV Risk Index score of 3 (range 1-5) was established as the optimal cutoff value for passing the on-road test, with sensitivity 87 percent and specificity 82 percent, AUC = 92 percent (SE 0.61, p = .002). Similarly, the UFOV 2 (divided attention) optimum cutoff value is 223 ms (range 16-500 ms), sensitivity 87.5 percent, specificity 81.8 percent, AUC = 91 percent (SE 0.73, p = .003). The UFOV 3 (selected attention) optimal cutoff value is 273 ms (range 16-500 ms), sensitivity 75 percent, specificity 72.7 percent, AUC = 87 percent (SE 0.81, p = .007)., Conclusion: In this pilot study among PD patients, the UFOV may be a superior screening measure (compared to other measures of disease, cognition, and vision) for predicting on-road driving performance but its rigor must be verified in a larger sample of people with PD.

Objective: Driving simulation provides a convenient and safe method for assessing driving behaviors. Many authors, however, agree that validation is a key component of any study that utilizes simulators to assess driving performance. The purpose of this study was to test driver response validity by discerning whether behavioral responses of drivers, as expressed by type and number of errors, are similar on the road and in the simulator., Methods: We replicated real-world intersections in our driving simulator (STISIM M500W; Systems Technology Inc.) and assessed the number and type of driving errors committed by the same 39 participants while negotiating a right and a left turn both on the road and in the simulator., Results: We found no significant interactions between the type of vehicle (road vs. simulator) and the type of turn (right versus left) for any of the driving errors, indicating that the same trends exist between driving errors made on the road and in the simulator and thus suggesting relative validity of the simulator. We also found no significant differences between the road and the simulator for lane maintenance, adjustment to stimuli, and visual scanning errors, indicating absolute validity for these types of errors., Conclusions: The findings suggest early support for external validity for our driving simulator, indicating that the results of assessing driving errors when negotiating turns in the simulator can be generalized or transferred to the road under the same testing conditions. A follow-up study with larger sample size is needed to establish whether driving performance in the simulator is predictive of driving performance on the road.

Objectives: To determine the relationship between clinical variables (demographics, cognitive testing, comorbidities, and medications) and failing a standardized road test in older adults., Methods: Analysis of on-the road studies performed in optimal weather conditions, between January 1, 2005, and May 1, 2007. The standardized testing was held at the National Older Driver Research and Training Center (NODRTC), Florida, and included 127 adults aged 65 and older with current driver licenses, recruited by advertisement from the Gainesville, Florida, community. Measurements consist of demographics, self-reported medications and medical conditions, cognitive testing including Trail Making Part B, global rating score (pass/fail), and driver maneuver score (0-273, with 273 indicating perfect driving or zero errors)., Results: A total of 127 older adults completed the protocol. Mean age was 74.8 years (SD = 6.3); 46.5% females. Mean time for Trail Making Part B was 114.3 seconds (SD of 83). Among the 127 drivers, the mean Sum of Maneuvers Score was 238.9 (SD of 25.0) and 24 (19%) failed the driver test. Odds ratio estimates for failing the test included advanced age (6.7, 95% CI 2.2 to 19.8), presence of a neurological disease (2.8, 95% CI 1.2 to 6.5), and prolonged time to complete the Trail Making Part B cognitive test (2.5, 95% CI 1.0 to 5.9). Conversely, odds ratio estimates lowering the risk of failure included taking a non-diabetic hormonal medications (e.g., thyroid and estrogen drugs; 0.3, 95% CI .09 to 0.7) and having a musculoskeletal diagnosis (0.3, 95% CI .1 to 0.7)., Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the medical predictors of failing a standardized road test. Advanced age and prolonged time on Trail Making Part B were the two major predictors of test failure and a lower Sum of Maneuvers Score. Our study also found that having a neurological diagnosis (primarily cerebrovascular and Parkinson's disease) predicted test failure. Medications from neurological class also predicted a lower Sum of Maneuvers Score. Further study needs to be done to explain the apparent protective effect of musculoskeletal conditions and hormonal medications.