Driving performance in persons with hemianopia and quadrantanopia assessed under in-traffic conditions

Purpose: To evaluate the on-road driving performance of persons with homonymous hemianopia or quadrantanopia in comparison to age-matched controls with normal visual fields. Methods: Participants were 22 hemianopes and eight quadrantanopes (mean age 53 years) and 30 persons with normal visual fields (mean age 52 years) and were either current drivers or aiming to resume driving. All participants completed a battery of tests of vision (ETDRS visual acuity, Pelli-Robson letter contrast sensitivity, Humphrey visual fields), cognitive tests (trials A and B, Mini Mental State Examination, Digit Symbol Substitution) and an on-road driving assessment. Driving performance was assessed in a dual-brake vehicle with safety monitored by a certified driving rehabilitation specialist. Backseat evaluators masked to the clinical characteristics of participants independently rated driving performance along a 22.7 kilometre route involving urban and interstate driving. Results: Seventy-three per cent of the hemianopes, 88 per cent of quadrantanopes and all of the drivers with normal fields received safe driving ratings. Those hemianopic and quadrantanopic drivers rated as unsafe tended to have problems with maintaining appropriate lane position, steering steadiness and gap judgment compared to controls. Unsafe driving was associated with slower visual processing speed and impairments in contrast sensitivity, visual field sensitivity and executive function. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that some drivers with hemianopia or quadrantanopia are capable of safe driving performance, when compared to those of the same age with normal visual fields. This finding has important implications for the assessment of fitness to drive in this population.

Head and eye movements and lane keeping in drivers with hemianopia and quadrantanopia compared to controls

Purpose: To compare the eye and head movements and lane-keeping of drivers with hemianopia and quadrantanopia with that of age-matched controls when driving under real world conditions. Methods: Participants included 22 hemianopes and 8 quadrantanopes (M age 53 yrs) and 30 persons with normal visual fields (M age 52 yrs) who were ≥ 6 months from the brain injury date and either a current driver or aiming to resume driving. All participants drove an instrumented dual-brake vehicle along a 14-mile route in traffic that included non-interstate city driving and interstate driving. Driving performance was scored using a standardised assessment system by two “backseat” raters and the Vigil Vanguard system which provides objective measures of speed, braking and acceleration, cornering, and video-based footage from which eye and head movements and lane-keeping can be derived. Results: As compared to drivers with normal visual fields, drivers with hemianopia or quadrantanopia on average were significantly more likely to drive slower, to exhibit less excessive cornering forces or acceleration, and to execute more shoulder movements off the seat. Those hemianopic and quadrantanopic drivers rated as safe to drive by the backseat evaluator made significantly more excursive eye movements, exhibited more stable lane positioning, less sudden braking events and drove at higher speeds than those rated as unsafe, while there was no difference between safe and unsafe drivers in head movements. Conclusions: Persons with hemianopic and quadrantanopic field defects rated as safe to drive have different driving characteristics compared to those rated as unsafe when assessed using objective measures of driving performance.

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

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.

Self-reported driving difficulty by persons with Hemianopia and Quadrantanopia

Purpose: To compare self-reported driving difficulty by persons with hemianopic or quadrantanopic field loss with that reported by age-matched drivers with normal visual fields; and to examine how their self- reported driving difficulty compares to ratings of driving performance provided by a certified driving rehabilitation specialist(CDRS). Method: Participants were 17 persons with hemianopic field loss, 7 with quadrantanopic loss, and 24 age-matched controls with normal visual fields, all of whom had current drivers’ licenses. Information was collected via questionnaire regarding driving difficulties experienced in 21 typical driving situations grouped into 3 categories(involvement of peripheral vision, low visibility conditions, and independent mobility). On-road driving performance was evaluated by a CDRS using a standard assessment scale. Results: Drivers with hemianopic and quadrantanopic field loss expressed significantly more difficulty with driving maneuvers involving peripheral vision and independent mobility, compared to those with normal visual fields. Drivers with hemianopia and quadrantanopia who were rated as unsafe to drive based upon an on-road assessment by the CDRS were no more likely to report driving difficulty than those rated as safe. Conclusion: This study highlights aspects of driving that hemianopic or quadrantanopic persons find particularly problematic, thus suggesting areas that could be focused on driving rehabilitation. Some drivers with hemianopia or quadrantanopia may inappropriately view themselves as good drivers when in fact their driving performance is unsafe as judged by a driving professional.

Prediction of driving safety in individuals with homonymous hemianopia and quadrantanopia from clinical neuro-imaging

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to determine whether it is possible to predict driving safety in individuals with homonymous hemianopia or quadrantanopia based upon a clinical review of neuro-images that are routinely available in clinical practice. METHODS: Two experienced neuro-ophthalmologists viewed a summary report of the CT/MRI scans of 16 participants with homonymous hemianopic or quadrantanopic field defects which provided information regarding the site and extent of the lesion and made predictions regarding whether they would be safe/unsafe to drive. Driving safety was defined using two independent measures: (1) The potential for safe driving was defined based upon whether the participant was rated as having the potential for safe driving, determined through a standardized on-road driving assessment by a certified driving rehabilitation specialist conducted just prior and (2) state recorded motor vehicle crashes (all crashes and at-fault). Driving safety was independently defined at the time of the study by state recorded motor vehicle crashes (all crashes and at-fault) recorded over the previous 5 years, as well as whether the participant was rated as having the potential for safe driving, determined through a standardized on-road driving assessment by a certified driving rehabilitation specialist. RESULTS: The ability to predict driving safety was highly variable regardless of the driving outcome measure, ranging from 31% to 63% (kappa levels ranged from -0.29 to 0.04). The level of agreement between the neuro-ophthalmologists was also only fair (kappa =0.28). CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that clinical evaluation of summary reports currently available neuro-images by neuro-ophthalmologists is not predictive of driving safety. Future research should be directed at identifying and/or developing alternative tests or strategies to better enable clinicians to make these predictions.