TY - JOUR
T1 - Motion perception and driving
T2 - predicting performance through testing and shortening braking reaction times through training
AU - Wilkins, Luke
AU - Gray, Robert
AU - Gaska, James
AU - Winterbottom, Marc
PY - 2013/12/1
Y1 - 2013/12/1
N2 - PURPOSE: A driving simulator was used to examine the relationship between motion perception and driving performance. 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.METHODS: In experiment 1, 60 younger drivers (22.4 ± 2.5 years) completed three motion perception tests (2-dimensional [2D] motion-defined letter [MDL] identification, 3D motion in depth sensitivity [MID], and dynamic visual acuity [DVA]) followed by two driving tests (emergency braking [EB] and hazard perception [HP]). 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. The EB performance was measured before and after training.RESULTS: In experiment 1, MDL (r = 0.34) and MID (r = 0.46) significantly correlated with EB score. 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 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.CONCLUSIONS: Tests of 3D motion perception are the best predictor of EB, while DVA velocity susceptibility is the best predictor of hazard perception. Motion perception training appears to result in faster braking responses.
AB - PURPOSE: A driving simulator was used to examine the relationship between motion perception and driving performance. 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.METHODS: In experiment 1, 60 younger drivers (22.4 ± 2.5 years) completed three motion perception tests (2-dimensional [2D] motion-defined letter [MDL] identification, 3D motion in depth sensitivity [MID], and dynamic visual acuity [DVA]) followed by two driving tests (emergency braking [EB] and hazard perception [HP]). 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. The EB performance was measured before and after training.RESULTS: In experiment 1, MDL (r = 0.34) and MID (r = 0.46) significantly correlated with EB score. 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 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.CONCLUSIONS: Tests of 3D motion perception are the best predictor of EB, while DVA velocity susceptibility is the best predictor of hazard perception. Motion perception training appears to result in faster braking responses.
KW - driver behavior
KW - driver testing
KW - motion perception
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84893479169&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84893479169&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1167/iovs.13-12774
DO - 10.1167/iovs.13-12774
M3 - Article
C2 - 24282222
AN - SCOPUS:84893479169
SN - 0146-0404
VL - 54
SP - 8364
EP - 8374
JO - Investigative ophthalmology & visual science
JF - Investigative ophthalmology & visual science
IS - 13
ER -