Subjective Verticality Is Disrupted by Astigmatic Visual Distortion in Older People.

Purpose: There is little research evidence to explain why older adults have more problems adapting to new spectacles incorporating astigmatic changes than younger adults. We tested the hypothesis that astigmatic lenses oriented obliquely would lead to errors in verticality perception that are greater for older than younger adults. Methods: Participants included 12 young (mean ± SD age 25.1 ± 5.0 years) and 12 older (70.2 ± 6.3 years) adults with normal vision. Verticality perception was assessed using a computer-based subjective visual vertical (SVV) task, under static and dynamic (in the presence of a moving peripheral distractor) conditions and when viewing targets through the near refractive correction (control condition), and two forms of astigmatic lenses oriented in the vertical, horizontal, and oblique meridians. Results: The older group demonstrated much greater dynamic SVV errors (e.g., 3.4° for the control condition) than the younger group (1.2°, P = 0.002), larger errors with vertical and horizontal astigmatic lenses (older group 4.1°and 5.2° for toric and magnifier lenses vs. younger group 1.2° and 1.4°, respectively, P < 0.001), and a larger influence of the oblique astigmatic lenses (older group 5.6° vs. younger group 2.1°, P<0.001). Conclusions: Astigmatic lenses produced little or no errors in SVV in young adults, but large static and dynamic SVV errors in older adults. This indicates a greater reliance on visual input with increased age for SVV, and helps explain why oblique astigmatic refractive corrections can cause dizziness in older patients and why they report greater difficulties adapting to new spectacles with astigmatic changes.

Impact of glaucoma on executive function and visual search.

PURPOSE: Executive function and visual search are linked to a number of activities of daily living including driving and mobility. Using a computerised version of the Trail Making Test B (TMT-B), we compared the executive function and visual search ability of older adults with glaucoma to age-similar controls and identified which visual function tests best predict TMT-B performance. Novel low-contrast and shifting-target variations of the test were incorporated to explore the effects of different levels of test complexity. METHODS: Thirty-one older adults with mild to moderate glaucoma (mean age = 71.2 years [SD 6.9]; better-eye mean deviation [MD]: median = -1.9 dB [IQR = -1.2 to 0.4], worse-eye MD: median = -11.1 dB [IQR = -14.0 to -7.7]) and 24 age-similar controls (mean age = 71.9 years [SD 6.6]) with normal vision participated. The groups were matched in age, sex, and cognitive status (mini-mental state examination [MMSE]). Participants underwent measurements of visual acuity, contrast sensitivity (CS), visual fields, and visual processing speeds using the useful field-of-view (UFoV). Participants then completed four variations of a computerised TMT-B test, with different levels of complexity based on target contrast (high/low-contrast) and shifts in target position (fixed/shifting locations). Linear mixed-effect models were used to explore the effects of group, target contrast and shift on TMT-B completion time. RESULTS: The glaucoma group took 17.3s longer than controls to complete the TMT-B (P = 0.028). All participants took 6.5s longer to complete the low- compared to the high-contrast tests (P = 0.012), and 10.6s longer for the shifting TMT-B compared to the fixed version (P < 0.001). There was no interaction effect between group, contrast, or target shift on completion time. Across all tests and participant groups, longer completion time was associated with slower UFoV processing speeds (divided attention: P = 0.003; selective attention: P = 0.006). Poorer CS was associated with longer completion times for the low (P = 0.007), but not the high-contrast tests. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that older adults with mild to moderate glaucoma have poorer visual search ability and executive function relative to controls. However, decreasing target contrast or shifting target position did not exacerbate the effects of glaucomatous visual impairment on performance. The UFoV was a strong predictor of TMT-B performance.

Pedestrians distracted by their smartphone: Are in-ground flashing lights catching their attention? A laboratory study.

Pedestrian distraction is a growing road safety concern worldwide. While there are currently no studies linking distraction and pedestrian crash risk, distraction has been shown to increase risky behaviours in pedestrians, for example, through reducing visual scanning before traversing an intersection. Illuminated in-ground Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) embedded into pathways are an emerging solution to address the growing distraction problem associated with mobile use while walking. The current study sought to determine if such an intervention was effective in attracting the attention of distracted pedestrians. We conducted a controlled laboratory study (N = 24) to evaluate whether pedestrians detected the activation of flashing LEDs when distracted by a smartphone more accurately and efficiently when the lights were located on the floor compared to a control position on the wall. Eye gaze movements via an eye tracker and behavioural responses via response times assessed the detection of these flashing LEDs. Distracted participants were able to detect the activation of the floor and wall-mounted LEDs with accuracies above 90%. The visual and auditory distraction tasks increased reaction times by 143 and 124 ms, respectively. Even when distracted, performance improved with floor LEDs close to participants, with reaction time improvements by 43 and 159 ms for the LEDs 2 and 1 ms away from the participant respectively. The addition of floor LED lights resulted in a performance similar to the one observed for wall-mounted LEDs in the non-distracted condition. Moreover, participants did not necessarily need to fixate on the LEDs to detect their activation, thus were likely to have detected them using their peripheral vision. The findings suggest that LEDs embedded in pathways are likely to be effective at attracting the attention of distracted pedestrians. Further research needs to be conducted in the field to confirm these findings, and to evaluate the actual effects on behaviour under real-world conditions.

Blur, eye movements and performance on a driving visual recognition slide test.

PURPOSE: Optical blur and ageing are known to affect driving performance but their effects on drivers' eye movements are poorly understood. This study examined the effects of optical blur and age on eye movement patterns and performance on the DriveSafe slide recognition test which is purported to predict fitness to drive. METHODS: Twenty young (27.1 ± 4.6 years) and 20 older (73.3 ± 5.7 years) visually normal drivers performed the DriveSafe under two visual conditions: best-corrected vision and with +2.00 DS blur. The DriveSafe is a Visual Recognition Slide Test that consists of brief presentations of static, real-world driving scenes containing different road users (pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles). Participants reported the types, relative positions and direction of travel of the road users in each image; the score was the number of correctly reported items (maximum score of 128). Eye movements were recorded while participants performed the DriveSafe test using a Tobii TX300 eye tracking system. RESULTS: There was a significant main effect of blur on DriveSafe scores (best-corrected: 114.9 vs blur: 93.2; p < 0.001). There was also a significant age and blur interaction on the DriveSafe scores (p < 0.001) such that the young drivers were more negatively affected by blur than the older drivers (reductions of 22% and 13% respectively; p < 0.001): with best-corrected vision, the young drivers performed better than the older drivers (DriveSafe scores: 118.4 vs 111.5; p = 0.001), while with blur, the young drivers performed worse than the older drivers (88.6 vs 95.9; p = 0.009). For the eye movement patterns, blur significantly reduced the number of fixations on road users (best-corrected: 5.1 vs blur: 4.5; p < 0.001), fixation duration on road users (2.0 s vs 1.8 s; p < 0.001) and saccade amplitudes (7.4° vs 6.7°; p < 0.001). A main effect of age on eye movements was also found where older drivers made smaller saccades than the young drivers (6.7° vs 7.4°; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Blur reduced DriveSafe scores for both age groups and this effect was greater for the young drivers. The decrease in number of fixations and fixation duration on road users, as well as the reduction in saccade amplitudes under the blurred condition, highlight the difficulty experienced in performing the task in the presence of optical blur, which suggests that uncorrected refractive errors may have a detrimental impact on aspects of driving performance.