Driving performance and road sign identification by multifocal contact lens wearers in a driving simulator.
Driving performance and road sign identification by multifocal contact lens wearers in a driving simulator.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.clae.2021.101493
复制
发表时间：
2022-08
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Fogt N
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fogt JS;Kerwin T;Wrabel C;Schomer C;Fogt N
本研究的目的是比较老花眼参与者佩戴多焦点接触镜（MFCL）和渐进多焦透镜（PAL）眼镜时的标志识别距离和驾驶性能指标。19名老花眼参与者完成了PAL眼镜评估和接触透镜验配，并在驾驶评估开始前进行随访。这些评估发生在一个模拟器配备了一个全尺寸轿车的运动平台和260度屏幕。参与者完成驾驶任务与PAL和MFCL。参与者跟随一辆领头的汽车，并在距离道路不同的距离识别标志。对于这两种磨损条件，使用重复测量ANOVA对沿识别标志的道路的沿着距离进行比较。配对t检验用于比较两种条件下的驾驶性能。对于距离道路39 m（MFCL为182 ± 46 m; PAL为205 ± 45 m; P = 0.07）或距离道路59 m（MFCL为182 ± 46 m; PAL为205 ± 45 m; P = 0.3）的标志，PAL和MFLC之间的标志识别距离无统计学差异。只有距路边78 m的标志显示出显著差异（MFCL为207 ± 42 m; PAL为232 ± 39 m; P = 0.01），所有距离均大于安全停车所需的距离。屈光矫正之间的驾驶性能指标没有显著差异。MFCL和PAL眼镜的驾驶性能指标相似。两种眼镜类型的标志识别距离都在安全停车所需的距离内。
The purpose of this study was to compare sign identification distances and driving performance metrics in presbyopic participants while wearing multifocal contact lenses (MFCL) and while wearing progressive addition lens (PAL) spectacles. 19 presbyopic participants completed PAL spectacle assessments and contact lens fitting and follow up visits before driving assessments began. These assessments occurred in a simulator equipped with a full-sized sedan on a motion platform and a 260 degree screen. Participants completed the driving task with PAL and with MFCL. Participants followed a lead car and identified signs at various distances from the road. For the two wearing conditions, comparisons of the distance along the road at which signs were identified were made using repeated measures ANOVA. Paired t-tests were used to compare driving performance for the two conditions. There was no statistical difference in sign identification distance between PAL and MFLC for signs 39m from the road side of the road (182 ± 46 m for MFCL; 205 ± 45 m for PAL; P=0.07) or 59m from the side of the road (182 ± 46m for MFCL; 205 ± 45m for PAL; P=0.3). Only signs 78m from the roadside showed a significant difference (207±42m with MFCL; 232±39m with PAL; P=0.01), All distances were greater than those required to safely stop a vehicle. There were no significant differences in the driving performance metrics between the refractive corrections. Driving performance metrics were similar for MFCL and PAL spectacles. Sign identification distances with both eyewear types were well within the distances required for safe vehicle stopping.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.3
作者：
Higgins, KE;Wood, J;Tait, A
通讯作者：
Tait, A
DOI：
10.1016/j.trf.2011.04.008
发表时间：
2011-11-01
影响因子：
4.1
作者：
Underwood, Geoffrey;Crundall, David;Chapman, Peter
通讯作者：
Chapman, Peter
影响因子：
1.4
作者：
Selenow, A;Bauer, EA;Ciuffreda, KJ
通讯作者：
Ciuffreda, KJ
影响因子：
3.2
作者：
Merchea, Mohinder;Evans, David;Nixon, Laura
通讯作者：
Nixon, Laura
影响因子：
3.2
作者：
Rueff, Erin M.;Bailey, Melissa D.
通讯作者：
Bailey, Melissa D.