• Luke Wilkins, Rob Gray, James Gaska, and Marc Winterbottom.
• School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
• Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013 Dec 30; 54 (13): 8364-74.

PurposeA 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.MethodsIn 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsTests 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.

22 keywords...

hide…