Description of Elgin Garden, the property of David Hosack, M.D.

Mode of access: Internet.

Memorandum on the subject of the Earl of Elgin's pursuits in Greece : Second edition, corrected.

Reproduction of original in Victoria & Albert Museum, London.

The records of Elgin, 1234-1800,

Issued also as Aberdeen university studies, nos. 9, 35.

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.

Characteristics of on-road driving performance of persons with central vision loss who use bioptic telescopes

Purpose. To compare the on-road driving performance of visually impaired drivers using bioptic telescopes with age-matched controls. Methods. Participants included 23 persons (mean age = 33 ± 12 years) with visual acuity of 20/63 to 20/200 who were legally licensed to drive through a state bioptic driving program, and 23 visually normal age-matched controls (mean age = 33 ± 12 years). On-road driving was assessed in an instrumented dual-brake vehicle along 14.6 miles of city, suburban, and controlled-access highways. Two backseat evaluators independently rated driving performance using a standardized scoring system. Vehicle control was assessed through vehicle instrumentation and video recordings used to evaluate head movements, lane-keeping, pedestrian detection, and frequency of bioptic telescope use. Results. Ninety-six percent (22/23) of bioptic drivers and 100% (23/23) of controls were rated as safe to drive by the evaluators. There were no group differences for pedestrian detection, or ratings for scanning, speed, gap judgments, braking, indicator use, or obeying signs/signals. Bioptic drivers received worse ratings than controls for lane position and steering steadiness and had lower rates of correct sign and traffic signal recognition. Bioptic drivers made significantly more right head movements, drove more often over the right-hand lane marking, and exhibited more sudden braking than controls. Conclusions. Drivers with central vision loss who are licensed to drive through a bioptic driving program can display proficient on-road driving skills. This raises questions regarding the validity of denying such drivers a license without the opportunity to train with a bioptic telescope and undergo on-road evaluation.

Visually impaired drivers who use bioptic telescopes : self-assessed driving skills and agreement with on-road driving evaluation

Purpose. To compare self-assessed driving habits and skills of licensed drivers with central visual loss who use bioptic telescopes to those of age-matched normally sighted drivers, and to examine the association between bioptic drivers' impressions of the quality of their driving and ratings by a “backseat” evaluator. Methods. Participants were licensed bioptic drivers (n = 23) and age-matched normally sighted drivers (n = 23). A questionnaire was administered addressing driving difficulty, space, quality, exposure, and, for bioptic drivers, whether the telescope was helpful in on-road situations. Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity were assessed. Information on ocular diagnosis, telescope characteristics, and bioptic driving experience was collected from the medical record or in interview. On-road driving performance in regular traffic conditions was rated independently by two evaluators. Results. Like normally sighted drivers, bioptic drivers reported no or little difficulty in many driving situations (e.g., left turns, rush hour), but reported more difficulty under poor visibility conditions and in unfamiliar areas (P < 0.05). Driving exposure was reduced in bioptic drivers (driving 250 miles per week on average vs. 410 miles per week for normally sighted drivers, P = 0.02), but driving space was similar to that of normally sighted drivers (P = 0.29). All but one bioptic driver used the telescope in at least one driving task, and 56% used the telescope in three or more tasks. Bioptic drivers' judgments about the quality of their driving were very similar to backseat evaluators' ratings. Conclusions. Bioptic drivers show insight into the overall quality of their driving and areas in which they experience driving difficulty. They report using the bioptic telescope while driving, contrary to previous claims that it is primarily used to pass the vision screening test at licensure.

Characteristics of on-road driving by persons with central vision loss: Learning to drive with a bioptic telescope

There is limited research on the driving performance and safety of bioptic drivers and even less regarding the driving skills that are most challenging for those learning to drive with bioptic telescopes. This research consisted of case studies of five trainee bioptic drivers whose driving skills were compared with those of a group of licensed bioptic drivers (n = 23) while they drove along city, suburban, and controlled-access highways in an instrumented dual-brake vehicle. A certified driver rehabilitation specialist was positioned in the front passenger seat to monitor safety and two backseat evaluators independently rated driving using a standardized scoring system. Other aspects of performance were assessed through vehicle instrumentation and video recordings. Results demonstrate that while sign recognition, lane keeping, steering steadiness, gap judgments and speed choices were significantly worse in trainees, some driving behaviors and skills, including pedestrian detection and traffic light recognition were not significantly different to those of the licensed drivers. These data provide useful insights into the skill challenges encountered by a small sample of trainee bioptic drivers which, while not generalizable because of the small sample size, provide valuable insights beyond that of previous studies and can be used as a basis to guide training strategies.

¿Es posible una genuina participación y empoderamiento de pequeños productores agropecuarios?

La crisis en el sector agropecuario de Nicaragua tiene que obligarnos a la búsqueda de elementos que nos permitan al menos atenuar los graves efectos negativos que el clima, el ambiente, el medio natural y socioeconómico, nos esta ocasionando. Por ser un país que obligatoriamente tiene que vivir en base a sus recursos naturales, tenemos que hacer propuestas que se encaminen a enfrentar los embates de un clima global perturbado por nuestro propio accionar. Nuestra vulnerabilidad ha sido puesta en evidencia con las dos grandes. causas más frecuentes de desastres que tenemos, los huracanes y las sequías. En este articulo se plantean algunas ideas basadas en investigaciones realizadas en la UNA y revisiones bibliográficas sobre el verdadero significado de participación y el empoderamiento de las pequeñas familias productoras rurales como una de las alternativas que podría permitir la adopción de la diversificación y así enfrentarnos a la vulnerabilidad evidenciada por los cambios climáticos globales. Ambos criterios tienen que ser retomados con rriucha atención para alcanzar el desarrollo humano sostenible de las áreas rurales.

Factores que inciden en el nivel de pobreza de las familias campesinas en las comunidades de la montañita uno y la montañita dos, Municipio de Tisma, Masaya

Este estudio se realizó en las comunidades de La Montañita 1 y La Montañita 2 del Municipio de Tisma, Departamento de Masaya, en el año 2002. Se aplicaron 30 encuestas por comunidad. Las comunidades de “La Montañita 1” y “La Montañita 2” del Municipio de Tisma, Departamento de Masaya tienen una población mayoritariamente analfabeta, un factor que incide negativamente en elevar el nivel de vida de las familias campesinas y se constituye en una dificultad para emprender acciones de desarrollo y erradicación de la pobreza a corto plazo. Un segmento las poblaciones de estas comunidades tienen nivel académico de primaria incompleta, siendo potencialmente analfabetos; y otro porcentaje (13.2% y 27.1% Montañita 1 y 2 respectivamente) nunca han recibido ningún tipo de formación. La capacitación de estas comunidades ha sido insignificante, debido a que el 89.1% no ha recibido ningún tipo de capacitación y solamente el 10.9% dice haber recibido. De las personas que han recibido capacitación, el 4% lo ha hecho solamente una vez, esto nos indica que en estas comunidades los proyectos no han priorizado la capacitación como estrategia de desarrollo y mejoramiento del nivel de vida. Es importante mencionar que el 47.7% dice que nadie ha llegado a capacitar y el 16.7% piensa que no tiene tiempo disponible para participar en este tipo de actividades. Otro factor importante a considerar en el mejoramiento del nivel de vida de las comunidades rurales es la organización comunitaria, en las poblaciones estudiadas se logro observar que el 85.7% no pertenecía a ningún tipo de organización y el 14.3% no tuvo vínculos con alguna organización. Además, el 85.5% dice no haber ningún tipo de beneficio.