Visual-cognitive tools used to determine fitness-to-drive may reflect normal aging

Different deployments of attentional breadth selectively predict UFOV task performance in older adults

The Useful Field of View task (UFOV) is a strong and reliable predictor of crash risk in older drivers. However, while the functional domain of attention is clearly implicated in UFOV performance, the potential role of one specific attentional process remains unclear: attentional breadth (the spatial extent of the attended region around the point of visual fixation). The goal of the present study was to systematically test the role of two distinct aspects of attentional breadth, maintaining a specific breadth of attention and resizing the attended region, in UFOV performance. To this end, 135 older adults completed the UFOV and modified Navon tasks to measure their efficiency in maintaining, contracting, and expanding the breadth of attention. We then examined individual-difference associations between these aspects of attentional breadth deployment and UFOV performance. We found that performance on UFOV Subtask 2 was associated with efficient contraction of attentional breadth (i.e., resizing the attended region to a smaller area), while Subtask 3 performance was associated with the efficiency of expanding attentional breadth (i.e., resizing the attended region to a larger area). The selectivity of these relationships appears to implicate these specific deployments of attentional breadth in how people complete the task, as it suggests that these relationships are not simply attributable to shared variance in a broader domain of cognitive functioning. The implications of these results for our understanding of UFOV, as well as future research directions that test the relative contributions of different cognitive processes in predicting task performance, are discussed.

The Multiple Object Avoidance (MOA) task measures attention for action: Evidence from driving and sport

Performance in everyday tasks, such as driving and sport, requires allocation of attention to task-relevant information and the ability to inhibit task-irrelevant information. Yet there are individual differences in this attentional function ability. This research investigates a novel task for measuring attention for action, called the Multiple Object Avoidance task (MOA), in its relation to the everyday tasks of driving and sport. The aim in Study 1 was to explore the efficacy of the MOA task to predict simulated driving behaviour and hazard perception. Whilst also investigating its test-retest reliability and how it correlates to self-report driving measures. We found that superior performance in the MOA task predicted simulated driving performance in complex environments and was superior at predicting performance compared to the Useful Field of View task. We found a moderate test-retest reliability and a correlation between the attentional lapses subscale of the Driving Behaviour Questionnaire. Study 2 investigated the discriminative power of the MOA in sport by exploring performance differences in those that do and do not play sports. We also investigated if the MOA shared attentional elements with other measures of visual attention commonly attributed to sporting expertise: Multiple Object Tracking (MOT) and cognitive processing speed. We found that those that played sports exhibited superior MOA performance and found a positive relationship between MOA performance and Multiple Object Tracking performance and cognitive processing speed. Collectively, this research highlights the utility of the MOA when investigating visual attention in everyday contexts.

Test-retest reliability of touchscreen DriveSafe DriveAware

INTRODUCTION

This prospective study examines the test-retest reliability of touchscreen DriveSafe DriveAware (DSDA). In a future study, the authors intend assessing the usefulness of DSDA to measure progress of patients undergoing treatment for neurological conditions. Evidence of test-retest reliability is required first.

METHODS

Australian adults with current driver's licences (N = 39) aged 20 to 91 years (M_age  = 58) recruited from a convenience sample were assessed with DSDA. The assessment was repeated 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months later to match planned assessments of patients undergoing neurosurgical treatment in future research. DSDA classification, DriveSafe subtest score, and DriveAware subtest scores were analysed as a whole sample, and in three age groups.

RESULTS

DSDA classification and DriveAware scores were consistent over repeated tests. DriveSafe scores increased between test 1 and 2 (p = .006), and thereafter no significant change from test 2 to 4. DriveSafe scores of older participants (70+ years) increased between test 1 and 2 more notably than younger participants' scores. No DriveSafe scores decreased over time.

CONCLUSION

DSDA classification and DriveAware scores demonstrated test-retest reliability for all age groups. DriveSafe scores did not demonstrate test-retest reliability between test 1 and 2 for participants 70+ years. However, DriveSafe scores demonstrated test-retest reliability after test 2, possibly indicating an initial learning effect for the DriveSafe score only. The authors posit that this result may have been influenced by older adults' reduced familiarity with iPad technology at first assessment. Further longitudinal research is required to confirm whether these results are consistent in a sample population with diagnosed cognitive impairment. Future research will assess whether repeated assessment of DSDA may be useful for monitoring and screening cognitive fitness to drive in patients who have undergone neurosurgical treatment and whether declining scores may indicate cognitive changes in ability to drive.