Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Mar-Apr;64(2):268-78.
doi: 10.5014/ajot.64.2.268.

Evaluation of on-road driving in people with hemianopia and quadrantanopia

Jennifer Elgin  1 , Gerald McGwin, Joanne M Wood, Michael S Vaphiades, Ronald A Braswell, Dawn K DeCarlo, Lanning B Kline, Cynthia Owsley
Affiliations

Evaluation of on-road driving in people with hemianopia and quadrantanopia

Jennifer Elgin et al. Am J Occup Ther. 2010 Mar-Apr.

Abstract

Objective: To examine whether some drivers with hemianopia or quadrantanopia display safe driving skills on the road compared with drivers with normal visual fields.

Method: An occupational therapist evaluated 22 people with hemianopia, 8 with quadrantanopia, and 30 with normal vision for driving skills during naturalistic driving using six rating scales.

Results: Of drivers with normal vision, > 90% drove flawlessly or had minor errors. Although drivers with hemianopia were more likely to receive poorer ratings for all skills, 59.1%-81.8% performed with no or minor errors. A skill commonly problematic for them was lane keeping (40.9%). Of 8 drivers with quadrantanopia, 7 (87.5%) exhibited no or minor errors.

Conclusion: This study of people with hemianopia or quadrantanopia with no lateral spatial neglect highlights the need to provide individual opportunities for on-road driving evaluation under natural traffic conditions if a person is motivated to return to driving after brain injury.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Non-interstate driving: Percent of each group rated by the occupational therapist as 1 through 5 for overall driving performance. 1 = terminate the drive, 2 = unsafe driving, 3 = unsatisfactory driving, 4 = a few minor errors, 5 = no obvious errors. See text for further explanation. Group comparisons indicated by horizontal lines labeled with p-values.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Interstate driving: Percent of each group rated by the occupational therapist as 1 through 5 for overall driving performance. 1 = terminate the drive, 2 = unsafe driving, 3 = unsatisfactory driving, 4 = a few minor errors, 5 = no obvious errors. See text for further explanation. Group comparisons indicated by horizontal lines labeled with p-values. Some participants did not go on the interstate if they did not typically drive on the interstate or the therapist did not allow interstate driving based on non-interstate driving performance.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bowers A, Peli E, Elgin J, McGwin G, Owsley C. On-road driving with moderate visual field loss. Optometry and Vision Science. 2005;82(8):657–667. - PubMed
    1. Bowers AR, Keeney K, Peli E. Commuity-based trial of a peripheral prism visual field expansion device for hemianopia. Archives of Ophthalmology. 2008;126:657–664. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cassidy TP, Bruce DW, Gray CS. Visual field loss after stroke: Confrontation and perimetry in the assessment of recovery. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases. 2001;10(3):113–117. - PubMed
    1. Di Stefano M, MacDonald W. Assessment of older drivers: Relationships among on-road errors, medical conditions and test outcome. Journal of Safety Research. 2003;34:415–429. - PubMed
    1. Elliott DB, Bullimore MA, Bailey IL. Improving the reliability of the Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity test. Clinical Vision Science. 1991;6:471–475.

Publication types