Feasibility of DriveFocus™ and Driving Simulation Interventions in Young Drivers

Clinical predictors of driving simulator performance in drivers with multiple sclerosis

Background:

Drivers with multiple sclerosis (MS) may experience visual–cognitive impairment that affects their fitness to drive. Due to limitations associated with the on-road assessment, an alternative assessment that measures driving performance is warranted. Whether clinical indicators of on-road outcomes can also predict driving performance outcomes on a driving simulator are not fully understood.

Objective:

This study examined if deficits in immediate verbal/auditory recall (California Verbal Learning Test–Second Edition; CVLT2-IR) and/or slower divided attention (Useful Field of View™; UFOV2) predicted deficits in operational, tactical, or strategic maneuvers assessed on a driving simulator, in drivers with and without MS.

Methods:

Participants completed the CVLT2-IR, UFOV2, and a driving simulator assessment of operational, tactical, and strategic maneuvers.

Results:

Deficits in immediate verbal/auditory recall and slower divided attention predicted adjustment to stimuli errors, pertaining to tactical maneuvers only, in 36 drivers with MS (vs 20 drivers without MS; F(3, 51) = 6.1, p = 0.001, R2 = 0.3, [Formula: see text]).

Conclusion:

The CVLT2-IR and UFOV2 capture the visual and verbal/auditory recall, processing speed, and divided attention required to appropriately adjust to stimuli in a simulated driving environment. Clinicians may use the CVLT2-IR and UFOV2 as precursors to driving performance deficits in drivers with MS.

Clinical Utility of the DriveFocus™ Intervention on Young Drivers With and Without Experience

Introduction: The DriveFocus™ intervention addresses the ability of young drivers to detect and respond to critical roadway information. DriveFocus is an interactive video-based tablet application that teaches users how to detect and prioritize critical roadway items. However, young drivers with and without experience may respond differently to the intervention. Objectives: We compared the simulated driving performance of two 17 year-old licensed drivers with (novice) and without (learner) driving experience, after three (post-test 1) and six (post-test 2) intervention sessions. Methods: We collected clinical, driving performance (number of visual scanning, adjustment to stimuli, and total driving errors) and acceptability data. Results: The learner driver made more visual scanning, adjustment to stimuli and total errors when compared to the novice. Both participants exhibited a decrease in both types and number of driving errors from baseline to post-test 2 and the learner also made less driving errors at post-test 1. Both participants rated the perceived ease of use of the intervention favorably. Conclusions: This study lays the foundation to examine the impact of the DriveFocus™ intervention among novice and more experienced young drivers.