» Articles » PMID: 36177386

Does Intraocular Straylight Predict Night Driving Visual Performance? Correlations Between Straylight Levels and Contrast Sensitivity, Halo Size, and Hazard Recognition Distance with and Without Glare

Overview
Specialty Neurology
Date 2022 Sep 30
PMID 36177386
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the relationship between intraocular straylight perception and: (i) contrast sensitivity (CS), (ii) halo size, and (iii) hazard recognition distance, in the presence and absence of glare.

Subjects And Methods: Participants were 15 (5 female) ophthalmologically healthy adults, aged 54.6-80.6 (median: 67.2) years. Intraocular straylight (log s) was measured using a straylight meter (C-Quant; Oculus GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany). CS with glare was measured clinically using the Optovist I device (Vistec Inc., Olching, Germany) and also within a driving simulator using Landolt Cs. These were presented under both or viewing conditions, and either or glare. Hazard detection distance was measured for simulated obstacles of varying contrast. For this, the participant was required to maintain a speed of 60 km/h within a custom-built nighttime driving simulator. Glare was simulated by LED arrays, moved by cable robots to mimic an oncoming car's headlights. Halo size ("halometry") was measured by moving Landolt Cs outward originating from the center of a static glare source. The outcome measure from "halometry" was the radius of the halo (angular extent, in degrees visual angle).

Results: The correlation between intraocular straylight perception, log s, and hazard recognition distance under glare was poor for the low contrast obstacles (leading/subdominant eye: = 0.27/ = 0.34). Conversely, log CS measured with glare strongly predicted hazard recognition distances under glare. This was true both when log CS was measured using a clinical device (Optovist I: = 0.93) and within the driving simulator, under ( = 0.69) and ( = 0.61) conditions, and also with "halometry" ( = 0.70). Glare reduced log CS and hazard recognition distance for almost all visual function parameters.

Conclusion: Intraocular straylight was a poor predictor of visual function and driving performance within this experiment. Conversely, CS was a strong predictor of both hazard recognition and halo extent. The presence of glare and motion lead to a degradation of CS in a driving simulator. Future studies are necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of all above-mentioned vision-related parameters for predicting fitness to drive under real-life conditions.

Citing Articles

Use of the perceptual point-spread function to assess dysphotopsias.

Petelczyc K, Bolek J, Kakarenko K, Krix-Jachym K, Kolodziejczyk A, Rekas M PLoS One. 2024; 19(7):e0306331.

PMID: 39028737 PMC: 11259305. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306331.


Visual Function and Driving Performance Under Different Lighting Conditions in Older Drivers: Preliminary Results From an Observational Study.

Yang J, Alshaikh E, Yu D, Kerwin T, Rundus C, Zhang F JMIR Form Res. 2024; 8:e58465.

PMID: 38922681 PMC: 11237778. DOI: 10.2196/58465.


Subjective Straylight Index: A Visual Test for Retinal Contrast Assessment as a Function of Veiling Glare.

Avila F, Casado P, Marcellan M, Remon L, Ares J, Collados M J Imaging. 2024; 10(4).

PMID: 38667987 PMC: 11051364. DOI: 10.3390/jimaging10040089.


Effects of alcohol consumption on driving performance in the presence of interocular differences simulated by filters.

Martino F, Castro-Torres J, Casares-Lopez M, Ortiz-Peregrina S, Granados-Delgado P, Anera R Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):17694.

PMID: 37848610 PMC: 10582114. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-45057-8.


Effect of changing mesopic and photopic light conditions on visual functions.

Mosayebi F, Tabatabaee S, Kangari H, Rahmani S Int J Ophthalmol. 2023; 16(8):1287-1292.

PMID: 37602349 PMC: 10398513. DOI: 10.18240/ijo.2023.08.15.

References
1.
Owsley C, Stalvey B, Wells J, Sloane M, McGwin Jr G . Visual risk factors for crash involvement in older drivers with cataract. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001; 119(6):881-7. DOI: 10.1001/archopht.119.6.881. View

2.
von Hebenstreit B . [Visual acuity and traffic accidents]. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 1984; 185(2):86-90. View

3.
Bach M . The Freiburg Visual Acuity Test-variability unchanged by post-hoc re-analysis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2007; 245(7):965-71. DOI: 10.1007/s00417-006-0474-4. View

4.
Bach M, Hoffmann M, Jagle H, Heinrich S, Schiefer U, Wesemann W . [Contrast vision-definitions, conversions, and equivalence tables]. Ophthalmologe. 2016; 114(4):341-347. DOI: 10.1007/s00347-016-0379-5. View

5.
Ungewiss J, Rock T, Worner M, Wetzel D, Bartz-Schmidt K, Schiefer U . Benchmarking Visual Performance with Monofocal Intraocular Lenses with and without Enhanced Optical Properties in a Nighttime Driving Simulator Environment: A Proof-of-Concept Study. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2022; 239(8):996-1004. DOI: 10.1055/a-1773-1197. View