Byoung Sun Chu

Using reflective clothing to enhance the conspicuity of bicyclists at night

Bicycling at night is more dangerous than in the daytime and poor conspicuity is likely to be a contributing factor. The use of reflective markings on a pedestrians major joints to facilitate the perception of biological motion has been shown to greatly enhance pedestrian conspicuity at night, but few corresponding data exist for bicyclists. Twelve younger and twelve older participants drove around a closed-road circuit at night and indicated when they first recognized a bicyclist who wore black clothing either alone, or together with a reflective bicycling vest, or a vest plus ankle and knee reflectors. The bicyclist pedalled in place on a bicycle that had either a static or flashing light, or no light on the handlebars. Bicyclist clothing significantly affected conspicuity; drivers responded to bicyclists wearing the vest plus ankle and knee reflectors at significantly longer distances than when the bicyclist wore the vest alone or black clothing without a vest. Older drivers responded to bicyclists less often and at shorter distances than younger drivers. The presence of a bicycle light, whether static or flashing, did not enhance the conspicuity of the bicyclist; this may result in bicyclists who use a bicycle light being overconfident of their own conspicuity at night. The implications of our findings are that ankle and knee markings are a simple and very effective approach for enhancing bicyclist conspicuity at night.

The Effect of Presbyopic Vision Corrections on Nighttime Driving Performance

PURPOSE To investigate the effect of various presbyopic vision corrections on nighttime driving performance on a closed-road driving circuit. METHODS Participants were 11 presbyopes (mean age, 57.3+/-5.8 years), with a mean best sphere distance refractive error of R+0.23+/-1.53 DS and L+0.20+/-1.50 DS, whose only experience of wearing presbyopic vision correction was reading spectacles. The study involved a repeated-measures design by which a participants nighttime driving performance was assessed on a closed-road circuit while wearing each of four power-matched vision corrections. These included single-vision distance lenses (SV), progressive-addition spectacle lenses (PAL), monovision contact lenses (MV), and multifocal contact lenses (MTF CL) worn in a randomized order. Measures included low-contrast road hazard detection and avoidance, road sign and near target recognition, lane-keeping, driving time, and legibility distance for street signs. Eye movement data (fixation duration and number of fixations) were also recorded. RESULTS Street sign legibility distances were shorter when wearing MV and MTF CL than SV and PAL (P<0.001), and participants drove more slowly with MTF CL than with PALs (P=0.048). Wearing SV resulted in more errors (P<0.001) and in more (P=0.002) and longer (P<0.001) fixations when responding to near targets. Fixation duration was also longer when viewing distant signs with MTF CL than with PAL (P=0.031). CONCLUSIONS Presbyopic vision corrections worn by naive, unadapted wearers affected nighttime driving. Overall, spectacle corrections (PAL and SV) performed well for distance driving tasks, but SV negatively affected viewing near dashboard targets. MTF CL resulted in the shortest legibility distance for street signs and longer fixation times.

Effect of presbyopic vision corrections on perceptions of driving difficulty.

Objectives As the population ages, more people will be wearing presbyopic vision corrections when driving. However, little is known about the impact of these vision corrections on driving performance. This study aimed to determine the subjective driving difficulties experienced when wearing a range of common presbyopic contact lens and spectacle corrections. Methods A questionnaire was developed and piloted that included a series of items regarding difficulties experienced while driving under daytime and nighttime conditions (rated on five-point and seven-point Likert scales). Participants included 255 presbyopic patients recruited through local optometry practices. Participants were categorized into five age-matched groups; including those wearing no vision correction for driving (n = 50), bifocal spectacles (n = 54), progressive spectacles (n = 50), monovision contact lenses (n = 53), and multifocal contact lenses (n = 48). Results Overall, ratings of satisfaction during daytime driving were relatively high for all correction types. However, multifocal contact lens wearers were significantly less satisfied with aspects of their vision during nighttime than daytime driving, particularly regarding disturbances from glare and haloes. Progressive spectacle lens wearers noticed more distortion of peripheral vision, whereas bifocal spectacle wearers reported more difficulties with tasks requiring changes of focus and those who wore no optical correction for driving reported problems with intermediate and near tasks. Overall, satisfaction was significantly higher for progressive spectacles than bifocal spectacles for driving. Conclusions Subjective visual experiences of different presbyopic vision corrections when driving vary depending on the vision tasks and lighting level. Eye-care practitioners should be aware of the driving-related difficulties experienced with each vision correction type and the need to select corrective types that match the driving needs of their patients.

Influence of presbyopic corrections on driving-related eye and head movements.

Purpose. To investigate whether wearing different presbyopic vision corrections alters the pattern of eye and head movements when viewing and responding to driving-related traffic scenes. Methods. Participants included 20 presbyopes (mean age: 56.1 ± 5.7 years) who had no experience of wearing presbyopic vision corrections, apart from single vision (SV) reading spectacles. Each participant wore five different vision corrections: distance SV lenses, progressive addition spectacle lenses (PAL), bifocal spectacle lenses (BIF), monovision (MV) and multifocal contact lenses (MTF CL). For each visual condition, participants were required to view videotape recordings of traffic scenes, track a reference vehicle, and identify a series of peripherally presented targets. Digital numerical display panels were also included as near visual stimuli (simulating the visual displays of a vehicle speedometer and radio). Eye and head movements were measured, and the accuracy of target recognition was also recorded. Results. The path length of eye movements while viewing and responding to driving-related traffic scenes was significantly longer when wearing BIF and PAL than MV and MTF CL (both p ≤ 0.013). The path length of head movements was greater with SV, BIF, and PAL than MV and MTF CL (all p < 0.001). Target recognition and brake response times were not significantly affected by vision correction, whereas target recognition was less accurate when the near stimulus was located at eccentricities inferiorly and to the left, rather than directly below the primary position of gaze (p = 0.008), regardless of vision correction. Conclusions. Different presbyopic vision corrections alter eye and head movement patterns. The longer path length of eye and head movements and greater number of saccades associated with the spectacle presbyopic corrections may affect some aspects of driving performance.

Differential Effects of Refractive Blur on Day and Nighttime Driving Performance

PURPOSE To investigate the effect of different levels of refractive blur on real-world driving performance measured under day and nighttime conditions. METHODS Participants included 12 visually normal, young adults (mean age = 25.8 ± 5.2 years) who drove an instrumented research vehicle around a 4 km closed road circuit with three different levels of binocular spherical refractive blur (+0.50 diopter sphere [DS], +1.00 DS, +2.00 DS) compared with a baseline condition. The subjects wore optimal spherocylinder correction and the additional blur lenses were mounted in modified full-field goggles; the order of testing of the blur conditions was randomized. Driving performance was assessed in two different sessions under day and nighttime conditions and included measures of road signs recognized, hazard detection and avoidance, gap detection, lane-keeping, sign recognition distance, speed, and time to complete the course. RESULTS Refractive blur and time of day had significant effects on driving performance (P < 0.05), where increasing blur and nighttime driving reduced performance on all driving tasks except gap judgment and lane keeping. There was also a significant interaction between blur and time of day (P < 0.05), such that the effects of blur were exacerbated under nighttime driving conditions; performance differences were evident even for +0.50 DS blur relative to baseline for some measures. CONCLUSIONS The effects of blur were greatest under nighttime conditions, even for levels of binocular refractive blur as low as +0.50 DS. These results emphasize the importance of accurate and up-to-date refractive correction of even low levels of refractive error when driving at night.

Perceptions of older people regarding their vision and incident causation

Purpose It is widely known that visual impairment (VI) is a risk factor for falls, but patients or their eye care practitioners may not recognize other kinds of incidents as being problematic because of their vision. Consequently, older people with VI may have unmet needs for advice on how to carry out activities of daily living safely. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to understand whether older people with VI consider their vision as a causative factor of incidents they experience and their perceptions regarding the prevention of future incidents. If sample size permitted, a secondary aim was to evaluate whether quantitative findings supported their perceptions. Methods The study design was a prospective cohort study evaluating injurious and damaging incidents and related near misses using open questions in a written 2-weekly large-print diary with active follow-up over 8 weeks in older people (>60 years, n = 80) with and without VI. Baseline measures included habitual binocular visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, visual fields, 3-m walk test, and Short Form 12 physical and mental component scores. Participants’ diary entries were coded. Factor analysis and binary logistic analysis were used to investigate whether baseline measures were predictive of incident occurrence. Risk and preventative factors identified were compared. Results Participants perceived that their vision was implicated in bump and fall incidents. Quantitative analysis indicated that contrast sensitivity and fitness were significant predictors of incident occurrence. Six vision-related and five non–vision-related causative factors were identified by participants as contributing factors. Participants frequently stated “don’t know” when asked to identify solutions to prevent incident recurrence. Conclusions Participants had unmet needs for advice in relation to incident prevention. It would be prudent for eye care practitioners to raise incident prevention in eye care consultations regardless of voiced patient concerns.