![]() However, several participants who reported no driving difficulties also scored poorly on the motion perception tests. Significant relationships between driving difficulty ratings and scores were found for all tests except 3D speed discrimination. Scores on these tests were related to self-reported driving difficulties and accidents. 18 In that study, 2D speed discrimination, 3D speed discrimination, estimation of time to collision for 3D (approaching) motion, and heading discrimination were measured. To our knowledge, only one previous study has investigated the relationship between tests of 3D motion perception and driving performance. 17 These findings suggest that tests of 2D motion perception may not be predictive of driving ability in some tasks. 15, 16 For example, previous research has reported cases of “motion in depth blindness” in which individuals fail to detect approaching/receding motion in certain locations of their visual field while detection of 2D motion is normal. 5, 13, 14 Finally, and most critically, it has been demonstrated that 2D and 3D motion are processed in different brain regions, and individuals can have a selective impairment for one type of motion. Second, previous research has shown that older drivers can have impairments in their ability to judge approaching motion. First, for many of the driving situations in which a large number of accidents occur (e.g., rear-end collisions and across-path turns) the primary type of motion involved is 3D motion. We feel that this is an important omission for several reasons. Very few previous experiments in this area have used tests of motion-in-depth (3D) perception (i.e., towards/away). 9 Therefore, tests using high resolution stimuli may not provide a good means of assessing the role of motion perception in driving.Īnother limitation of previous research in this area is that the relationship between motion perception tests and driving performance has been examined only for frontoparallel (2-dimensional ) motion (i.e., up/down or left/right). 8 While both sets of tests have been found to be correlated with measures of driving performance/safety, such as hazard perception tests scores and self-reported attentional failures during driving, it recently has been shown that the relationship between driving performance and motion perception for high resolution tests can be explained fully by other visual abilities, namely acuity and contrast sensitivity. Some previous studies have used small, high resolution (i.e., high spatial frequency) moving random dot patterns as test stimuli, 6, 7 while others have used coarse, low resolution (i.e., low spatial frequency) moving gratings. An important distinction that has been identified in such tests is the stimulus resolution. To date, the most commonly used measures of motion perception have involved motion sensitivity (i.e., quantifying the smallest amount of movement needed to indicate the direction of movement accurately). Motion perception training appears to result in faster braking responses. Tests of 3D motion perception are the best predictor of EB, while DVA velocity susceptibility is the best predictor of hazard perception. In experiment 2, the motion perception training group had a significant decrease in brake reaction time on the EB test from pre- to posttreatment, while there was no significant change for the control group: t(38) = 2.24, P = 0.03. ![]() The change in DVA score as a function of target speed (i.e., “velocity susceptibility”) was correlated most strongly with HP score ( r = −0.61). In experiment 1, MDL ( r = 0.34) and MID ( r = 0.46) significantly correlated with EB score. The EB performance was measured before and after training. In experiment 2, 20 drivers (21.6 ± 2.1 years) completed 6 weeks of motion perception training (using the MDL, MID, and DVA tests), while 20 control drivers (22.0 ± 2.7 years) completed an online driving safety course. In experiment 1, 60 younger drivers (22.4 ± 2.5 years) completed three motion perception tests (2-dimensional motion-defined letter identification, 3D motion in depth sensitivity, and dynamic visual acuity ) followed by two driving tests (emergency braking and hazard perception ). Although motion perception test scores have been shown to be related to driving safety, it is not clear which combination of tests are the best predictors and whether motion perception training can improve driving performance. A driving simulator was used to examine the relationship between motion perception and driving performance.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |