Implications of monocular vision for racing drivers

English version

Autoři: Julien Adrian ^aff001; Johan Le Brun ^aff001; Neil R. Miller ^aff002; José-Alain Sahel ^aff003; Gérard Saillant ^aff007; Bahram Bodaghi ^aff008
Působiště autorů: Streetlab, institut de la vision, Paris, France ^aff001; Wilmer Eye Institute, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America ^aff002; Centre Hospitalier National d'Ophtalmologie des Quinze-Vingts, INSERM-DHOS CIC 503, Paris, France ^aff003; Rothschild Ophthalmology Foundation Hospital, Paris, France ^aff004; Sorbonne Universités, INSERM, CNRS, Institut de la Vision, Paris, France ^aff005; Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America ^aff006; Fia, Paris, France ^aff007; Department of Ophthalmology, DHU Vision and Handicaps, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France ^aff008
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(12)
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226308

Souhrn

We performed two experiments to investigate how monocular vision and a monocular generalized reduction in vision (MRV) impact driving performance during racing. A total of 75 visually normal students or professional racing drivers, were recruited for the two experiments. Driving performance was evaluated under three visual conditions: normal vision, simulated monocularity and simulated monocular reduction in vision. During the driving scenario, the drivers had to detect and react to the sudden intrusion of an opponent’s racing car into their trajectory when entering a turn. Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMMs) and ANOVA were then used to explore how monocular vision and monocular reduction in vision affect drivers’ performance (crash and reaction time) while confronting them with critical situations. The results show that drivers under monocular condition are from 2.1 (95% CI 1.11–4.11, p = .024) to 6.5 (95% CI 3.91–11.13; p = .0001) times more likely to collide with target vehicles compared with their baseline (binocular) condition, depending on the driving situation. Furthermore, there was an average increase in reaction time from 64 ms (p = .029) to 126 ms (p = .015) under monocular condition, depending on the critical driving situation configuration. This study objectively demonstrates that monocularity has a significant impact on driving performance and safety during car racing, whereas performance under monocular reduction in vision conditions is less affected.

Klíčová slova:

Visual impairments – Eyes – Vision – Visual acuity – Reaction time – Visual system – Blindness – Monocular vision

Zdroje

1. Westlake W. Is a one eyed racing driver safe to compete? Formula one (eye) or two? Br J Ophthalmol. 2001;85: 619–624. doi: 10.1136/bjo.85.5.619 11316728

2. Roger PN, Ratz M, Janke MK. Accident and conviction rates of visually impaired heavyvehicle operators: State of California. Sacremento, CA; 1987.

3. Rogers PN, Janke MK. Performance of Visually Impa Heavy-Vehicle Operators .ired. J Safes Res. 1992;23: 159–170.

4. Maag U, Vanasse C, Dionne G, Laberge-Nadeau C. Taxi drivers’ accidents: How binocular vision problems are related to their rate and severity in terms of the number of victims. Accid Anal Prev. 1997;29: 217–224. doi: 10.1016/s0001-4575(96)00075-9 9088361

5. Leismaa M. The influence of driver’s vision in relation to his driving ability. Optician. 1973;166: 10–13.

6. Johnson CA, Keltner JL. Incidence of visual field loss in 20,000 eyes and its relationship to driving performance. Arch Ophthalmol (Chicago, Ill 1960). 1983;101: 371–5. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6830485

7. Federal Highway Administration. Office of Motor Carrier Standards: The Seventh Monitoring Report on the Drivers of Commercial Motor Vehicles Who Receive Vision Waiv- ers. Washington, DC; 1996.

8. Wood JM, Troutbeck R. Effect of restriction of the binocular visual field on driving performance. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 1992;12: 291–298. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.1992.tb00400.x 1454365

9. McKnight AJJ, Shinar D, Hilburn B. The visual and driving performance of monocular and binocular heavy-duty truck drivers. Accid Anal Prev. Pergamon; 1991;23: 225–237. doi: 10.1016/0001-4575(91)90002-M

10. Jones RK, Lee DN. Why two eyes are better than one: the two views of binocular vision. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1981;7: 30–40. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6452501 10.1037//0096-1523.7.1.30 6452501

11. Nicholas JJ, Heywood CA, Cowey A. Contrast sensitivity in one-eyed subjects. Vision Res. 1996;36: 175–80. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8746251 doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(95)00119-k 8746251

12. Reed MJ, Steeves JK, Steinbach MJ, Kraft S, Gallie B. Contrast letter thresholds in the non-affected eye of strabismic and unilateral eye enucleated subjects. Vision Res. 1996;36: 3011–8. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(96)00019-3 8917801

13. Freeman RD, Bradley A. Monocularly deprived humans: nondeprived eye has supernormal vernier acuity. J Neurophysiol. 1980;43: 1645–53. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7411180 10.1152/jn.1980.43.6.1645 7411180

14. Gonzalez EG, Steinbach MJ, Ono H, Rush-Smith N. Vernier acuity in monocular and binocular children. Clin Vis Sci. 1992;7: 257–61.

15. Reed MJ, Steeves JK, Steinbach MJ. A comparison of contrast letter thresholds in unilateral eye enucleated subjects and binocular and monocular control subjects. Vision Res. 1997;37: 2465–9. doi: 10.1016/s0042-6989(97)00034-5 9381681

16. Sachsenweger M, Sachsenweger U. Stereoscopic acuity in ocular pursuit of moving objects—Dynamic steroscopy and movement parallax: Relevance to road safety and occupational medicine [Internet]. Documenta Ophthalmologica. Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1991. pp. 7–128. doi: 10.1007/BF00162823

17. Zinn WJ, Solomon H. A comparison of static and dynamic stereoacuity. J Am Optom Assoc. 1985;56: 712–5. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4056294 4056294

18. Bron AM, Viswanathan AC, Thelen U, de Natale R, Ferreras A, Gundgaard J, et al. International vision requirements for driver licensing and disability pensions: using a milestone approach in characterization of progressive eye disease. Clin Ophthalmol. Dove Press; 2010;4: 1361–9. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S15359 21179219

19. Kennedy RS, Fowlkes JE, Berbaum KS, Lilienthal MG. Use of a motion sickness history questionnaire for prediction of simulator sickness. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1992;63: 588–93. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1616434 1616434

20. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker BM, Walker SC. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw. American Statistical Association; 2015;67. doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01

21. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna.: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2015.

22. Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, et al. Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 2009. pp. 127–135. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2008.10.008 19185386

23. Oliva A. Gist of the scene. Neurobiol Atten. Elsevier; 2005. pp. 251–256. doi: 10.1016/B978-012375731-9/50045-8

24. Oliva A, Torralba A. Chapter 2 Building the gist of a scene: the role of global image features in recognition. Progress in brain research. 2006. pp. 23–36. doi: 10.1016/S0079-6123(06)55002-2 17027377

25. Wolfe BA, Dobres J, Rosenholtz R, Reimer B. More than the Useful Field: Considering peripheral vision in driving. Appl Ergon. Elsevier Ltd; 2017;65: 316–325. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2017.07.009 28802451

26. Ariely D. Seeing Sets: Representation by Statistical Properties. Psychol Sci. SAGE PublicationsSage CA: Los Angeles, CA; 2001;12: 157–162. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00327 11340926

27. Dakin SC, Watt RJ. The computation of orientation statistics from visual texture. Vision Res. Pergamon; 1997;37: 3181–3192. doi: 10.1016/S0042-6989(97)00133-8

28. Haberman J, Whitney D. Rapid extraction of mean emotion and gender from sets of faces [Internet]. Current Biology. Cell Press; 2007. pp. R751–R753. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2007.06.039 17803921

29. Yamanashi Leib A, Fischer J, Liu Y, Qiu S, Robertson L, Whitney D. Ensemble crowd perception: A viewpoint-invariant mechanism to represent average crowd identity. J Vis. The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology; 2014;14: 26–26. doi: 10.1167/14.8.26 25074904

30. Sweeny TD, Haroz S, Whitney D. Perceiving group behavior: sensitive ensemble coding mechanisms for biological motion of human crowds. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2013;39: 329–337. doi: 10.1037/a0028712 22708744

31. Mckee SP, Nakayama K. The detection of motion in the peripheral visual field. Vision Res. Pergamon; 1984;24: 25–32. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(84)90140-8 6695503

32. Wolfe BA, Whitney D. Facilitating recognition of crowded faces with presaccadic attention. Front Hum Neurosci. Frontiers Media SA; 2014;8: 103. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00103 24592233

33. Mack A, Rock I. Inattentional Blindness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1998.

34. Simons DJ, Chabris CF. Gorillas in Our Midst: Sustained Inattentional Blindness for Dynamic Events. Perception. 1999;28: 1059–1074. doi: 10.1068/p281059 10694957

Implications of monocular vision for racing drivers

Souhrn

Klíčová slova:

Zdroje

PLOS One

Aktuální možnosti diagnostiky a léčby litiáz